What is Spirit?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2014, 12:24 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2014 07:03 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: What is Spirit?
(22-01-2014 04:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(22-01-2014 09:42 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If you can't show it, then you don't know it; and you need to stop pretending like you do.

It's called skepticism, a trait which you seem to lack entirely (or at least apply it very inconsistently). Do you know why we defer to science, methodological naturalism, and evidence based studies? They have a proven and consistent track record of working. When has human understanding ever been improved by assuming the super-natural or metaphysical? When has a non-naturalistic explanation ever been a better explanation for a phenonem than a natural one? I'm not aware of a single instance of either in human history.

If everyone was the same in sensitivity to the world, then you'd be right. But there are ways to perceive and forms of material existence around and within us that most people are not aware of. It is possible to know them subjectively and not be able to show them.

Then, as per my original observation, you do not know it. So some people can't see, but we can still quantify and measure photons regardless; not so much for any spirit. If there is no evidence, then there is nothing distinguishing what you subjectively experience as anything more than fucking imagination. By your reasoning, the judges in Salem Massachusetts were perfectly justified in accepting subjective 'spiritual' evidence to condemn people to death by burning at the stake for the offense of witchcraft. Those girls weren't making shit up, oh no, they had "ways to perceive and forms of material existence around and within us that most people are not aware of." Therefore, witchcraft. Dodgy


(22-01-2014 04:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I do not start with assumptions, I start with my personal physical observations. I am can observe this, this, and a few other odd things.

Notice, if it was at all a part of perceptible reality or measurable, you wouldn't need to use 'artistic renditions' crimped from Deviant Art. Dodgy


(22-01-2014 04:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  So naturally I read up on them and lo and behold, science has not yet covered such things so far. And I don't take negative for an answer, not from science.

If there is nothing there, what in the hell do you expect scientist to do except tell you 'there is nothing there'? The honest thing to do is accept that we cannot detect anything yet, and be open to the possibility that we might later; although physics has gotten to the point that we're not going to discover another fundamental force humans are able to physical perceive anytime soon.

But you don't stop there, instead you posit they do exist and proceed to go looking for evidence to support your a priori assumption. That assumption being that there just has to be something there, as my subjective experience is not at all fallible, therefore regardless of evidence (or lack thereof) the scientific community must be wrong because I know I'm right! Does that just about sum things up?


(22-01-2014 04:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  As long as science has no positive answers yet I have positive observations...

No, you do not. What you have are unsubstantiated subjective experiences without evidence which are identical to imagination, hallucination, and plain old made up bullshit.


(22-01-2014 04:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ...then I keep looking elsewhere for theory to back it up.

Therein lies your problem, placing your rotting and creaking cart before your ailing and dying horse.


(22-01-2014 04:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  When science positively comes up with something to the point, I'll be curious about it. Such as the hyaluronic acid theory of meridians, that's promising. I am disappointed that no-one here was even remotely curious about it. Shame on you, men without curiosity!

There is a difference between being inquisitive, and been so un-skeptical that your brains fucking fall out of your head. Once again, you show a complete lack (or gross misapplication) of skepticism. The onus is on you to provide evidence for your position, so shame on you for positing a position without sufficient evidence to back it up! It's not our fault your argument falls flat, it's yours for holding such an untenable position. So go boo-hoo and throw shame somewhere else, the only one deserving of shame here is yourself. Curiosity is no excuse for credulity. Drinking Beverage


(22-01-2014 04:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  This is a situation where we need to keep in mind the 3 Clarke's laws.
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Dude I like Clarke too, but he was an inventor and a science-fiction author, not a scientist. But let me break it down for you.

1. This simply means that we shouldn't stop looking, regardless of the subjective opinions of the scientists. Fair enough. But this doesn't help you because it does not justify the making up of shit in place of science not finding any evidence (even when it goes looks for some) to support your preferred conclusions.

2. Once again, fair enough, but still does not justify the making up of shit or conjectures without (or in the face of conflicting) evidence.

3. But presumably this advanced technology is observable, unlike your auras, chakras, meridians, and spirit. Not understating how it works while being able to observe that it does, is a far cry from being unable to observe 'something' that does nothing observable... Dodgy


(22-01-2014 05:11 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

-Still one of the dumbest sentences in the history of literature. It's like the slogan for the clinically insane. Being absolutely certain of things that can't be measured and firmly believing in whatever you want to be true. Faith is interchangeable with another word here. Now insanity is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

An ironically appropriate quote from the Bible of all places. Who would have thought?

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
23-01-2014, 07:13 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2014 07:43 AM by Luminon.)
RE: What is Spirit?
(23-01-2014 12:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Then, as per my original observation, you do not know it. If there is no evidence, then there is nothing distinguishing what you subjectively experience as anything more than fucking imagination. By your reasoning, the judges in Salem Massachusetts were perfectly justified in accepting subjective 'spiritual' evidence to condemn people to death by burning at the stake for the offense of witchcraft. Those girls weren't making shit up, oh no, they had "ways to perceive and forms of material existence around and within us that most people are not aware of." Therefore, witchcraft. Dodgy
Nothing from imagination? I have a lifetime of experiences like that. Doesn't seem objective enough? One of the first objective experiences was, when a few acupuncture needles stopped me an allergic reaction. I got a swollen eye from some pollen. A doctor gave me a few needles around the eye and the reaction disappeared in a minute, normally it would go on for hours. I've never experienced it before and I didn't expect he'd pull the needles on me (it was the doctor's sudden idea), so it couldn't be placebo.
I also have positive experience with Voll's electroacupuncture measuring of meridians. That's what I know personally, hands-on experience.

(23-01-2014 12:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Notice, if it was at all a part of perceptible reality or measurable, you wouldn't need to use 'artistic renditions' crimped from Deviant Art. Dodgy
Is this an argument from visual evidence?
I don't have access to many technologies, there may be some like Harry Oldfield's.
Here's some. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELFLAKDq4ls
But was looking for another video. There was a woman who's energy field visibly rearranged in real time after being given a cell phone or something like that.

"New Energy Vision works on the principle that when a photon of light travels through a subject's energy field it is very subtly altered by the energy it has passed through. These changes allow us to “indirectly” view the energy field of a subject by observing the light interference patterns that this interaction creates. New Energy Vision processes video input in real-time and presents the user with a unique video feed that can visibly manifest these interference patterns."

If some well-funded laboratory took up the idea and created some specialized device in Hubble telescope-like quality, they might get much better pictures and footage Consider

(23-01-2014 12:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If there is nothing there, what in the hell do you expect scientist to do except tell you 'there is nothing there'? The honest thing to do is accept that we cannot detect anything yet, and be open to the possibility that we might later; although physics has gotten to the point that we're not going to discover another fundamental force humans are able to physical perceive anytime soon.

But you don't stop there, instead you posit they do exist and proceed to go looking for evidence to support your a priori assumption. That assumption being that there just has to be something there, as my subjective experience is not at all fallible, therefore regardless of evidence (or lack thereof) the scientific community must be wrong because I know I'm right! Does that just about sum things up?
So you completely disregard my personal empirical observations on the basis that it may be all made up and my medical observations may be made up too. Sorry, that is not a sound logical argument. If people's observations can be made up, then there should be hell of a high error rate in reading numbers from instruments in laboratory. Human observation skills are more reliable than that. Either we can observe reality accurately, or we live in our personal umwelts and basically hallucinate everything. But you don't get to make rules on what is or isn't reality. If I hallucinate, then my hallucinations are stable, healthy and historically well-known, which is not how medical science defines hallucinations. My kind of perception can be found in most major religions in form of sacred imagery. These pineal gland sensations give quite a tingly feeling on one's head, that feels like wearing a halo and having a tonsure. The hypophysis gives me similar sensations, that feels like the Hindu third eye stuff. The two main meridians end up near the "third eye" and when they are active, they resemble this Egyptian cobra head dress. Even if it weren't real, people who perceived these things were highly motivated to start religions. (probably because ancient scientists argued if it was real, somebody would write about it in clay tablet journals) Unless scientists start (as Tesla said) researching "non-physical" phenomena, religion will be here with us forever! You want that? Tongue

(23-01-2014 12:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  There is a difference between being inquisitive, and been so un-skeptical that your brains fucking fall out of your head. Once again, you show a complete lack (or gross misapplication) of skepticism. The onus is on you to provide evidence for your position, so shame on you for positing a position without sufficient evidence to back it up! It's not our fault your argument falls flat, it's yours for holding such an untenable position. So go boo-hoo and throw shame somewhere else, the only one deserving of shame here is yourself. Curiosity is no excuse for credulity. Drinking Beverage
We're talking here about things intangible and invisible to most people (untrained people) and your argument is basically the argument from popular tangibility and visibility. That doesn't hold any water. Phenomena exist even before they are observed or regardless how many people observed them. What is the critical mass of observations before something is considered real?

You should accept that I am logically justified to be convinced in existence of the phenomena. That much you can reasonably accept, provided that I indeed observed what I say.

(23-01-2014 12:24 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Dude I like Clarke too, but he was an inventor and a science-fiction author, not a scientist. But let me break it down for you.

1. This simply means that we shouldn't stop looking, regardless of the subjective opinions of the scientists. Fair enough. But this doesn't help you because it does not justify the making up of shit in place of science not finding any evidence (even when it goes looks for some) to support your preferred conclusions.

2. Once again, fair enough, but still does not justify the making up of shit or conjectures without (or in the face of conflicting) evidence.

3. But presumably this advanced technology is observable, unlike your auras, chakras, meridians, and spirit. Not understating how it works while being able to observe that it does, is a far cry from being unable to observe 'something' that does nothing observable... Dodgy
Besides my own observations there are technologies which show the same thing I describe, but I haven't tried them personally. I have posted them earlier, but then I got argumentum ad journalum, that is, if it was true, somebody would already post a peer-reviewed article in Nature or Scientific American. (besides the Nordström study and further research that I already posted) To which I respond with argumentum ad funding & govt. To which I get response, argumentum ad conspiratium. To which I respond with argumentum sociologicum. So I have proposal of a common ground. We are both against government and for world peace. If we abolish the government, it will stop printing money and taking half of our money away. Then there will be more than enough resources for research on such things, instead of weapon research. I'd be satisfied with mere 10 % of Iraq war budget Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 07:38 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
*bangs head on table*

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 08:18 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(23-01-2014 07:13 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Nothing from imagination? I have a lifetime of experiences like that. Doesn't seem objective enough?


How about Subjective?

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
23-01-2014, 08:37 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(23-01-2014 07:13 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Doesn't seem objective enough? One of the first objective experiences was, when a few acupuncture needles stopped me an allergic reaction. I got a swollen eye from some pollen. A doctor gave me a few needles around the eye and the reaction disappeared in a minute, normally it would go on for hours. I've never experienced it before and I didn't expect he'd pull the needles on me (it was the doctor's sudden idea), so it couldn't be placebo.

Just so you are aware - that is exactly how placebos work:
Quote:Large multicenter clinical trails conducted in Germany {Linde et al., 2005; Melchart et, 2005; Haake et al, 2007, Witt et al, 2005), and in the United States {Cherkin et al, 2009) consistently revealed that verum (or true) acupuncture and sham acupuncture treatments are no different in decreasing pain levels across multiple chronic pain disorders: migraine, tension headache, low back pain, and osteoarthritis of the knee.
If, indeed, sham acupuncture is no different from real acupuncture the apparent improvement that may be seen after acupuncture is merely a placebo effect.
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=6060

Quote:Common allergic diseases such as asthma and allergic rhinitis have features that make them likely to show improvement with placebo treatment...Indeed, when patients with allergic rhinitis are treated with placebo in controlled clinical trials, they undergo substantial improvement - usually 50% to 70% of the symptom reduction achieved with antihistamines or topical steroids. Not infrequently the decrease in symptoms with placebo is indistinguishable from that attained with conventional medication.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=WvA1...6&lpg=PA36

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
23-01-2014, 08:48 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(23-01-2014 07:13 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Besides my own observations there are technologies which show the same thing I describe, but I haven't tried them personally. I have posted them earlier, but then I got argumentum ad journalum, that is, if it was true, somebody would already post a peer-reviewed article in Nature or Scientific American. (besides the Nordström study and further research that I already posted)

Which, whether you like it or not, is true.
(and those are not specialist journals)

That wouldn't be a necessary argument for something new. But you are referring to the dregs of the 1930s and 1940s.

But forget formal journals, because we might (wrongly, but conveniently) pretend that the necessary scientific writing skills are out of reach.

Do you know how long the JREF million dollar prize has been around? The JREF will pay you one million dollars if you can demonstrate literally anything at all unaccountable by modern science under controlled conditions.

To which you would no doubt say, well, they secretly don't want to find anything, and it's all fake...

(23-01-2014 07:13 AM)Luminon Wrote:  To which I respond with argumentum ad funding & govt. To which I get response, argumentum ad conspiratium.

I'm not sure why you have such a hard time understanding the objection.

If every single possible government and funding source - literally every single one, since wholesale suppression cannot possibly admit of any less - is colluding to the same purpose (!) for no reason (!!!)...

If you can't answer the question why this purported nefarious web of secrets and lies exist, it cannot possibly be taken seriously by anyone.

(23-01-2014 07:13 AM)Luminon Wrote:  To which I respond with argumentum sociologicum.

Which isn't an argument. We've been over this.

(23-01-2014 07:13 AM)Luminon Wrote:  So I have proposal of a common ground. We are both against government and for world peace. If we abolish the government, it will stop printing money and taking half of our money away. Then there will be more than enough resources for research on such things, instead of weapon research. I'd be satisfied with mere 10 % of Iraq war budget Tongue

... and that's just silly. Government is merely a mechanism for communal decision making and money is merely the abstraction of value for the purposes of exchange. So, uh, good luck getting rid of those.
(except 'I believe substantial reforms to the aforementioned would be beneficial' does not have the same satisfyingly glib fatuity that 'abolish the system lol' does)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
23-01-2014, 09:05 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
Do we or do we not have a clear case of
personal experience = personal fact with this one?

Huh

For when personal experience of acupressure yielding a result is viewed (by him) as objective - therein lies the problem. Regardless of all his personal what-nots..............
without getting to the ROOT of the issue here - we're all going to twirl in the breeze.

Personal experience is not a proper substitute for viable facts. If that were true we'd have to entertain and qualify every theist proposed miracle they could espouse and every witch's magical spell work.

People viewing their own personal experiences as *facts* is where Every single bit of this goes wrong. Every. Single. Time.
It's near impossible to argue someone "No that didn't really happen to you" when they know that it did. But since they lack objectivity and HAD the experience it's unlikely they'll seek another viewpoint other than their own and argue till the cows come home that NO - That REALLY happened...... etc

I think a thread addressing "Experience" what it is and what it is not could really help. And when a newbie waltzes in and throws down what is **real** to him or her..........instead of handing them their head we might direct them to the "Experience" thread as reference First.
(then hand them their head if they won't listen to reason)


suggestions?

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 09:11 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
A dialogue in one act.
by cjlr

Dramatis Personae:
Dodgy - the Scientist (S).
Hobo - the True Believer (B).
...

[enter Scientist, True Believer]
B : "Woo is Real Science!"
S : Hmm. Then why isn't it recognized by the scientific establishment?"
B : "Because they don't like it!"
S : "But 'they' are no such thing; R&D is massively competitive. Someone pursuing a direction no one else is would inherit a huge automatic advantage. Why don't they do that?"
B : "Because they don't like it!"
S : "You seem to be saying that all establishment bodies resist new things.
B : "Conspiracies are real!"
S : "It does not follow any proposed conspiracy is real. But I suppose that's not the only possible explanation. Are you saying instead that all establishment bodies resist new things for the sake of it?"
B : "Yes. That is sociology."
S : "That does not follow either. The history of modern science is one of successive models being adopted when demonstrating a preponderance of evidence. Despite resistance. And in fact, rigourous objection to a new model is the point."
B : "But what if they don't like it?"
S : "I see this is going nowhere. Never mind that. What sort of evidence can you present?"
B : "Dark matter quantum electromagnetic plasma vibration fields."
S : "Those words do not mean anything when you say them like that."
B : "You don't like it either, so you're not trying to understand."
S : "On the contrary, I'm trying very hard. But those words do not make sense together. I don't know what you're trying to convey."
B : "Subjective personal experience!"
S : "Why then did you connect those words (which have actual meanings) to your experience?"
B : "For a veneer of rigour. I heard them on a TV show. They sound cool."
S : "You should learn what those words mean before you use them. If you used them correctly it would be much easier to understand you."
B : "You aren't trying to understand, because you just don't like it."
S : "Fine. Whatever. Is there any reason I should privilege your subjective personal experience over not only my own but over the entire mainstream scientific establishment?"
B : "I say my subjective personal experience is real, and I assure you I am not lying."
S : "I did not say you were. But that does not actually mean anything. Many people are wrong about many things without realising it."
B : "You just don't like it. I'm special. But you have no curiosity and hate new things."
S : "That is a fantastically insulting thing to say. That I am entertaining you at all should be evidence to the contrary."
B : "Then why don't you believe me?"
S : "Because subjective personal experience is not compelling. If you wish to demonstrate reality you must obey several steps. You must demonstrate that there is some presently-inexplicable phenomenon; you must demonstrate that present theories cannot account for it; you must formulate a physically coherent theory to account for it - one which must also still account for all known phenomena; and you must test this hypothesis against reasonable falsifiability criteria. You have done none of these things."

[exeunt]

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
23-01-2014, 09:49 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(23-01-2014 08:18 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  
(23-01-2014 07:13 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Nothing from imagination? I have a lifetime of experiences like that. Doesn't seem objective enough?


How about Subjective?
As I said, first I observed something, even though subjectively, and THEN I found literature describing that it is a common thing in eastern medicine systems. Otherwise I wouldn't know what to look for. Looks like many, many people all over the history observed the feeling of electric-like conduits and vortexes in their body at the same places that worked the same way with nerve and endocrine system. If you consider that subjective, then there is nothing wrong with trusting subjective experience, until there is a better information.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 10:01 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2014 10:05 AM by Vosur.)
RE: What is Spirit?
(23-01-2014 09:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  As I said, first I observed something, even though subjectively, and THEN I found literature describing that it is a common thing in eastern medicine systems. Otherwise I wouldn't know what to look for. Looks like many, many people all over the history observed the feeling of electric-like conduits and vortexes in their body at the same places that worked the same way with nerve and endocrine system. If you consider that subjective, then there is nothing wrong with trusting subjective experience, until there is a better information.
Look, Luminion, the bottom line is that it's fine for you to believe these things since you have had these experiences after all. You just shouldn't expect anyone else to do the same if all you have is anecdotal evidence.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: