Is there anything?

[DOS]

Hmmm...it seems Saidin said pretty much what I was going to say.:lol:

I think we are perfectly capable (with or without chemical aid) to know reality itself. The fact that knowledge is a representation of something and not the thing itself is no valid objection. It is even a pretty meaningless point.

I think you mean to say that we are perfectly capable in your words of knowing the reality of what is inside the vat that contains your brain, not what is outside the vat.

The fact that knowledge and perception are naturally flawed are also not a real problem.

It is a real problem if you want accuracy, which is what science strives for.

Philosophy is of vital importance, because it is about the source of our knowledge and it's validity itself. Even if philosophy wheren't practical (the computer is an invention of philosophers, the system of coordinates was an invention of descartes, every mathematics is invented by philosophers: pythagoras, descartes, aristotle, thales, etc.)it would be important; it is simply ennevitable.

The scientist who doesn't ask philosophical questions is not even hypothetically possible.
Because, like i mentioned earlier, all knowledge, meaning and counsciousness emerges out of the reflexes of our brain, we cannot escape from the nescecety of meaning, of ethics and questions about our reality.

The fact that you are here in this world means that your brain is constantly forcing all kinds of meaning, ethics and values upon you, from wich you cannot ever run or hide.
A world without philosophical thinking is truly unimaginable, because therefore we would have to imagine a world without ourselves.

Excellent points, and very well written!

 

[burnt]

Fundamentalist fits your method of argument and principles pretty closely from what I've read. This is not a value judgement, it is just a definition of the position you have taken in regards to various arguments presented here and in other threads. You look at things from a strictly scientific perspective, with rigid adherence to those principals, and often with intolerance to other points of view. That is not the opposite of fundamentalism, it is the definition of it.

Science is the only way to answer some of the questions we have posed in various threads. How can any other knowledge gathering method even attempt to understand what happens to the mind when one smokes dmt? One can use dmt and clearly see what it does. But to understand why it does that and how it does what it does only science can answer that question. I adhere to scientific principles because I know how to use them to get answers.

I am intolerant towards superstition yes. But that is because superstition is a plague on our world. It is something I am fundamentally opposed to. Maybe that makes me a fundamentalist in that I fundamentally oppose many spiritual and religious world views. It harms me not in the least however neither morally nor mentally.

I guess I don't mind being called a scientific fundamentalist. As science changes and new evidence grows I can change with that. Religious fundamentalists don't do that. There is a distinction here that is important. You must understand that science is not just some body of knowledge but a way of thinking. I fundamentally support that way of thinking.

Materialism is your philosophical view of the world. Note the word philosophical, it is an idea, a mode of thought or belief. It is how you choose to percieve and study the world. There are other philosophies which engage in a rational investigation of the truths and principals of being and knowledge, but you dismiss them out of hand because they do not confrom to your particular materialist perspective. This is a fundamentalist approach to materialism.

Its not about choosing. I could choose to believe in a god and a heaven and a hell but that wouldn't make it true. I could choose to believe in a grand spirit that is intelligent and guides all life and existence but that doesn't make it true. I could choose to believe in these things called atoms and subatomic particles but it doesn't make them true.

What makes it true is evidence. There is evidence for matter. There is no evidence for spirits.

I dismiss so called rational philosophies that are not materialistic because they lack evidence. If they lack evidence they are just pure speculation. If they have evidence please present it. That's all I ask people for is evidence for why they have their spiritual views. That evidence usually boils down to "I believe it because I experienced it" which I have tried to show over and over is not a way to find out the truth. Its an interpretation not an answer.

When I said I love you, I meant it. It was not meant to be sarcastic in the least. We live in a world full of perspectives, and I have honestly learned much from you. Materialists are the ones most likely to uncover the physical mysteries of the universe in which we live, and if done in an ethical manner, improve the lives of everyone. But you cannot, and will not discover all the answers to the mystery. There is another side of existence which you cannot, or choose not to accept as possible because your philosophy will not allow you to do so. That is fine, belief in something greater than ourselves is not necessary. But acknowlede that everyone else's perspecitves are just as valid as your own, as long as they do not hurt anyone. If you claim the right of your own subjective experience to validate your world view (no matter how many others conform to the same philosophy), then you must accept the right of everyone else to do the same.

What is the other side of existence? What are its properties? I don't accept a spiritual explanation of such a place because there is no evidence for it. We can speculate about other universes or other dimensions and they may be there. But we cannot say if they are there unless we have evidence for it. But that doesn't mean they are or aren't there we simply don't know. We can rule that they must be there if there are gaps in our understanding of our universe that only make sense if they are there.

If I accept that the subjective experience of everyone is valid then I have to accept the schizophrenic who sais he is hearing voices from god that told him to mutilate his children as perfectly fine. Although you said that everyone's views are valid as long as they don't harm anyone but that simply cannot be avoided with such logic. Where do you draw the line? There are thousands of examples of how peoples views on the world their perceptions on the world and their beliefs about the world are destructive violent and hateful even if they proclaim love at the same time.

How can we stop such madness and violent superstition? The only way is through a scientific understanding of the world to show the falsehood in such beliefs and that they are nothing but lies perpetuated by madmen and hippocrites throughout the ages.

 

[corridors of my cells]

I just want to throw this out there... much cacti fungi and salvia have been consumed over the past few months and I have come to feel that there is no godhead, no great consciousness, no higher being, no intelligent order... none of that. Are we really that much smarter than the creatures around us? I don't think there is anything guys and consciousness I think is not as mysterious as we think, complicated yes but I have stopped thinking there is any deep secrets. Any thoughts?

I personaly dont believe in any god or worship any monotheist religions at all since i know monotheism is jewish weapon being used to seperate world into two and rule them while they are standing as the neutral side. Lets write a story that noone can get out of it oneday and spread it all around.

But having mystical experiences, exploring altered states of consciousness, communicating with your innerself, knowing that whatever happens doesnt matter we just came from one atom or whatever at the beginning... these are great feelings for me... I never think we are smarter than other creatures, our body evoluted enough to make us able to do more things and our brain is able to learn by watching so we get more improvement. But other creatures may have more powerfull physics, perceptions and some of them are very intelligent. I always say "human is an overmutated monkey thinkin he is the only reason for creation", and i find it too egoistic.

If you are looking for other kind of mystery may be you should look for it somewhere else if you couldnt find it with psychedelics my friend. Who said that theres a higher being? everybodys beliefs and thoughts to himself i respect that, we already have a lot of people believing in god in seperate religions who doesnt take psychedelics/dmt. Go tell them that, not to me i guess.

I love dmt not coz it makes me find the god, but coz its the most sacred substance that GAIA has given to me. But some things that psychedelics can reveal to you are too valuable if you know how to interpret them.

There was a topic started on Bluelight forum once and it was something like "how many of you started believing in a god after doing psychedelics". I couldnt believe 60% of people said "yea i started believing" :shock:, If someone is enjoying this substance by feeling near to his god i also respect that. If you want to believe in a god and start spinning around that endless cycles of schizophrenia its your decision i respect that.

But having a very natural vision of existance, knowing that our mother is our planet/nature and respectin it is a totally different thing. And thats what psychedelics have given me. I found your perspective very generalizing/categorizing and lame to be honest.

 

[Saidin]

Burnt, I have to say...having discussions with you is very similar to those with a friend of mine who is Super Catholic and takes the Bible as the direct word of God. No matter how much logic or how persuasive my arguements are, there is a portion of his brain that shuts down and just won't listen because it goes against his preconcieved beliefs.

Science is the only way to answer some of the questions we have posed in various threads. How can any other knowledge gathering method even attempt to understand what happens to the mind when one smokes dmt? One can use dmt and clearly see what it does. But to understand why it does that and how it does what it does only science can answer that question. I adhere to scientific principles because I know how to use them to get answers.

Because science tells us nothing of what the DMT experience is like. One can use dmt and clearly see subjectively what it does to ones consciousness. Science cannot understand what happens because it tries to objectively describe what is pruely a subjective experience. People can rarely explain their own experiences, how is someone supposed to do that objectively? To understand how and why it does what it does, then I agree with you that science offers us the best pathway. But it still will not tell you what the experience is like, it will only show you colored sections of the brain on a scan, which is useless in describing the experience.

I am intolerant towards superstition yes. But that is because superstition is a plague on our world. It is something I am fundamentally opposed to. Maybe that makes me a fundamentalist in that I fundamentally oppose many spiritual and religious world views. It harms me not in the least however neither morally nor mentally.

I guess I don't mind being called a scientific fundamentalist. As science changes and new evidence grows I can change with that. Religious fundamentalists don't do that. There is a distinction here that is important. You must understand that science is not just some body of knowledge but a way of thinking. I fundamentally support that way of thinking.

Intolerance toward things you don't understand is ignorance. Since you only fundamentally oppose many but not all spiritual and religious world views, which are those that are acceptable to you? You are correct, and I did make that distinction in my previous post. I said you were a fundamentalist, not a Fundamentalist, and more specifically cateorgized it as a scientific one, not religious. There is a difference. It is a way of thinking, that though slightly more pliable, is still rigid in its perceptions. You have been presented numerous times in this thread and the other with sound logical thinking and argument from a different "way of thinking" which you have summairly dismissed as being irrelevant because it does not conform to your way of thinking. You have not refuted the arguments, just said in effect that they are all bullshit because you don't believe them. You ask for evidence, when you yourself have supplied no evidence for your own point of views, and have been shown logically that you in fact have no evidence with which to support your claims.

Its not about choosing. I could choose to believe in a god and a heaven and a hell but that wouldn't make it true. I could choose to believe in a grand spirit that is intelligent and guides all life and existence but that doesn't make it true. I could choose to believe in these things called atoms and subatomic particles but it doesn't make them true.

What makes it true is evidence. There is evidence for matter. There is no evidence for spirits.

But it is about choice. It is how you have taken your subjective expeirences of the world and formulated a cohesive idea about how the world works. You have chosen that. You do choose to bleive in things called atoms and subatomic particles, but you in fact do not know what they are. Your choices do not make them true for anyone except you. You rely on others subjective experiences to validate your own subjective experiences. Others rely on others subjective experiences to validate their subjective experiences. I rely on you and other scientists subjective experiences to validate my perception of the world around me. I rely on others who have had subjective experiences of god or spirit to validate my own subjective experiences of god or spirit. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!

I dismiss so called rational philosophies that are not materialistic because they lack evidence. If they lack evidence they are just pure speculation. If they have evidence please present it. That's all I ask people for is evidence for why they have their spiritual views. That evidence usually boils down to "I believe it because I experienced it" which I have tried to show over and over is not a way to find out the truth. Its an interpretation not an answer.

I believe it because I have experienced it. Those experiences (evidence) are backed by the accumulated knowledge of many many other people who have had similar experiences (evidence) and come to similar conclusions. Sounds just like scietific knowledge doesn't it? You base your beliefs and faith in experiments others have done, while not actually doing those experiements yourself haven't you? You take others word on it because it conforms to your own beliefs, matches your own experiences of reality? You build upon knowledge of those who have come before you, rejecting things that don't work and incorporating those things which support your world view or hypothesis? Yes you do, and so do I. We are not so different after all.

What is the other side of existence? What are its properties? I don't accept a spiritual explanation of such a place because there is no evidence for it. We can speculate about other universes or other dimensions and they may be there. But we cannot say if they are there unless we have evidence for it. But that doesn't mean they are or aren't there we simply don't know. We can rule that they must be there if there are gaps in our understanding of our universe that only make sense if they are there.

The other side of existence is a higher vibrational frequency of matter. It is meta-consciousness, a place where a portion of our consciousness resides that defines and creates the world we experience. It is an implicate order out of which the explicate order of the universe we precieve eminates. It is the template from which all we experience arises from, it is the framework. There are other dimensions, just about every sigle scientific theory that proposes an explanation for existence has them in their equations. We cannot possibly have solid evidence for other dimensions as we are stuck in the three dimensions we inhabit. Just as a two dimensional being would have no conception of up and down, we cannot possibly experience a fourth dimension, just as a fish cannot experience what atmosphere above the surface of the ocean is.

You are correct, they may or may not be there, we cannot know. But you have argued constantly that they do not exist because we have no evidence for them. But we have a lot of theoretical evidence for them, but that does not appear to be good enough from your prespective.

Some additional evidence for a spirit world that validates my belief are both near death experiences, and past life hypnotic regression. It is interesting to note, that when people are "regressed" to a point in between lives, they report the exact same thing that people who have had near death experiences. The mechanism for processing information and experiences in between lives is the same in these two very different experiences. I know you will say it is all bullshit, but that is nothing more than ignoring evidence which does not support your world view. There is compelling evidence, from multiple experimenters, cultures, ages, gender, marital status, race, religious or spiritual beliefs, social class, educational level, income, size of home community, or area of residence. They all share a commonality of experience that cannot be explained by any science you can provide.

If I accept that the subjective experience of everyone is valid then I have to accept the schizophrenic who sais he is hearing voices from god that told him to mutilate his children as perfectly fine. Although you said that everyone's views are valid as long as they don't harm anyone but that simply cannot be avoided with such logic. Where do you draw the line? There are thousands of examples of how peoples views on the world their perceptions on the world and their beliefs about the world are destructive violent and hateful even if they proclaim love at the same time.

You didn't read what I wrote, did you? I said:

But acknowlede that everyone else's perspecitves are just as valid as your own, as long as they do not hurt anyone. If you claim the right of your own subjective experience to validate your world view (no matter how many others conform to the same philosophy), then you must accept the right of everyone else to do the same.

It is easily avoided, as you are making a subjective value judgement on others. What gives you or anyone else the right to tell others what they can or cannot think, can or cannot believe? I can draw the line, very easily. Harming others is wrong, period. Yes Christianity has had a lot of bad things done in its name, by individuals as well as groups, sometimes using religion as justification to harm others, other times using it as a screen for different motivations. But so has it done a lot of good. Catholic Charities is one of the best and most effective charitible groups in the world. The church has fed, clothed, housed, and cared for billions of individuals over its existence, and asked nothing in return. You are creating a black and white dichotomy where you cannot. Yes, there are thousands of examples, but are those the institution's fault, or the individuals? There are plenty of cases where science is guilty of exactly the same thing you decry about religion. Nobodys hands are completely clean.

How can we stop such madness and violent superstition? The only way is through a scientific understanding of the world to show the falsehood in such beliefs and that they are nothing but lies perpetuated by madmen and hippocrites throughout the ages.

Right, because scientific understanding of the world over the last 200 years has solved all our problems? All the falsehood and lies of madmen and hippocrites have disappeared, or even diminished? One just has to look to the US Government, or corporations to see that this statement is catergorically false, and in fact appears to be geting worse rather than better as our technology separates us from nature. We are in more dire straights now than our species has been in the entirety of its existence, solely because of technology and science. Those remarkable tools of our knowledge have catapulted us to new heights, while at the same time destroying the only place we have to live. Science is destorying the world faster than any religion could hope to.

It is at the same time our greatest bane, and our greatest hope.

 

[DOS]

What is the other side of existence? What are its properties? I don't accept a spiritual explanation of such a place because there is no evidence for it. We can speculate about other universes or other dimensions and they may be there. But we cannot say if they are there unless we have evidence for it. But that doesn't mean they are or aren't there we simply don't know. We can rule that they must be there if there are gaps in our understanding of our universe that only make sense if they are there.

Take dark matter for instance which we touched on earlier in the debate. There is no direct, physical/observable evidence for the existence of dark matter. The only reason scientists theorize it is there is because dark matter has observable effects on things we can see, and even those observable effects are not evident to our naked eye without the required scientific instruments. The point is you believe in the information recorded by man-made instruments of dark matter which bears no direct physical evidence of itself. I personally find it just as easy to trust my own spiritual experiences (direct evidence) and the other innumerable spiritual accounts of peoples world-wide that serve as direct evidence for other realms of existence compared to trusting some hi-tech machinery. You might want to scientifically disregard Social Psychology all-together if you don't trust people are reliable enough to serve as direct evidence for scientific theory. We're all just lying, delusional lunatics. :roll: :lol:

Right, because scientific understanding of the world over the last 200 years has solved all our problems? All the falsehood and lies of madmen and hippocrites have disappeared, or even diminished? One just has to look to the US Government, or corporations to see that this statement is catergorically false, and in fact appears to be geting worse rather than better as our technology separates us from nature. We are in more dire straights now than our species has been in the entirety of its existence, solely because of technology and science. Those remarkable tools of our knowledge have catapulted us to new heights, while at the same time destroying the only place we have to live. Science is destorying the world faster than any religion could hope to.
It is at the same time our greatest bane, and our greatest hope.

Agreed. If there's one thing we can trust science to do it is destroying the planet through technology...oh the wonders of fossil fuel technology!!!

 

[burnt]

Intolerance toward things you don't understand is ignorance. Since you only fundamentally oppose many but not all spiritual and religious world views, which are those that are acceptable to you? You are correct, and I did make that distinction in my previous post. I said you were a fundamentalist, not a Fundamentalist, and more specifically cateorgized it as a scientific one, not religious. There is a difference. It is a way of thinking, that though slightly more pliable, is still rigid in its perceptions. You have been presented numerous times in this thread and the other with sound logical thinking and argument from a different "way of thinking" which you have summairly dismissed as being irrelevant because it does not conform to your way of thinking. You have not refuted the arguments, just said in effect that they are all bullshit because you don't believe them. You ask for evidence, when you yourself have supplied no evidence for your own point of views, and have been shown logically that you in fact have no evidence with which to support your claims.

I offered refutations of a number of the arguments:

1- How can one have subjective reality without objective reality?

2- Doesn't simple optical illusions show that our mind can create images of things that are not there? Why can't it do the same with mystical experiences? Obviously mystical experience is more complex but its the same idea.

But it is about choice. It is how you have taken your subjective expeirences of the world and formulated a cohesive idea about how the world works. You have chosen that. You do choose to bleive in things called atoms and subatomic particles, but you in fact do not know what they are. Your choices do not make them true for anyone except you. You rely on others subjective experiences to validate your own subjective experiences. Others rely on others subjective experiences to validate their subjective experiences. I rely on you and other scientists subjective experiences to validate my perception of the world around me. I rely on others who have had subjective experiences of god or spirit to validate my own subjective experiences of god or spirit. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!

I think there is a difference. I could choose to imagine a world that is made up of little pink dots. Little pink dots that are so small no one can see them. I can come up with mathematical explanations for how little pink dots can make things happen. But if experiments to determine if those little pink dots exist don't find them or the mathematical abstractions don't offer any testable or conclusive or predictive power those little pink dots can safely be said to not exist. Its the same with god.

People can't imagine away electrons. They can call them different things. They can find they are made up of other smaller parts. But they can't be imagined away it doesn't matter what someone believes electricity is a real thing.

I believe it because I have experienced it. Those experiences (evidence) are backed by the accumulated knowledge of many many other people who have had similar experiences (evidence) and come to similar conclusions. Sounds just like scietific knowledge doesn't it? You base your beliefs and faith in experiments others have done, while not actually doing those experiements yourself haven't you? You take others word on it because it conforms to your own beliefs, matches your own experiences of reality? You build upon knowledge of those who have come before you, rejecting things that don't work and incorporating those things which support your world view or hypothesis? Yes you do, and so do I. We are not so different after all.

Its very different. Mystical experiences have qualitative similarities across cultures and throughout the ages. I have had mystical experiences I know what they are like. So far everything I have experienced in those states is completely explainable using modern neuroscience. There is nothing contradicting about having an experience of feeling one with your surroundings and how modern neuroscience explains how the brain actively builds boundry's between your perception of yourself and the outside world. If that perception fades out of your immediate conscious experience you have an experience of being one with everything around you. It makes total sense. This is a testable prediction. I don't think its ever been tested but it can be tested using scientific methods.

If I offer an explanation that lets say when I have this experience that my consciousness really is spewing across the galaxies then my consciousness moves faster then the speed of light and my consciousness doesn't require my body to experience anything. This violates the laws of nature it also is a contradictory conclusion. Our consciousness requires sensory input how can I have sensory input from galaxies so far away?

Of course the mystics realized this. So they came up with an explanation. That everything is a manifestation of consciousness. Its a reasonable prediction and hypothesis. But it has fundamental gaps. How does consciousness exist without an objective world? How does consciousness make the world do what it does? If conscious perception really dictates everything why can't I just fly if I think hard enough about it? There are too many gaps to get into right away but those are just some that come off the top of my head.


Concerning the methods of science. It builds upon itself, I don't need to go find out everything about DNA to accept what others have found out. If they were wrong none of the methods of modern molecular biology would work. They do work so its not wrong.

Knowledge about mystical experiences can do the same but without science we can never know what causes them to happen and if they are real or not. I think science has already provided enough evidence to show they are most definitely not real. Although conclusive studies should be done on this subject many people are interested in it. I hope it will be last nail in the board closing the gates to superstition and the denial of reason.

The other side of existence is a higher vibrational frequency of matter. It is meta-consciousness, a place where a portion of our consciousness resides that defines and creates the world we experience. It is an implicate order out of which the explicate order of the universe we precieve eminates. It is the template from which all we experience arises from, it is the framework.

Yes and this is the mystics explanation as well that I noted above. It sounds to me more like poetic word games then an explanation for anything. Higher vibrational frequency of matter. What does that mean? How is the matter vibrating? What causes higher frequencies of matter to generate consciousness? Higher frequencies of lets use electromagnetic radiation for example just means it has more energy. High frequency electromagnetic radiation is rather dangerous. We have an atmosphere to protect us from such things. We use such things to make x-ray images.

Anyway the point is for such an idea as it is a rather radical idea to become a real scientific theory it requires evidence and a mechanistic explanation for how it works. This is something the mystics have never ever succeeded in doing. Nor do they even want to do it. For if they did they would lose their magic grip on those who follow them.

There are other dimensions, just about every sigle scientific theory that proposes an explanation for existence has them in their equations. We cannot possibly have solid evidence for other dimensions as we are stuck in the three dimensions we inhabit. Just as a two dimensional being would have no conception of up and down, we cannot possibly experience a fourth dimension, just as a fish cannot experience what atmosphere above the surface of the ocean is.

If other dimensions have no effect on our universe then they don't matter and there is no use really speculating about them. However in theories that predict many more dimensions like string theory they do have an effect. The shape of those dimensions determines how strings vibrate and create what we observe as matter. They don't include the extra dimensions for fun they include them because they need to be included for the theory to work. Unfortunately the energies required to directly observe them is too high for us to technologically accomplish anytime soon. However there are other phenomenon that are testable about string theory will be looked at in the coming future.

Anyway the point is even if there are more dimension what makes you think that living creatures reside in them? What makes you think our consciousness has anything to do with them? We don't need string theory to explain why people see little green men when they are high. Maybe at the very end when we know everything about the brain we will come to realize something is missing. If that something is extra dimensions or whatever then ok then it starts to be a resonable proposal. But that hasn't happened yet and explanations of mystical experience doesn't require it. If it does then formulate a theory. I think most mystics don't want to formulate a theory because they can't or they are afraid of losing their power.

Some additional evidence for a spirit world that validates my belief are both near death experiences, and past life hypnotic regression. It is interesting to note, that when people are "regressed" to a point in between lives, they report the exact same thing that people who have had near death experiences. The mechanism for processing information and experiences in between lives is the same in these two very different experiences. I know you will say it is all bullshit, but that is nothing more than ignoring evidence which does not support your world view. There is compelling evidence, from multiple experimenters, cultures, ages, gender, marital status, race, religious or spiritual beliefs, social class, educational level, income, size of home community, or area of residence. They all share a commonality of experience that cannot be explained by any science you can provide.

Near death experiences are explaniable by science. The fact that they are similarities that go beyond culture show that it could be a brain phenomenon that we are all capable of experiencing. Ketamine can induce near death experiences. Again a drug inducing a mystical experience sound familiar? I have explored those experience as well and came out with the same conclusion as traditional psychedelics that within modern neuroscientific perspectives the near death experience makes sense. Do you want more details?

Hypnotic past life regression is better explained by psychology but it still has of course a neurological origin. One explanation that has been put forth for such things is false memories. People can be induced to have false memories while under hypnosis. I haven't looked into this as much as NDE's but I suspect that others have looked into it and concluded that its not because we actually have past lives.

It is easily avoided, as you are making a subjective value judgement on others. What gives you or anyone else the right to tell others what they can or cannot think, can or cannot believe? I can draw the line, very easily. Harming others is wrong, period. Yes Christianity has had a lot of bad things done in its name, by individuals as well as groups, sometimes using religion as justification to harm others, other times using it as a screen for different motivations. But so has it done a lot of good. Catholic Charities is one of the best and most effective charitible groups in the world. The church has fed, clothed, housed, and cared for billions of individuals over its existence, and asked nothing in return. You are creating a black and white dichotomy where you cannot. Yes, there are thousands of examples, but are those the institution's fault, or the individuals? There are plenty of cases where science is guilty of exactly the same thing you decry about religion. Nobodys hands are completely clean.

Its the institutions and individuals fault. Sure there are examples of religion being used for the general good but that good does not come without a price. Look at the catholic church it goes and does so called wonderful things in Africa while at the same time telling uneducated people that condoms are bad. I wonder how many thousands of people are dieing right now as a direct result of such stupid and deceptive policies?

But anyway I think your point is that science can do evil things too and I agree. It can. Its up to individuals and societies to use technology properly.

I don't think religion can ever be used properly because of its very nature. It is built on lies so what truth can there be in it?

Saidin wrote:
Right, because scientific understanding of the world over the last 200 years has solved all our problems? All the falsehood and lies of madmen and hippocrites have disappeared, or even diminished? One just has to look to the US Government, or corporations to see that this statement is catergorically false, and in fact appears to be geting worse rather than better as our technology separates us from nature. We are in more dire straights now than our species has been in the entirety of its existence, solely because of technology and science. Those remarkable tools of our knowledge have catapulted us to new heights, while at the same time destroying the only place we have to live. Science is destorying the world faster than any religion could hope to.
It is at the same time our greatest bane, and our greatest hope.


Agreed. If there's one thing we can trust science to do it is destroying the planet through technology...oh the wonders of fossil fuel technology!!!

First of all its so easy for us with our fed bellies and electricity to take fossil fuels for granted. Our society advanced because of them. They directly feed billions of people. If we never developed fossil fuels none of us would be alive right now. I think technology deserves more respect then most people are willing to give it. If you don't like technology turn off your computer throw it out the window, leave your house, throw away all your money, and go have fun trying to survive in the woods. It can and has been done but mostly people come back to society after a while.

Science has pushed society to great heights in terms of medicine, food, and generally improving the quality of life. That doesn't mean all problems have been or ever will be solved but it certainly has offered great potential for improvement of billions of peoples lives.

Its not science digging us into a ditch its stupid people using certain aspects of science to their advantage. Most of those people who are responsible for the widespread destruction or denial of the danger are religious. Look at the religious conservatives in the U.S. Look at Islam. Look at Israel. Look at the fighting in the Balkans. Look at the tension in Europe between its native and immigrant populations. Look at the militaristic worship of communist ideology in Asia. Except communism (although its on par with being as stupid and worshiped) all this conflict has a religion as a driving force or as a justification.

To paraphrase Carl Sagan: Science is a candle in the dark.

 

[DOS]

First of all its so easy for us with our fed bellies and electricity to take fossil fuels for granted.

Don't get me wrong. I love technology. I love CLEAN technology, and so I hate Big Oil which is stonewalling efforts to transition into more efficient vehicles for example. My buddy gets 50-60mpg on a 20 year old Honda Civic CRX he made cheap modifications to. His old rice rocket outperforms the bullsh!t hybrid technology that everyone raves about. The 2010 Toyota Prius gets 51mpg at best. That tells me there has been ZERO real improvement as far as fuel efficiency goes. There are better ways to generate electricity. I'm all for wind power, solar power, nuclear fusion power...we need to completely ditch fossil fuels, but that is not going to happen anytime soon thanks to the big oil companies.

THIS is exciting technology: NIF and Photon Science

Dr. Evil would be jealous.

 

[burnt]

In that regard I agree very much.

If people really want to prevent excess carbon emissions its best to just keep reusing old cars until they are run into the ground. The amount of carbon emissions to make a new car is more then running an old crappy car for a few extra years.

I do think we need to kick the oil addiction but yea its going to be tough. Petrochemicals are just so damn handy and easy to work with. But as they get rarer and rarer there will be no choice.

 

[Psychodelirium]

This thread and other similar threads in this forum are destined to go in circles, as people on both sides are apparently pushing ideas of what "spirituality" is and what "mysticism" is that seem to me profoundly off the mark. Let me start by saying first of all, that when the mystic (I mean obviously the legitimate sort of mystic, and not the charlatan sort) says "everything is consciousness", he is not propounding something like a metaphysical or pseudoscientific theory about the universe. This is very important. He is not trying to assert something against the physical sciences. He is on a different playing field altogether. What is he saying? He is trying to drive home the most basic of all observations, namely that everything you experience of reality is in fact an experience happening to you. That is to say consciousness is the background, or the space, in which experience takes place.

Now this is something that we are actually more inclined to realize with the help of psychology and the brain sciences, because now we believe that consciousness and subjective experiences and so forth are functions of the human nervous system. So it has become a kind of truism that what you see when you look at the world is actually the inside of your head. But for the mystic this is the most fundamental thing, because the mystic does not simply "believe" this, but actually has a real, vivid human experience of it. Now when the mystic tries to relate this experience he begins to sound incoherent, because most people never in fact have it, and so have nothing to compare the mystic's statements with. The mystic is trying to talk about the fundamental features of experience itself, and not about the fundamental features of the "world", which is the object of experience. People have a hard time understanding this, because they never experience their own consciousness the way the mystic does; they only experience things. So when the mystic begins to talk about universal consciousness and the transcendental Self, and so on, they assume that the mystic is talking about things, too. But the mystic is not talking about things at all; he is talking about aspects of conscious experience.

This is probably as clear as I can say it: if consciousness is the space in which experience takes place, the world is an object that arises and is experienced inside this space. The mystic is not concerned with the object of experience, but with the space itself. Again, this is emphatically not meant as some kind of metaphysical theory where consciousness comes first and the world comes later. It is simply a description of human subjectivity on a very basic level.

Now if any of that has made any kind of sense to you, you will see that mysticism and spirituality are, so to speak, higher, or deeper extensions of psychology. They are concerned with the human soul and the structure of human experience. They are not concerned with what the physical universe is like, nor do they assume the existence of some other kind of supernatural universe. All talk about "dimensions", "astral planes", "realms of power" and so on and so forth is properly understood as talk about the architecture of human subjective experience, the antipodes of the mind. Spirituality does not in and of itself have anything to do with anything "supernatural", and a spiritual path is not in any way antiscientific. In fact, if the ignorance and prejudice on both sides of the whole spirit vs. science debate would stop, it would become immediately obvious that practitioners of spiritual disciplines and scientists have a wealth of relevant insights to offer each other. In contemporary cognitive science, for example, a lot of work proceeds by working backwards from reports of subjective experience and trying to construct hypothetical computational mechanisms that might underlie such an experience. No one has more detailed and insightful reports of subjective experience than serious meditators and psychonauts. In fact, a lot of this kind of research is already being done, both with psychedelics and with meditation, and a lot of very interesting findings are coming out of it.

 

[Saidin]

This thread and other similar threads in this forum are destined to go in circles, as people on both sides are apparently pushing ideas of what "spirituality" is and what "mysticism" is that seem to me profoundly off the mark. Let me start by saying first of all, that when the mystic (I mean obviously the legitimate sort of mystic, and not the charlatan sort) says "everything is consciousness", he is not propounding something like a metaphysical or pseudoscientific theory about the universe. This is very important. He is not trying to assert something against the physical sciences. He is on a different playing field altogether. What is he saying? He is trying to drive home the most basic of all observations, namely that everything you experience of reality is in fact an experience happening to you. That is to say consciousness is the background, or the space, in which experience takes place.

Now this is something that we are actually more inclined to realize with the help of psychology and the brain sciences, because now we believe that consciousness and subjective experiences and so forth are functions of the human nervous system. So it has become a kind of truism that what you see when you look at the world is actually the inside of your head. But for the mystic this is the most fundamental thing, because the mystic does not simply "believe" this, but actually has a real, vivid human experience of it. Now when the mystic tries to relate this experience he begins to sound incoherent, because most people never in fact have it, and so have nothing to compare the mystic's statements with. The mystic is trying to talk about the fundamental features of experience itself, and not about the fundamental features of the "world", which is the object of experience. People have a hard time understanding this, because they never experience their own consciousness the way the mystic does; they only experience things. So when the mystic begins to talk about universal consciousness and the transcendental Self, and so on, they assume that the mystic is talking about things, too. But the mystic is not talking about things at all; he is talking about aspects of conscious experience.

This is probably as clear as I can say it: if consciousness is the space in which experience takes place, the world is an object that arises and is experienced inside this space. The mystic is not concerned with the object of experience, but with the space itself. Again, this is emphatically not meant as some kind of metaphysical theory where consciousness comes first and the world comes later. It is simply a description of human subjectivity on a very basic level.

Now if any of that has made any kind of sense to you, you will see that mysticism and spirituality are, so to speak, higher, or deeper extensions of psychology. They are concerned with the human soul and the structure of human experience. They are not concerned with what the physical universe is like, nor do they assume the existence of some other kind of supernatural universe. All talk about "dimensions", "astral planes", "realms of power" and so on and so forth is properly understood as talk about the architecture of human subjective experience, the antipodes of the mind. Spirituality does not in and of itself have anything to do with anything "supernatural", and a spiritual path is not in any way antiscientific. In fact, if the ignorance and prejudice on both sides of the whole spirit vs. science debate would stop, it would become immediately obvious that practitioners of spiritual disciplines and scientists have a wealth of relevant insights to offer each other. In contemporary cognitive science, for example, a lot of work proceeds by working backwards from reports of subjective experience and trying to construct hypothetical computational mechanisms that might underlie such an experience. No one has more detailed and insightful reports of subjective experience than serious meditators and psychonauts. In fact, a lot of this kind of research is already being done, both with psychedelics and with meditation, and a lot of very interesting findings are coming out of it.

Very well said! It captues my viewpoint almost exactly. We have been going in circles.

I have not been arguing that one mode of thought is better than the others, just that there is more to what we experience that science cannot explain. To me, the world is not made up of things outside myself, it is formulated on experiences which are unique to me and in which objects play a role. Understanding those objects and how and why they provide me with the experiences I have is important, but it is not the sum of everything I am. It is only a part of a greater understanding and state of being. I am a spiritual scientist as opposed to a material scientist, and that mode of being is neither dangerous nor wrong. It is just the way my experiences have led me to view the world. I am neither right nor wrong...

I just am.

 

[Saidin]

I think there is a difference. I could choose to imagine a world that is made up of little pink dots. Little pink dots that are so small no one can see them. I can come up with mathematical explanations for how little pink dots can make things happen. But if experiments to determine if those little pink dots exist don't find them or the mathematical abstractions don't offer any testable or conclusive or predictive power those little pink dots can safely be said to not exist. Its the same with god.

But what if thousands of people came to you and told you that they see these pink dots, that your mathmatical explanations and theories validate experiences that they have had? It would still be unprovable from a scientific perspective, but it would give you pause that maybe you were on to something?

Its very different. Mystical experiences have qualitative similarities across cultures and throughout the ages. I have had mystical experiences I know what they are like. So far everything I have experienced in those states is completely explainable using modern neuroscience. There is nothing contradicting about having an experience of feeling one with your surroundings and how modern neuroscience explains how the brain actively builds boundry's between your perception of yourself and the outside world. If that perception fades out of your immediate conscious experience you have an experience of being one with everything around you. It makes total sense. This is a testable prediction. I don't think its ever been tested but it can be tested using scientific methods.

Is it testable? If so why hasn't anyone done it, as it would provide sound scientific proof of the nature of these experiences? I don't believe it is testable, as these experiences are subjective, and defy objective methodoligies for quantifying them. You keep saying that they are completely explainable from moden neuroscience, but have provided no evidence. I do not think they are explainable, otherwise they would have been explained! Neuroscience cannot explain any subjective experience, period.

If I offer an explanation that lets say when I have this experience that my consciousness really is spewing across the galaxies then my consciousness moves faster then the speed of light and my consciousness doesn't require my body to experience anything. This violates the laws of nature it also is a contradictory conclusion. Our consciousness requires sensory input how can I have sensory input from galaxies so far away?

Consciousness does not need sensory input. Sensory deprivation tanks are the perfect example. If nonlocality is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics, M Theory, then your consciousness experincing a galaxy far aways makes perfect sense. There are perfectly rational explanations for this backed up by current scientific theories.

Of course the mystics realized this. So they came up with an explanation. That everything is a manifestation of consciousness. Its a reasonable prediction and hypothesis. But it has fundamental gaps. How does consciousness exist without an objective world? How does consciousness make the world do what it does? If conscious perception really dictates everything why can't I just fly if I think hard enough about it? There are too many gaps to get into right away but those are just some that come off the top of my head.

You are just making silly points here. You are inflating the argument, and making a straw man argument as well. No one has said that believing consciousness is the basis of existence gives one supernatural powers. There are still laws by which physical matter must adhere, and to answer some of your questions I would have to claim knowledge of the origin of existence or the mind of god, neither of which I or anyone else is capable of doing.

Knowledge about mystical experiences can do the same but without science we can never know what causes them to happen and if they are real or not. I think science has already provided enough evidence to show they are most definitely not real. Although conclusive studies should be done on this subject many people are interested in it. I hope it will be last nail in the board closing the gates to superstition and the denial of reason.

You claimed two paragraphs up that science can explain mystical experiences, that they are testable, yet they have never been tested. How in the world will science ever conclusively prove if a subjective experience is real or not? What is the basis for measurement, what instruments will be used, how will it prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I experience in my consciousness is real or not? You are making an appeal to the future argument again, and as such, it is not a valid basis for a positiion.

I guess I have to say again, I am not arguing against science. I like science, it does wonderful things to improve my life, increase my understanding. But you continue to make arguments on a faulty basis, saying you have proof when you have none. Saying that in the future all will be known, which you cannot possibly know. Your logic fails all over the place. I am NOT anti-science, but rather arguing that it CANNOT know everything, and cannot explain in the slightest what subjective experience is, period.

Higher vibrational frequency of matter. What does that mean? How is the matter vibrating? What causes higher frequencies of matter to generate consciousness? Higher frequencies of lets use electromagnetic radiation for example just means it has more energy. High frequency electromagnetic radiation is rather dangerous. We have an atmosphere to protect us from such things. We use such things to make x-ray images.

One word. CYMATICS. Everything in existence, what we see (and don't see) are waves/vibrations. This is a scientifically proven fact. I suggest you familiarize yoruself with it.

Anyway the point is even if there are more dimension what makes you think that living creatures reside in them? What makes you think our consciousness has anything to do with them? We don't need string theory to explain why people see little green men when they are high. Maybe at the very end when we know everything about the brain we will come to realize something is missing. If that something is extra dimensions or whatever then ok then it starts to be a resonable proposal. But that hasn't happened yet and explanations of mystical experience doesn't require it. If it does then formulate a theory. I think most mystics don't want to formulate a theory because they can't or they are afraid of losing their power.

Mystics who formulate a theory in order to gain power over others are not true mystics, they are charlatans and should be treated as such. I for one would welcome a scientific explanation for anything we have been discussing. But it does not exist, there is no proof, there are no formulated theories as to why I feel there is something more to life than a simplistic materialist perspective.

I personally think creatures reside in them because I have had contact with a higher dimensional aspect of myself, in dreams, in meditation, and in psychedelic experiences. I have had memories of past lives, remembered what I came here to do, awoken to my true nature. I have had a meditative near death experience myself. I have no idea if my body was in physical danger (I was lying in a lounge chair), but my consciousness was transported to a waiting room made of multicolored light and inhabited by beings of such immense beauty it was difficult to look at them they were so radiant. I was given the choice to end my current incarnation then and there if I had wanted to. I choose not to at that time because I was travelling overseas and it would have ruined the trip for the people I was with.

I cannot prove these experiences to anyone, they are mine subjectively. I rarely bring them up or talk about them as the vast majority of people do not understand or can even conceptualize about what I have experienced. Could it be some form of psychosis? Sure, I cannot rule out that possibility, but that is not what the experiences have lead me to believe. Does it diminish my life in any way? No it doesn't, and in fact has made my life and journey here exponentially better. I seek no power over others, just the power to understand myself. Do I believe that I can convince anyone that my point of view is the right or only way? Of course not, I wouldn't even try. Do not believe me or anyone else, find your own truth.

But I can guarantee you, there are others here who understand what I am saying, it will resonate with them...

Near death experiences are explaniable by science. Do you want more details?

Yes, I would like more details. You have stated this before, and I would like some sort of proof to back up your claim. I agree with you, that some near death experience could have a scientific explanaion, but not all of them, and there are commonalities of experience across every demographic you can think of that cannot be explained in any way by science except by the absurd conclusion that their brains are all exactly the same in every detail.

Hypnotic past life regression is better explained by psychology but it still has of course a neurological origin. One explanation that has been put forth for such things is false memories. People can be induced to have false memories while under hypnosis. I haven't looked into this as much as NDE's but I suspect that others have looked into it and concluded that its not because we actually have past lives.

That is one explanation. It is refuted by stuides which were done by experts in this field who know the difference betwen inducing fake memories and not. These researchers did so explicitly aware to not plant false memories. The level of detail of past life memories, down to clothing, utensils, and even speaking dead languages gives creedence to something more going on than false memories. People recall things they could not possibly know, give details about things which they could not possibly have knowledge of. When regressed to the space "in between incarnations" they give an almost exact description of that experienced by people having near death experiences. This past life regression was also done on people of just about every demographic. The similarities cannot be dismissed so easily.

Sure there are examples of religion being used for the general good but that good does not come without a price. Look at the catholic church it goes and does so called wonderful things in Africa while at the same time telling uneducated people that condoms are bad. I wonder how many thousands of people are dieing right now as a direct result of such stupid and deceptive policies?

You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sometimes it comes with a price, often times not. To say that all religion, all thoughout history in every instance is bad, just cannot be supported logically or factually.

I don't think religion can ever be used properly because of its very nature. It is built on lies so what truth can there be in it?

Because there is some truth to it. If it were built on 100% lies, people would see through it too easily. There is some truth mixed in with the falsehood, enough to give people a reason to believe, while still creating a control structure.

First of all its so easy for us with our fed bellies and electricity to take fossil fuels for granted. Our society advanced because of them. They directly feed billions of people. If we never developed fossil fuels none of us would be alive right now. I think technology deserves more respect then most people are willing to give it. If you don't like technology turn off your computer throw it out the window, leave your house, throw away all your money, and go have fun trying to survive in the woods. It can and has been done but mostly people come back to society after a while.

People were fed before fossil fuels came along. Electricity was used before fossil fuels came along and is not depedent upon them. Fossil fuels allowed the expansion of our population to unsustainable levels. Engines run fine off of vegetable oil, the choice was made earlier last century to use fossil fuels because they were cheaper, not because it was the only medium for running our machines. If we had not developed fossil fuels, many of us would still be alive, and the world would be a much better place, industry would still have progressed, society would still have moved forward. But there would be far less pollution of our atmosphere, our oceans, our rivers, our land. Population would probablly have been less, and progressed in a more harmonious way with the natural environment, and not outstripped the ability of the earth to support us.

Without fossil fuels, we would still have electricity, computers, televisions, all the distractions of life. I wouldn't have my home? Were homes invented in the 20th century? Hmm, shelter, what an amazingly new concept! Why throw away money? That has nothing to do with technology, it is a social construct.

Science has pushed society to great heights in terms of medicine, food, and generally improving the quality of life. That doesn't mean all problems have been or ever will be solved but it certainly has offered great potential for improvement of billions of peoples lives.

It has, but it has also created disease, poverty, gas chambers, conventional, biological and nuclear weapons. I agree with you, it has not solved all the problems and it has improved the lives of billions of people. It could also mean the end of life for billions of people.

Its not science digging us into a ditch its stupid people using certain aspects of science to their advantage. Most of those people who are responsible for the widespread destruction or denial of the danger are religious. Look at the religious conservatives in the U.S. Look at Islam. Look at Israel. Look at the fighting in the Balkans. Look at the tension in Europe between its native and immigrant populations. Look at the militaristic worship of communist ideology in Asia. Except communism (although its on par with being as stupid and worshiped) all this conflict has a religion as a driving force or as a justification.

Its not religion digging us into a ditch, its stupid people using certain aspects of religion to their advantage. There are many "scientists" who are in denial of climate change, who the religious listen to in order to formulate their opinions. How are religious people solely responsible for the widespread destruction? What in the world does Islam have to do with this? Or the Isralies? If you think the Arab/Israeli conflict is solely about religion, you are gravely mistaken, and have not studied histroy well enough. You are talking in absolutes. That is an untenable position, and based on your subjective value judgements. You have no right to judge, period.

Are corporations religious? They are the single most destructive force on this planet, and they got that way because of technology.

Technology separates us from nature, separates us from what we are, an integral part of the ecosystem of this planet. The earth is no longer our home, it is a tool to be used, exploited. We are the only species on this planet who is disharmonious with our environment. We weren't always that way, but technology has allowed us to become so. Technology is great, it allows us to do wonderous things, improve the lives of billions. It is also our greatest threat, as it is making us destroy the one and only home we have. There is a happy medium somewhere, I pray we can find it before it is too late.

To paraphrase Carl Sagan: Science is a candle in the dark.

One cannot have light without the dark.

 

[DOS]

In that regard I agree very much.

If people really want to prevent excess carbon emissions its best to just keep reusing old cars until they are run into the ground. The amount of carbon emissions to make a new car is more then running an old crappy car for a few extra years.

I do think we need to kick the oil addiction but yea its going to be tough. Petrochemicals are just so damn handy and easy to work with. But as they get rarer and rarer there will be no choice.

Good point, people don't think about the emissions from car manufacturing. Incredible...We actually agree on something!!!:d I've said everything I can in this thread so I'll let you and Saidin battle it out for eternity. Have fun!

 

[jamie]

Obviousily science cannot explain everything right now...not at all..that is completely rediculous and naive in the face of history...100 years ago scientists though they could explain everything as well, and 100 years before that...science is not a complete, closed door dicipline...it is constantly expanding the parameters of which define what is scientific truth...

Is there a difference between a full on fudamentalist scientist and fundamentalist religous nut??..not really. Both are so damn close minded they can't see out of the box they closed themselves up within.

"Is there anything?" ...

Well of course there is!! What kind of a question is that??!! Even nothing is something..hence the "thing" at the end of no-thing! It has a context..things that dont exist(what does that even mean?) have no context..

But I doubt anyone here can really define that "thing"...

Mystical experiences, weather a part of the brain or not encompass more than just a feeling of unity with ones surroundings...why teh hell would we have a part of our brain dedicated to contact with alien beings we couldnt have possibly imagained on planets we have never been to?? I am not saying it's not possible but you need to at least back it up with some sort of evolutionary purpose...and I just dont see it..not all of these things seem to tell us things relevant to us..

Neurological noice and disruption can account for some aspects of the psychedelc experience sure, but then there are those other parts that dont seem like neuro-fuck ups at all..

And then there are peopel who have pre cog dreams.. are they all lying??

my own mother had a dream about my brothers birth, before he was born. She did not know the sex..and in the dream he was a boy..he was born suffocating becasue the unbilical chord was wrapped around his neck and they took him away instantly and put him in a incubator..he almost died..

THAT EXACT THING HAPPENED WHEN HE WAS BORN..even my father remembers mymother telling him of the dream before his birth..I can't prove this to anyone nor do I really care to but I believe them..they have no reason to lie. Thinking you can explain away everything from our tiny little puny vantage point is stupid and arrogant.

These threads make me laugh because everyone gets so bent out of shape(me included) over something that is beyond us..

 

[burnt]

I will continue this discussion but only in the spirituality materialism thread becasue I think I got off topic from what the original author intended and its time consuming to type very similar explanations for things in two threads at the same time.