What is Spirit?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2014, 10:07 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(23-01-2014 10:01 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(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.

We've been telling him that for the last two years. Drinking Beverage

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
23-01-2014, 10:13 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(23-01-2014 09:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(23-01-2014 08:18 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  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.

Literature is not evidence.

People have had common experiences of demons, ghouls, and aliens - doesn't make them real.

Or the feeling of 'pins & needles' after a nerve is unblocked or circulation restored. It doesn't mean that there are actually pins or needles, or that the chakras and vortexes have been disturbed.

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
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
23-01-2014, 10:17 AM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2014 10:40 AM by Luminon.)
RE: What is Spirit?
(23-01-2014 09:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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]
Demonstrate to whom, when, where, how? Is that like statehood of Palestine, doesn't exist unless United States approve of it? I didn't invent anything, I'm just an end user of something that was already there. Do you realize how daunting a task do you want from me?
I was able to demonstrate all three demands to myself - and occasionally to people who were physically present. But for technical reasons I can't do so with the whole world.
This is a big part of my life, of my physiology. So what is it that you ask from me, is get a license or don't share any stuff from your life? What I can do is a preliminary social research, a fieldwork, pointing out which research, sources and cultural artifacts do match my experience, so that more competent people than me can get better data to do a proper research. But asking me to do the research in physics and biology is just ludicrous. We don't live in such an ideal world where everyone is capable of everything.

What's wrong with preliminary social research first? What are you afraid of, that irrationality spreads like a disease, if not confronted immediately without preparation?
Do you think I want to be special or something? If anything, I am a bit too much special. I'd love to be normal for a change. It wasn't my idea. It's not something I can talk about with people around, because, obviously, they know where I live. In a sense, I am almost as isolated as atheists in Bible Belt. My classmates probably think, from my comments on Facebook and behavior in class, that I am some sort of hyper-intellectual rational skeptic. And maybe I am (if you trust me I wrote my thesis about American atheism), I just can't argue against overwhelming evidence of every day observations that do sometimes have effects that can be interpreted as objective. You can think of me as a full-time fringe experience sociologist, both of theory, practice and people. I hope to raise curiosity that someone with background in physics will see it as an inspiration to come up with ideas of his own. That's what I mean by curiosity - about this topic, only. You can have a plenty of curiosity about other things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 10:42 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(23-01-2014 10:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Demonstrate to whom, when, where, how?

To someone credible under controlled conditions.

I'll cut you a break - you don't have to explain anything. Merely demonstrate it.

There are lots of us who'd love to see such a demonstration.

(23-01-2014 10:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Is that like statehood of Palestine, doesn't exist unless United States approve of it?

Holy emotionally-manipulative-red-herring, Batman!

(23-01-2014 10:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I didn't invent anything, I'm just an end user of something that was already there.

And incumbency remains on you if you wish to convince others that personal subjective experience is a reflection of any coherent testable phenomenon independent of your perception.

(23-01-2014 10:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Do you realize how daunting a task do you want from me?

Yes. But that's science.

(23-01-2014 10:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I was able to demonstrate all three demands to myself -

Subjective personal experience.

(23-01-2014 10:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  - and occasionally to people who were physically present. But for technical reasons I can't do so with the whole world.

Was it under real, legitimate rigour? Controlled blind testing? Under skeptical observation?

I didn't invent the standards of evidence. I'm just going with what seems to work.

(23-01-2014 10:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  This is a big part of my life, of my physiology. So what is it that you ask from me, is get a license or don't share any stuff from your life? What I can do is a preliminary social research, a fieldwork, pointing out which research, sources and cultural artifacts do match my experience, so that more competent people than me can get better data to do a proper research. But asking me to do the research in physics and biology is just ludicrous.

It is in no way ridiculous. You're already egregiously violating an innocent vocabulary. I should think at the very least you could learn enough to use the words correctly. If you wish to speak, with any credibility whatsoever, of "electrical" or "electromagnetic" phenomena, then you really, really, really ought to be able to define "electric" or "electromagnetic".

Notwithstanding that it cannot possibly ever hurt to be better informed.

It's all well and good to say "here's something you should look at". Very much so.

But when someone does take a look and says to you "there's nothing there", you must be prepared to accept the possibility that they're right. Not to dismiss that with "lol conspiracy". Not to dismiss that with "lol bias". But to accept the genuine results of genuine investigation you yourself are unequipped to perform.

Absent falsifiability criteria a hypothesis is useless.

(23-01-2014 10:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  What's wrong with preliminary social research first? What are you afraid of, that irrationality spreads like a disease, if not confronted immediately without preparation?

You do seem fantastically oblivious to the double standard you espouse...

If literally every group of people is dogmatic, conspiratorial, and corrupt, then that applies every bit as much to the woo industry. Said bullshit industry being worth billions don't you think they have every possible incentive to keep the bullshit train rolling?

To an outside observer it seems that all you are engaged in is confirmation bias. You are literally saying you just found shit that agreed with you and ignored anything to the contrary.

(23-01-2014 10:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Do you think I want to be special or something? If anything, I am too special. I'd love to be normal for a change. It wasn't my idea.

I do try to appreciate that. I certainly don't think you intend to be as insulting as you sometimes are; try though I do to be patient I am liable to lapse into sarcasm myself.

It is just not cool to keep going down the same roads. "I do not understand how science is done but I feel comfortable dismissing any of it which disagrees with me." "I do not understand physics but I feel comfortable dismissing any of it which disagrees with me."

I know you are able to reason well, and I hope you can see how unreasonable such a position is. I accept that for you subjective personal experience may be overwhelming evidence. But you must accept that it simply cannot be for anyone else.

(23-01-2014 10:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It's not something I can talk about with people around, because, obviously, they know where I live.

wut

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
23-01-2014, 10:50 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(23-01-2014 09:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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]

Brilliant, funny and sadly true!

Now if only you used Elizabethan English and had a fight or two in it along with a romantic triangle!

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
23-01-2014, 11:21 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(23-01-2014 07:13 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.


Personal subjective experiences where all the the possible variables have NOT been accounted for means fuck all. Try again.



(23-01-2014 07:13 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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


Feng Shui? Kirlian photography? Are you fucking kidding me? Are you trying to dig yourself a deeper hole? The first thing this guy does on stage is promote a book on dowsing. This guys hasn't the first fucking clue what it means to be skeptical or employ the scientific method; the Mythbusters can debunk dowsing as bullshit, and this guy is claiming to be a scientist? Not only that, but in every way he describes the experiment, it's clear they were not using a variable controlled double-blind study. Their work is tainted beyond redemption by their ignorance and bias. There's a reason why they're selling their 'studies' to bored housewives instead of getting it peer reviewed; and it's not because of 'a conspiracy to suppress their work'. His work appears to be nothing more than assumptions built upon assumptions layered upon incredulity; highly unimpressive.

"A question I would put to you is 'are we just a collection of molecules and atoms that come together for a short time'? From our brain emerges consciousness, which is really to science an illusion; and once this vehicle has ended it dissolves back into it's elemental form. And we as personalities do not continue, our consciousness is lost. Well I hope maybe all of you would say 'no, this is not the case'. I don't have any evidence maybe but I feel within myself from what I've known in life, this is not the case. And I want to go a long way today to prove to you that it's not the case. That consciousness continues." -Harry Oldfield

I couldn't watch past that, for fear of contracting stupid. It's all just an argument from incredulity, the same as when creationists and flat-Earthers deny science in favor of their chosen ignorance. How is it not blatantly obvious that all he is doing is pandering to the same fear of death and the unknown that religions do, but he's just wrapping his product up in pseudo-scientific bullshit? He's going to prove consciousness continues on after death? Well then, he better line up for his fucking Nobel Prize as he's just made one of the most important discoveries in human history. But he hasn't, because he has no evidence; and he is simply lying to you (whether through intentional fraud or honest stupidity).



(23-01-2014 07:13 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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


You need to learn how to properly evaluate evidence and distinguish between subjective and objective, because as of right now you haven't the slightest fucking clue what constitutes good scientific evidence. Our sense are far more fallible and prone to error that you apparently have any idea of, and this is why science does not rely upon just our senses. It's not enough to measure temperature by asking a dozen scientists to touch something and give it a subjective rating between 1 and 10. This is why we developed accurate thermometers so that we can get consistent, accurate, and objective measurements to within decimal places. This is you, arguing that just touching something is enough to gauge it's temperature accurately; entirely unaware of how exactingly specific and accurate science currently is. It's like watching a toddler fumble as they attempt to walk, that is how infantile your reasoning and understanding is.

There are real scientists doing real research into the real neurological workings of the brain, and they will find real answers and explanations for things like 'spiritual experiences'. Saying 'science doesn't know, therefore spirit/chakra/chi explains it!' gets us nowhere, because it does nothing to expand our understanding. Why? Once again, back to the fucking basics. Because if you can't show it with evidence, then you don't know it. Facts are evidence, upon which we build hypothesis; and theories are the framework used to explain all the known facts the the best of our abilities. But you have no facts, because you have no evidence; and thus you know nothing about which you claim to have knowledge for.








(23-01-2014 07:13 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.


You are not logically justified in believing anything without evidence. Belief without evidence, or in the face of conflicting evidence, is called faith. Knowledge requires facts, which requires evidence. You refuse to acknowledge the limits of your claimed subjective experience, and that it is not at all evidence in any remotely scientific sense. I believe that you believe in your personal subjective experience, but that does not make it an objective fact of reality, and that is all I am logically justified in believing.



(23-01-2014 07:13 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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


The reason cranks can't get their work peer review is because it never gets past the review boards. Why is that? Because cranks don't have the first clue how to even begin to be scientific, that's why they're cranks. If they knew how to properly employ the scientific method, catch frauds, and correct for biases, then they would no longer be pseudo-scientists; they'd be scientists. And every single thing you post only confirms that you don't know either. Seriously, reading your posts gives me literal headaches from the levels of facepalm inducing stupidity that you spew forth, but I'm not about to start claiming that you're attack my aura/spirit/chakra through the internet; I lack the evidence to justify or support such a claim. I honestly admit this, you do not.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-01-2014, 06:11 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2014 06:40 PM by Luminon.)
RE: What is Spirit?
(23-01-2014 10:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  To someone credible under controlled conditions.

I'll cut you a break - you don't have to explain anything. Merely demonstrate it.

There are lots of us who'd love to see such a demonstration.
You are aware, that in this situation, the instrument, observer and phenomenon are all represented by one and the same person? This is a serious technical problem to double-blind methodology.
That reminds me, it is time to call my new health insurance company and ask them. Because probably the only thing possible to see (unless I get some expensive device I don't know how to use) is to get a brain scan. I wonder what will my over-nationalized healthcare say to that.


(23-01-2014 10:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Holy emotionally-manipulative-red-herring, Batman!
I guess I'm getting emotional, then. But hang on, I think it's a good thing. It might help me to ask the right questions.

(23-01-2014 10:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  And incumbency remains on you if you wish to convince others that personal subjective experience is a reflection of any coherent testable phenomenon independent of your perception.
Holy effing crap. I didn't think of this before. What if people already did the experiments which I would do if I had the equipment? Looks like that. There are some on the internet. There are people using this vital energy meter and it works as it is supposed to work - it does not measure anything electro-magnetic but what seems to be a vital energy in things like apples, leaves, water, crystals - charged or non-charged. They say there is a great difference between measuring living and dead objects. There are also Youtube videos of such experiments.
I'll just ask, what is that to you?

If I got this device, I'd do this experiment and that would be about it. I don't know what more would you want. The device itself is a scientific anomaly, in that it detects people and vegetables, but not rocks. (count that as a falsification) And it's not detecting electro-magnetism (or ferromagnetism), temperature or anything else known to science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJP_DbcNU8U

Here is this very device used in more ingenious setting as a scanner on a mechanical rack, to measure the intensity of chakra jets on the body and whole body field intensity.
http://www.heliognosis.com/rd03.html

If what these links say were true and repeated in a trustworthy environment, would you concede that there indeed is a new phenomenon? Is this sufficient? Can this be science? Science has to be many things, but it does not have to be impressive. Even measuring vegetables will do. You see the device reacts strongly to a person, but a person is not a good sample for such a simple test (too strong and unstable), so vegetables have to do.
I can't believe it would be so simple.

(23-01-2014 10:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes. But that's science.
From where I stand I see too many dead and forgotten scientists who invested 30-40 years into this stuff. Understand, I am totally and utterly convinced that this stuff is a part of my daily life. So this disparity is very unnerving. Someone somewhere is doing something wrong and I don't want to try the same failed approach. I'm not a suicidal lemming. Not even lemmings are suicidal. (the suicidal lemmings are a myth)
I'm almost starting to believe in Hegelian spirit of the ages and that all things have their proper place and time and that history can't be rushed. Right now we're still in the antithesis phase.

(23-01-2014 10:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It is in no way ridiculous. You're already egregiously violating an innocent vocabulary. I should think at the very least you could learn enough to use the words correctly. If you wish to speak, with any credibility whatsoever, of "electrical" or "electromagnetic" phenomena, then you really, really, really ought to be able to define "electric" or "electromagnetic".

Notwithstanding that it cannot possibly ever hurt to be better informed.

It's all well and good to say "here's something you should look at". Very much so.

But when someone does take a look and says to you "there's nothing there", you must be prepared to accept the possibility that they're right. Not to dismiss that with "lol conspiracy". Not to dismiss that with "lol bias". But to accept the genuine results of genuine investigation you yourself are unequipped to perform.

Absent falsifiability criteria a hypothesis is useless.

You do seem fantastically oblivious to the double standard you espouse...

If literally every group of people is dogmatic, conspiratorial, and corrupt, then that applies every bit as much to the woo industry. Said bullshit industry being worth billions don't you think they have every possible incentive to keep the bullshit train rolling?

To an outside observer it seems that all you are engaged in is confirmation bias. You are literally saying you just found shit that agreed with you and ignored anything to the contrary.
I wouldn't say 'lol conspiracy'. I understand it as a first contact scenario of two foreign cultures. If you know anything about first contact scenarios, they all go horribly wrong, because the cultures don't understand each other and one is extremely more powerful than the other. That's why I'm not taking any chances unless I know it's safe for my money, time and reputation. I know this stuff is not critical, there are more urgent global problems, so it is ethically permissible to me.

Frankly, I have a problem of routine. This is routine stuff to me. I can't imagine what would possibly count as falsification in face of positive results. Who needs falsification, if the positive results are obvious and plentiful? Falsification would be if the bearded guy in the video above placed the rock on the measuring plate and it had a stronger field than the onion. Crystals might work differently, but a common rock is (as good as) a dead matter. There's some quote unquote living "spirit" right there. Is your problem really just that we need this effect replicated in a laboratory under controlled circumstances?
If so, why me? It's true I could do a good job charging the potato, but basically anyone can do this. You will likely say burden of proof - but what burden? This technology and claims are already out there and replicated many times. That's like blaming me for thievery if I point a finger at a thief.

Damn, if that really really has to be me for some reason I can't understand, what if I did a Kickstarter project? Big Grin Donate 5 bucks, if the goal is met, we convince the real academic skeptics and prove the existence of woo energy! If you donate more than 30 dollars, you get a JPG scan of their diplomas! Donators above 100 bucks get a video of their personal apologies for treating us hippies badly. Rolleyes

(23-01-2014 10:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I do try to appreciate that. I certainly don't think you intend to be as insulting as you sometimes are; try though I do to be patient I am liable to lapse into sarcasm myself.

It is just not cool to keep going down the same roads. "I do not understand how science is done but I feel comfortable dismissing any of it which disagrees with me." "I do not understand physics but I feel comfortable dismissing any of it which disagrees with me."

I know you are able to reason well, and I hope you can see how unreasonable such a position is. I accept that for you subjective personal experience may be overwhelming evidence. But you must accept that it simply cannot be for anyone else.
Yes, I accept that. However, it seems that I am forbidden to say what I think. Me saying non-authoritatively certain things causes shitstorm. Why? We both know that I can not possibly convince anyone with mere words. Did you think I don't know that? Have I made the impression that I am trying to convince people without evidence? If so, that would be terrible. Fuck. I'd rather not think of that. That would be me owing hell of an apology.

So what is the problem? One thing is certain, this is going to take time, years at least. So how do we get along meanwhile? We need to negotiate.
You see, this is a topic where at least 3 people wonder about WHAT IS SPIRIT. Namely Alla, Witch Sabrina and maybe HoC.
They are not stupid, they know that if they wanted an evidence-based scientific answer (this is a bullshit question) or a Wikipedia answer (spirit: historical meanings....) they could get it themselves. So why the hell do they ask this question? Why do people ever wonder about such things?
Why am I not allowed to suggest an answer except in the obvious dismissive or encyclopedical way? I didn't start the topic, yet I think I'm the most competent one to answer such questions. So what kind answer do these people want? My answer may not be the most scientifically precise, but it is certainly the most authentic. There is nobody else around who deals with this stuff so closely.
If I always say outright first that I do not mean this stuff authoritatively, that nobody should accept it without evidence, will it be OK?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 06:51 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2014 06:58 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: What is Spirit?
(23-01-2014 09:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Because subjective personal experience is not compelling.

Reminds me of the second person to take LSD.

Horowitz: Who was the second person to take LSD?
Hofmann: Professor Ernst Rothlin, head of the Sandoz pharmacological department at the time. Rothlin was dubious about LSD; he claimed he had a strong will and could suppress the effects of drugs. But after he took 60 micrograms--one quarter of the dose I had taken earlier--he was convinced. I had to laugh as he described his fantastic visions.


Subjective personal mystical experiences can be quite compelling for the subject. But it must necessarily be described and recalled by analogy and metaphor. Mistaking the metaphor for the experience and analyzing the metaphor thinking one is explaining the experience is the difference between occultism and mysticism. Mysticism good, occultism bad. Tongue

"The Rose is without a 'wherefor'—she blooms because she blooms." - Angelus Silesius

"From my LSD experiments, including the very first terrifying one, I have received knowledge of not only one, but of an infinite number of realities. Depending upon the condition of our senses and psychic receptors we experience a different reality. I realized that the depth and richness of the inner and outer universe are immeasurable and inexhaustible, but that we have to return from these strange worlds to our homeland and live here in the reality that is provided by our normal, healthy senses. It's like astronauts returning from outer space flights: they must readjust to this planet. In some of my psychedelic experiences I had a feeling of ecstatic love and unity with all creatures in the universe. To have had such an experience of absolute beatitude means an enrichment of our life." - The Prophet Hofmann

That said, western medicine is only now starting to appreciate the empiricism of millennia of traditional Chinese medicine. Western medicine typically (but not always) looks for a mechanism of action before accepting a drug while TCM looks to treating the patient and relies on a shitload of analogies and metaphors as mnemonic devices to remember all their convoluted shamanic concoctions. But they realize they are just metaphors and analogies, not explanations.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 07:03 PM
RE: What is Spirit?
(23-01-2014 06:11 PM)Luminon Wrote:  However, it seems that I am forbidden to say what I think. Me saying non-authoritatively certain things causes shitstorm. Why? We both know that I can not possibly convince anyone with mere words. Did you think I don't know that? Have I made the impression that I am trying to convince people without evidence? If so, that would be terrible. Fuck. I'd rather not think of that. That would be me owing hell of an apology.

So what is the problem? One thing is certain, this is going to take time, years at least. So how do we get along meanwhile? We need to negotiate.
You see, this is a topic where at least 3 people wonder about WHAT IS SPIRIT. Namely Alla, Witch Sabrina and maybe HoC.
They are not stupid,



(1) I did try to warn you that there'd need to be evidence for what you wanted to spout here. Warned ja. I did Cool Why? Check the name on the door: ATHEIST............aka the Non-bullshit-buyers of this our fair planet. Done.
(2)
Nope.............. I'm stupid. Ask Chippy.


buwwaaahhaaaaaa
[Image: lol.gif]

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WitchSabrina's post
23-01-2014, 07:43 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2014 07:54 PM by Luminon.)
RE: What is Spirit?
(23-01-2014 07:03 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  (1) I did try to warn you that there'd need to be evidence for what you wanted to spout here. Warned ja. I did Cool Why? Check the name on the door: ATHEIST............aka the Non-bullshit-buyers of this our fair planet. Done.
Well, you did say that, I suppose. Took me long time to notice. But then why do you talk about spirit at all, if you know there is no evidence? Was it your idea to begin with? What's your stance on the concept of spirit? Does anyone have any questions on this concept, or was it meant just as a usual concept-bashing to relieve tension in mutual agreement on what nonsense it is?

(23-01-2014 06:51 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Reminds me of the second person to take LSD.
I suppose this is why St. Albert gave LSD to the world. It's an acid for softening the scientific hard heads.
Something like an embarrassment ritual so they don't act so high & mighty, only high Tongue

(23-01-2014 06:51 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Subjective personal mystical experiences can be quite compelling for the subject. But it must necessarily be described and recalled by analogy and metaphor. Mistaking the metaphor for the experience and analyzing the metaphor thinking one is explaining the experience is the difference between occultism and mysticism. Mysticism good, occultism bad. Tongue

"The Rose is without a 'wherefor'—she blooms because she blooms." - Angelus Silesius

Here I differ. My teaching almost frowns on mysticism. Mysticism is the path of the past that bypassed the intellect, because there was not much science around to learn in ye olde times. The modern occultist must understand his path also intellectually and seek to reconcile it with exoteric science and reason (damn, looks like it's my religious duty), because it is dangerous to have many ignorant people walking around and exploring mystical experiences. A mystic who thinks his mysticism is basically an elaborate delusion will probably not work with this experience intelligently and responsibly, but will use it for entertainment. This would be relatively safe if the experience wasn't real. But if it isn't real, why does mystic undergo it? Or why does he call himself a mystic?

(Warning! No evidence ahead! Proceed at your own risk!)
[no evidence]
Occultism needs intellectual understanding, it is similar to science, unlike mysticism. Each kingdom is developing by the contact with a higher kingdom. For example, the rose blooms, because each kingdom of life seeks to "radiate" in some way as its final stage of development. This "radiation" serves to put it in contact with higher kingdoms, such as animal (bees) and human (women who like roses). Subsequently, the higher kingdom acts upon the lower with pollination and selective breeding, for example. This is supposed to remind us that we humans are also a natural kingdom and that we also have another natural kingdom above us and we need to think what is our means of contacting it properly and how can we treat the lower natural kingdoms gently, morally, for mutual benefit. In the end, occultist must embrace the heartfelt approach of mystic and mystic must learn expertise of occultist - or they won't be allowed through the door of initiation. We ain't letting any half-assed spirits outta o' here, is the policy of our higher natural kingdom.
Thus my occult teaching says.
[/no evidence]

(23-01-2014 06:51 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  That said, western medicine is only now starting to appreciate the empiricism of millennia of traditional Chinese medicine. Western medicine typically (but not always) looks for a mechanism of action before accepting a drug while TCM looks to treating the patient and relies on a shitload of analogies and metaphors as mnemonic devices to remember all their convoluted shamanic concoctions. But they realize they are just metaphors and analogies, not explanations.
Your tolerant and well-informed words are soothing my metaphorical natural soul.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: