Why believe in the supernatural?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-04-2014, 03:40 AM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(06-04-2014 03:16 AM)sporehux Wrote:  TLDNR

"" The problem with specialized instruments is, the better they are at detecting something, the worse they are at detecting everything else ""

Who wrote this ?

Luminon, trying to justify throwing the scientific method under the bus in favor of his personal subjective unverified experience. Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2014, 03:48 AM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(06-04-2014 03:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(06-04-2014 03:16 AM)sporehux Wrote:  TLDNR

"" The problem with specialized instruments is, the better they are at detecting something, the worse they are at detecting everything else ""

Who wrote this ?

Luminon, trying to justify throwing the scientific method under the bus in favor of his personal subjective unverified experience. Dodgy
The woo is strong in this one. Gasp

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2014, 03:59 AM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2014 12:51 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(06-04-2014 03:48 AM)sporehux Wrote:  
(06-04-2014 03:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Luminon, trying to justify throwing the scientific method under the bus in favor of his personal subjective unverified experience. Dodgy
The woo is strong in this one. Gasp

Yeah, I know. Since it's philosophically 'possible' there is an explanation for his experience outside of the purview of current understating (bias, neurology, physics, etc.), but instead of attempting to falsify his experience, do his best to objectively measure it, control for other variables; you know, treat it like actual science and work through the method. He goes all 'science can't handle it', so we need to fundamentally change how science works, because the burden of proof is far to much for him to currently meet; but he'd rather challenge the foundations of science rather than admit that the basis for his beliefs are untenable given the current evidence. So he'd rather be on a one-man crusade (all the while yelling about being oppressed) rather than admit that he is too credulous and the amount of confidence he has in his belief's is not warranted by the amount of evidence currently available. But he doesn't get this, because his personal experience trumps all of science.

So far as I can tell... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2014, 08:29 AM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2014 04:08 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(06-04-2014 03:59 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(06-04-2014 03:48 AM)sporehux Wrote:  The woo is strong in this one. Gasp

Yeah, I know. Since it's philosophically 'possible' there is an explanation for his experience outside of the purview of current understating (bias, neurology, physics, etc.), but instead of attempting to falsify his experience, do his best to objectively measure it, control for other variables; you know, treat it like actual science and work through the method. He goes all 'science can't handle it', so we need to fundamentally change how science works, because the burden of proof is far to much for him to currently meet; but he'd rather challenge the foundations of science rather than admit that the basis for his beliefs are untenable given the current evidence. So he'd rather be on a one-man crusade (all the while yelling about being oppressed) rather than admit that he is too credulous and the amount of confidence he has in his belief's is not warranted by the amount of evidence currently available. But he doesn't get this, because his personal experience trumps all of science.

So far as I can tell... Drinking Beverage
How can you falsify an experience? That's impossible. You can falsify an explanation of an experience, that's probably what you mean. There is no "actual science". There is noetics, philosophy of science and then there are technical methods of various empirical scientific fields and some general guidelines for arranging the experiments to filter out human bias.

I do not change or challenge foundations of science, I just say, there are foundations even below these foundations. There are foundations of paradigm assumptions, cultural bias and the necessity for preparatory work. And if we don't fix these foundations, we won't notice the things against which we are biased, because our bias is 95 % justified. The true 5 % are easy to overlook or ignore. For example, we have a bias that in the past, people did not know shit and had no reasonable justification to know anything. This is not really how science works! Some older paradigms knew more about some things (Kuhn: optics example) that we today know in our modern scientific paradigm. Knowledge gets lost, because during scientific revolutions, it's impossible to translate from one paradigm to another, because it is not a scientific process, it's pretty much like a language spreads.

So I "discover" empirically some stuff that people knew thousands of years ago in India and you lose your shit, because it has little or no equivalent in today's language. I had to search Google for years to find some equivalents in present science. Which is of course not a scientific method, finding equivalents. I don't claim to use scientific method, I translate from another paradigm based on experience. Sorry I didn't tell you before, but I didn't know exactly how to name that. But in principle, I'm not a bigger asshole than people who say, geez, we should scan Buddhist brains - but don't pay money for the project. What you need is a language work, without language to name things, there is no way to talk about an experience and therefore no way to tell it to an expert and construct an appropriate scientific experiment. Fair enough? Read your Thomas Kuhn, people. Read your Foucault.

I don't perform scientific method for a simple reason. I don't have money, time, expertise, equipment, contacts, energy and motivation for that. Never once did I doubted the scientific method, I just say it costs money and I have more urgent things to do. But my experience led me to explore the philosophy of science and turns out, nobody here knows anything about it. You're a bunch of positivists, who behave as if nothing existed, unless it moves a dial. We're not allowed to go out on a limb. So how do we know how to construct that dial, to make it movable by a particular force, if we don't go out on a limb, if we don't talk about our experiences? I need a way to talk, a space to talk, to formulate in English a meaningful statement of something that has little or no equivalent in English. That is for the foreseeable future the limit of what I can do.

I must wonder, am I morally obligated to devote my life to natural sciences in order to prove physical nature of my sensory perception? I don't think so, that would be only if that meant some moral obligation for you guys, such as, if you don't become believers, you're going to hell. Without that, am I morally obligated to shut up and keep quiet about it anonymously? Even when people ask? Even when the forum topic is right? Maybe someone will know something, maybe I would contact someone who grew up with similar sensory anomalies, or who knows physics well enough to find some parallels for me. Maybe someone will find the research I have collected on the net good enough, even if the government-funded peer-review journals haven't paid it all that much attention. Maybe some people who don't trust the govt and government-funded journals will be interested. But you guys basically believe that government is the protector of purity of science. I have recently heard Stefan Molyneux say, what if peer review is just a government's way to fund nonsense that nobody is willing to pay for? What if people kept their money and peer review was done by whatever people actually want to buy? A radical idea. I like it. People might buy some crap, but on mass scale market, things that really work will prevail. Until then, as much as it pains me to be without decisive scientific evidence, my woo meditation method seems to help me in many ways, maybe it will even cure my dissociation disorder, which would be very nice and definitely worth a few more years of scorn from skeptics. Then there's the political and economical crisis stuff, that has a priority too. The way things look, I'll have something to do in the retirement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2014, 10:06 PM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2014 10:13 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(07-04-2014 08:29 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-04-2014 03:59 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yeah, I know. Since it's philosophically 'possible' there is an explanation for his experience outside of the purview of current understating (bias, neurology, physics, etc.), but instead of attempting to falsify his experience, do his best to objectively measure it, control for other variables; you know, treat it like actual science and work through the method. He goes all 'science can't handle it', so we need to fundamentally change how science works, because the burden of proof is far to much for him to currently meet; but he'd rather challenge the foundations of science rather than admit that the basis for his beliefs are untenable given the current evidence. So he'd rather be on a one-man crusade (all the while yelling about being oppressed) rather than admit that he is too credulous and the amount of confidence he has in his belief's is not warranted by the amount of evidence currently available. But he doesn't get this, because his personal experience trumps all of science.

So far as I can tell... Drinking Beverage
How can you falsify an experience? That's impossible. You can falsify an explanation of an experience, that's probably what you mean. There is no "actual science". There is noetics, philosophy of science and then there are technical methods of various empirical scientific fields and some general guidelines for arranging the experiments to filter out human bias.

I do not change or challenge foundations of science, I just say, there are foundations even below these foundations. There are foundations of paradigm assumptions, cultural bias and the necessity for preparatory work. And if we don't fix these foundations, we won't notice the things against which we are biased, because our bias is 95 % justified. The true 5 % are easy to overlook or ignore. For example, we have a bias that in the past, people did not know shit and had no reasonable justification to know anything. This is not really how science works! Some older paradigms knew more about some things (Kuhn: optics example) that we today know in our modern scientific paradigm. Knowledge gets lost, because during scientific revolutions, it's impossible to translate from one paradigm to another, because it is not a scientific process, it's pretty much like a language spreads.

So I "discover" empirically some stuff that people knew thousands of years ago in India and you lose your shit, because it has little or no equivalent in today's language. I had to search Google for years to find some equivalents in present science. Which is of course not a scientific method, finding equivalents. I don't claim to use scientific method, I translate from another paradigm based on experience. Sorry I didn't tell you before, but I didn't know exactly how to name that. But in principle, I'm not a bigger asshole than people who say, geez, we should scan Buddhist brains - but don't pay money for the project. What you need is a language work, without language to name things, there is no way to talk about an experience and therefore no way to tell it to an expert and construct an appropriate scientific experiment. Fair enough? Read your Thomas Kuhn, people. Read your Foucault.

I don't perform scientific method for a simple reason. I don't have money, time, expertise, equipment, contacts, energy and motivation for that. Never once did I doubted the scientific method, I just say it costs money and I have more urgent things to do. But my experience led me to explore the philosophy of science and turns out, nobody here knows anything about it. You're a bunch of positivists, who behave as if nothing existed, unless it moves a dial. We're not allowed to go out on a limb. So how do we know how to construct that dial, to make it movable by a particular force, if we don't go out on a limb, if we don't talk about our experiences? I need a way to talk, a space to talk, to formulate in English a meaningful statement of something that has little or no equivalent in English. That is for the foreseeable future the limit of what I can do.

I must wonder, am I morally obligated to devote my life to natural sciences in order to prove physical nature of my sensory perception? I don't think so, that would be only if that meant some moral obligation for you guys, such as, if you don't become believers, you're going to hell. Without that, am I morally obligated to shut up and keep quiet about it anonymously? Even when people ask? Even when the forum topic is right? Maybe someone will know something, maybe I would contact someone who grew up with similar sensory anomalies, or who knows physics well enough to find some parallels for me. Maybe someone will find the research I have collected on the net good enough, even if the government-funded peer-review journals haven't paid it all that much attention. Maybe some people who don't trust the govt and government-funded journals will be interested. But you guys basically believe that government is the protector of purity of science. I have recently heard Stefan Molyneux say, what if peer review is just a government's way to fund nonsense that nobody is willing to pay for? What if people kept their money and peer review was done by whatever people actually want to buy? A radical idea. I like it. People might buy some crap, but on mass scale market, things that really work will prevail. Until then, as much as it pains me to be without decisive scientific evidence, my woo meditation method seems to help me in many ways, maybe it will even cure my dissociation disorder, which would be very nice and definitely worth a few more years of scorn from skeptics. Then there's the political and economical crisis stuff, that has a priority too. The way things look, I'll have something to do in the retirement.

Cry some more. Just another long tired justification for why you have no evidence but believe anyways. You have faith, and I say that's simply not good enough; and no amount of misrepresentation or poisoning of the well (government conspiracy!) is going to change that.

Yeah, the ancients had some tantalizing advancements that have been lost to history. But you cannot go 'Antikythera Mechanism therefore I'm right'. Unless and until it is tested and verified, there is every reason to be very skeptical of ancient claims to knowledge; because more often than not they were wrong, or right for the wrong reasons. Deriding us for demanding evidence gets you nowhere, except a ticket to crazy-town. Science can be a woo as you want it, so long as you test it; and complaining that you don't have the resources (and others don't want to because government/bias/conspiracy!) to test it is NOT justification for belief without evidence.

“People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” -Blaise Pascal








[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 05:54 AM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(07-04-2014 10:06 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Cry some more. Just another long tired justification for why you have no evidence but believe anyways. You have faith, and I say that's simply not good enough; and no amount of misrepresentation or poisoning of the well (government conspiracy!) is going to change that.

Yeah, the ancients had some tantalizing advancements that have been lost to history. But you cannot go 'Antikythera Mechanism therefore I'm right'. Unless and until it is tested and verified, there is every reason to be very skeptical of ancient claims to knowledge; because more often than not they were wrong, or right for the wrong reasons. Deriding us for demanding evidence gets you nowhere, except a ticket to crazy-town. Science can be a woo as you want it, so long as you test it; and complaining that you don't have the resources (and others don't want to because government/bias/conspiracy!) to test it is NOT justification for belief without evidence.
I don't know why do you emphasize my "faith", but disregard sensory perception. If I wasn't sensorically aware of some phenomena, I'd have no motivation to search them, name them and "believe" in them. I just wouldn't know what to search for among the great variety of woo beliefs.
If you say I "believe", then see the topic is "why believe in the supernatural?" I don't think anything is supernatural, but I'd say a consistent sensory perception with some correlating studies on the net is a fairly good reason to believe.

Yeah, the lack of testing is my fault, I should spend a few hundred dollars on equipment and make several Youtube videos, apparently.
I think I have an even deeper issue. My investigation border on the verge of definition of the material. What I perceive is more of the field and plasma nature, including some kind of matter that seems to behave almost like dark matter - it passes through solid matter and it only reacts to electric fields, or fields projected by living organisms. So there is a technical reason, why testing this is difficult. Do you know of a matter that can pass through solid objects?
Ghost matter! What a ridiculous idea! This is where cultural prejudice comes in.

So I have to go much deeper than during ordinary research. I have to revise assumptions that only solid, visible matter exists, easily and readily measurable by instruments made of solid, visible matter. I say there are multiple kinds of matter, including the "ghost matter", that has no good physical definition yet. So I must resort to making up the words, because scientific words don't exist for that yet. I told you already how scientific words like "atom" or "electron" are just historical cultural conventions.
To sum it up, the points are,
- Non-random sensory basis of my "belief"
- Problem of difficult measuring exotic matter with instruments of non-exotic matter (and how crazy it sounds)
- Linguistic problem of prejudice against makeshift terminology not sanctified as official standard by scientific authority
Care to address any of these points?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2014, 08:04 AM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(07-04-2014 08:29 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't perform scientific method for a simple reason. I don't have money, time, expertise, equipment, contacts, energy and motivation for that. Never once did I doubted the scientific method, I just say it costs money and I have more urgent things to do. But my experience led me to explore the philosophy of science and turns out, nobody here knows anything about it. You're a bunch of positivists, who behave as if nothing existed, unless it moves a dial. We're not allowed to go out on a limb. So how do we know how to construct that dial, to make it movable by a particular force, if we don't go out on a limb, if we don't talk about our experiences? I need a way to talk, a space to talk, to formulate in English a meaningful statement of something that has little or no equivalent in English. That is for the foreseeable future the limit of what I can do.

No, Lumi, you don't use the scientific method because you don't actually understand it, and so don't value it. You don't know how to think scientifically. If you did, you would see that the scientific method only requires thinking.

You have found a woo path of pseudo-intellectual non-science and, in your resentment of any criticism or skepticism have turned on science like a cornered animal. In the last 2+ years, you have gone from a little odd to outright daft.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
09-04-2014, 08:10 AM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(09-04-2014 05:54 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Yeah, the lack of testing is my fault, I should spend a few hundred dollars on equipment and make several Youtube videos, apparently.
I think I have an even deeper issue. My investigation border on the verge of definition of the material. What I perceive is more of the field and plasma nature, including some kind of matter that seems to behave almost like dark matter - it passes through solid matter and it only reacts to electric fields, or fields projected by living organisms. So there is a technical reason, why testing this is difficult. Do you know of a matter that can pass through solid objects?
Ghost matter! What a ridiculous idea! This is where cultural prejudice comes in.

So I have to go much deeper than during ordinary research. I have to revise assumptions that only solid, visible matter exists, easily and readily measurable by instruments made of solid, visible matter. I say there are multiple kinds of matter, including the "ghost matter", that has no good physical definition yet. So I must resort to making up the words, because scientific words don't exist for that yet. I told you already how scientific words like "atom" or "electron" are just historical cultural conventions.
To sum it up, the points are,
- Non-random sensory basis of my "belief"
- Problem of difficult measuring exotic matter with instruments of non-exotic matter (and how crazy it sounds)
- Linguistic problem of prejudice against makeshift terminology not sanctified as official standard by scientific authority
Care to address any of these points?

The problem is that you have over-interpreted the 'data'. You continue to assume that what is inside your head is necessarily caused by something external. You have not demonstrated that in any way.

You don't need any equipment to do so except a pencil and some paper with which to record your experiences and correlate them to external events. That is the scientific method of data collection as a basis for hypotheses.

You've skipped that and gone directly to dark matter esoteric woo-woo fields.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
09-04-2014, 09:06 AM
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(09-04-2014 05:54 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't know why do you emphasize my "faith", but disregard sensory perception. If I wasn't sensorically aware of some phenomena, I'd have no motivation to search them, name them and "believe" in them. I just wouldn't know what to search for among the great variety of woo beliefs.

Because "seriously, you guys, I totally have compelling subjective personal experience" is what is used to prove everything from UFO abduction to Jesus to Vishnu to homeopathy. It's all bullshit.

The track record of "I have incommunicable subjective personal experience which is inadmissible for controlled investigation" in actually demonstrating and examining verifiable external phenomena is an unbroken chain of failure.

(09-04-2014 05:54 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If you say I "believe", then see the topic is "why believe in the supernatural?" I don't think anything is supernatural, but I'd say a consistent sensory perception with some correlating studies on the net is a fairly good reason to believe.

You say correlating studies, I say confirmation bias and crankery.

(thought experiment: is there anything for which I could conceivably fail to find "correlation" for somewhere online? I think not)

(09-04-2014 05:54 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Yeah, the lack of testing is my fault, I should spend a few hundred dollars on equipment and make several Youtube videos, apparently.

No. You should - if this is something experienced and explored by others - be able to show where other people made valid inquiry.

And then you should - if this is something repeatable, predictable, and verifiable - be able to show why nobody with any credibility is involved. "lol conspiracy" is not an answer.

I am still giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying "this", where "this" is something you have nonetheless been unable to even begin to articulate.

(09-04-2014 05:54 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I think I have an even deeper issue. My investigation border on the verge of definition of the material. What I perceive is more of the field and plasma nature, including some kind of matter that seems to behave almost like dark matter - it passes through solid matter and it only reacts to electric fields, or fields projected by living organisms.

STOP FUCKING SAYING THAT.

"Dark matter" means something.

"Plasma" means something.

You can't just smush the words together so that neither means something. If I've told you that once I've told you a thousand times.

That's physically incoherent regardless. Electromagnetic interaction is present in all conventional matter (proper term: baryonic). "Fields" are not "projected"; that's the realm of science fiction television, not reality.

If you can propose a positive consistent definition of "living" and substantiate that with a coherent physical theory, well, that I'd listen to.

(09-04-2014 05:54 AM)Luminon Wrote:  So there is a technical reason, why testing this is difficult. Do you know of a matter that can pass through solid objects?
Ghost matter! What a ridiculous idea! This is where cultural prejudice comes in.

"lol conspiracy" isn't an answer.

Quantum objects tunnel through potential barriers all the time. That's how electron microscopes work. Hell, that's how the sun works.

"What a ridiculous idea!" doesn't mean shit when it comes to modern physics. Naive physical intuition is long since dead by the wayside in terms of helping us understand fundamental physical processes.

We assume dark matter - real dark matter, not whatever you're misapplying the term to - to "pass through" (a simplified but generally sound description) conventional matter, and we further assume this must be happening all the time. I have friends and colleagues working on dark matter detectors right now. Others are doing similar work across the planet.

Does this purported cultural bias extend to all cultures? On the whole planet?

(09-04-2014 05:54 AM)Luminon Wrote:  So I have to go much deeper than during ordinary research. I have to revise assumptions that only solid, visible matter exists, easily and readily measurable by instruments made of solid, visible matter. I say there are multiple kinds of matter, including the "ghost matter", that has no good physical definition yet. So I must resort to making up the words, because scientific words don't exist for that yet.

The problem is that you're making a gigantic error in generalising subjective personal experience as though it were absolutely coherent physical evidence. It's not even that unreasonable after that point - I think you're very scientifically ignorant, but it's not like that's a character flaw Tongue - but since it proceeds from such a gigantic leap of faith...

Also, protip: your brain is made up of "only solid, visible matter". So there's that.

(09-04-2014 05:54 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I told you already how scientific words like "atom" or "electron" are just historical cultural conventions.
To sum it up, the points are,
- Non-random sensory basis of my "belief"

... which in and of itself means nothing. But I grant that you have subjective personal experiences.

(09-04-2014 05:54 AM)Luminon Wrote:  - Problem of difficult measuring exotic matter with instruments of non-exotic matter (and how crazy it sounds)

Incoherent. You can't simultaneously say that and say that you - a physical entity - can detect whatever-the-fuck it is. Notwithstanding your citation of various old cranks who also used "non-exotic matter" in the flawed experiments you use to justify your beliefs.

(09-04-2014 05:54 AM)Luminon Wrote:  - Linguistic problem of prejudice against makeshift terminology not sanctified as official standard by scientific authority

My issue isn't with your attempting to explain things, it's your explaining things so poorly.

New terminology can only be reasonably coined by those who understand the existing terminology. You don't understand the existing terminology. Somehow you've latched onto some buzzwords like "dark matter" and just throw them around all willy-nilly. That's not productive, and it doesn't help anyone figure out just what you actually mean.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
09-04-2014, 03:39 PM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2014 04:31 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Why believe in the supernatural?
(09-04-2014 08:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, Lumi, you don't use the scientific method because you don't actually understand it, and so don't value it. You don't know how to think scientifically. If you did, you would see that the scientific method only requires thinking.

You have found a woo path of pseudo-intellectual non-science and, in your resentment of any criticism or skepticism have turned on science like a cornered animal. In the last 2+ years, you have gone from a little odd to outright daft.
It seems to me the method you use for pointing me out as pseudo-intellectual and daft is the method of comparison with what is familiar to you. Which means that people like me are not familiar to you and you're guessing. The same goes if you pity me for my "obvious" insanity (you'll think so when you read further) - again, you'd be comparing and guessing something that you don't know by your own standard.

What if I routinely use skepticism and explain science to people, who need it, such as every Christian I meet? What if I debunk the very notion of faith and explain evolution to them? What if I only tell people what's new to them, not what they already know? What if I wrote a bachelor's thesis defending atheism and teaching science in schools? What if I totally get you?

But what if get things from so many points of view, that even their proponents do not recognize their own stuff? What if I think so much, I learn so much, I feel so much and I experience so much, that I have a hard time explaining it in terms familiar to you, much less in terms of science? Do you find it hard to believe that such people even exist?

(09-04-2014 08:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  The problem is that you have over-interpreted the 'data'. You continue to assume that what is inside your head is necessarily caused by something external. You have not demonstrated that in any way.

You don't need any equipment to do so except a pencil and some paper with which to record your experiences and correlate them to external events. That is the scientific method of data collection as a basis for hypotheses.

You've skipped that and gone directly to dark matter esoteric woo-woo fields.
I have begun in esoteric woo fields, I was born that way. Anomalous sensory inputs, anyone? Lifetime of experience and observations. I remember being a small kid, reading Christian and anatomy books, yet noting with disappointment that the occult perceptions are not described in them. Took me hell of a many years to discover the right books. Yeah, I'm a guy comparing things with what is familiar to me, just like you. The skill of putting a square peg in a square hole never loses its value since we were children.

Do you mean that some kind of a journal would be of some value? I have some, though I stopped writing it, when things got too intense and personal to describe easily. It's not long ago though, I could go back, finish it, translate it... Do you wish me to?
I don't know what do you mean by external events to correlate, but I have some books that describe historical accounts of such events. They're weird, though. Lives and paths of mystics and occultists. Some describe the bodily sensations incurred to a great detail, like sequences in which the "energy" passes through which part. I have experienced these sequences before I have read about them in books. Evidence enough for me, perhaps even for scientists, but not for physicists. Some productive research to be had here is the research of transcendent psychology, of a part of human personality that gives the deepest sensation of insight, bliss and divinity. Sometimes I feel like a small hurting vacuum tube plugged into this invisible sun. Then I understand why people are so little motivated to report this under the rigour of science. I am in a treasury of great value, busy grabbing treasures left and right, paining under their enormous weight, completely incapable of taking on an additional strain. I am under enormous pressure health-wise, emotionally, mentally and spiritually by any meaning of the word. Under the pressure, I change into a better person and I wish nothing more. Lord (Byron) knows I need it and that science can wait.

Man, if you scratch the surface of one's humanity the right way, you reveal no animal beneath, you reveal divinity. Please, don't assume that I boast. What I do is so painful and strenuous that it's almost not worth it. I tend to laugh bitterly at the thought that anybody would try this kind of life style out of desire for superiority. It's just too painful and occult, like mathematics. (ha ha, funny) I can get you some books to read up on the experience, though. Then you may decide what's there to study about this kind of experience. Maybe you'd see opportunities for research that I don't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: