Professor Tart's Latest Book: The End of Materialism

[Dorge]

lol..
you are a funny guy full of assumptions burnt...
not to mention i feel quite a bit anger and hate... which i am sure you will either create a logical argument for or deny and point to me some reason why i am the on thats messed up for thinking so...
all in all you crack me up...
you have so many hang ups. and so little wisdom.. but thats a whole lot of potential... fertile soil...
cheers bruddha..

 

[ibeing897]

Many illusionists in the entertainment industry perform tricks of mindreading and other stuff.
Yet occasionally one of those 'copperfields' claims that what they do is not a trick and that they truly communicate with the spirit world.
And while they perform exactly the same tricks as the guys who don't make such claims, there are always herds of people who believe them.

But why make such a big thing out of a few good con-artists and their followers?

I know that there are places where creationism is tought next to evolution, but i don't see such things as a real threat to science.
Science isn't for the masses.
I would say that this dellusions only inspire children who might become scientists later on, to be more critical. To learn what seperates science and pseudo-science.

You cannot enforce enlightenment upon people. We have been, are and will be always surrounded by lies anyway. The people who emancipated themselves at some moment learn how to see through this. That is what emancipating yourself is all about anyway.

I have to respectfully disagree with this, actually I cant really figure out which direction you're going in, like is it pro science or anti... I don't like the "science isn't for the masses" bit, this feels like a common misconception, it defies logic, because we all do science whether we know we do or not, I actually do believe science [teaching] is for the masses, I think the major pillars of science should be foundation courses for little children, it's like how Einstein said that if a child could not understand it's not right (eh.. or something to that effect)...

I dont believe we should teach children to believe in faith or fiction, it should be understanding and fundamentally appreciating the world for what it really is, but at the same time use it to stimulate imagination, we're not talking about kids not celebrating Christmas, ... sometimes I honestly believe [don't be cynical ] all the worlds problems are caused by the unknown rather than the known, I feel like I'm about to get flamed but yeah, I believe religion and other forms of teaching children to believe in fantasy is what encourages fanaticism, skewed ideals, brainwashing, manipulation of human beings and monopolising the truth by corporations and governments and religions, you name it... and we're all suffering from it, a lot of people walk around basically believing or trusting "higher authorities" for truth, this is probably from evolution, we tend to believe what we're told by people we trust... that's actually correct, you should do that, but the problem is proof, you should do it if you have proof, and science allows you to understand fact from fiction, it's what it's all about.

Also you've got to know what you don't know and a huge amount of people suffer from that problem, they assume they know something and they never ask themselves "wait a minute... why do I know that...?"... because sometimes we "lock" thoughts as facts and never rewind the tape to double check it. If that makes any sense science is the only thing that gets you out of your head.

That's all...

 

[ibeing897]

yeah, I think the greatest trick religion ever pulled was to get people to believe something without any proof, instant brainwashing.

BUT also, sceptics have forgotten that you are suppose to believe people in authority, authority has been trashed by bullshit artists.

being rational and reasonable does not mean not believing anything or not giving anything a chance.

 

[cellux]

yeah, I think the greatest trick religion ever pulled was to get people to believe something without any proof, instant brainwashing.

They believe in it for a reason. For example, people have a deeply-ingrained desire for being loved (having a loving Father/Mother). Or having a connection to something divine that they can appreciate and feel "blessed" in its presence (the spiritual drive). These drives may have a basis in reality (= there is really something which we should strive for), or they may have not (= they are just illusions built-in to improve our chance for survival).

Perhaps science, psychology or psychedelics one day let us have a really close look at these desires, these primary drives. If they turn out to be valid, then by recognizing them as such we get closer to what they mean (we may find God). If they turn out to be invalid, then we become free from a terrible oppression (slavery) which held humanity in a miserable psychological condition for thousands of years.

I understand that some atheists think they have gone through this second epiphany: that they went to the depth of their psyche and uncovered their primary drives as irrational nonsense. But I couldn't do that, therefore I see them with suspicion. When I meet someone who really understands where I'm coming from (I can feel that he/she had seen/experienced the same majesties as I did) and could overcome it, realize that it is an illusion... that's when I will be - probably - converted.

 

[ibeing897]

yeah, I think the greatest trick religion ever pulled was to get people to believe something without any proof, instant brainwashing.

They believe in it for a reason. For example, people have a deeply-ingrained desire for being loved (having a loving Father/Mother). Or having a connection to something divine that they can appreciate and feel "blessed" in its presence (the spiritual drive). These drives may have a basis in reality (= there is really something which we should strive for), or they may have not (= they are just illusions built-in to improve our chance for survival).

Perhaps science, psychology or psychedelics one day let us have a really close look at these desires, these primary drives. If they turn out to be valid, then by recognizing them as such we get closer to what they mean (we may find God). If they turn out to be invalid, then we become free from a terrible oppression (slavery) which held humanity in a miserable psychological condition for thousands of years.

I understand that some atheists think they have gone through this second epiphany: that they went to the depth of their psyche and uncovered their primary drives as irrational nonsense. But I couldn't do that, therefore I see them with suspicion. When I meet someone who really understands where I'm coming from (I can feel that he/she had seen/experienced the same majesties as I did) and could overcome it, realize that it is an illusion... that's when I will be - probably - converted.

yeah, but they believe in those things with no proof... don't forget most of my post was about informing people to ask for proof at an early age, be reasonable from an early age, make your own decisions at an early age... religions removes the ability to make an informed choice... your theory for the desire for love is much better than the divine answer given to most people from birth onwards, they're even told explicitly [in some cases] not to question it.

 

[burnt]

lol..
you are a funny guy full of assumptions burnt...
not to mention i feel quite a bit anger and hate... which i am sure you will either create a logical argument for or deny and point to me some reason why i am the on thats messed up for thinking so...
all in all you crack me up...
you have so many hang ups. and so little wisdom.. but thats a whole lot of potential... fertile soil...
cheers bruddha..

Its an assumption to assume I am full of hate and anger. I am really not. I don't give people undue respect especially if I don't agree with their views or fine them to be dangerous. Oh wait was that too logical?

You can go on believing whatever you want. But don't you see how much you have to deny and ignore to hold onto those beliefs? Its no different then mainstream religion? It seems like you are picking and choosing what you want to believe in.

True wisdom is accepting the truth even if the truth is hard to swallow. Science has shown us the truth that we are not the center of the universe that we will die one day without the universe noticing or caring because the universe doesn't have feelings. Our star will one day explode and if we haven't left this rock we will disappear into the space dust that we came from.

Science is also wise enough to realize that it doesn't have the entire story or that certain aspects of the story could be very wrong. That's true wisdom. Sitting on a mountain and meditating away your ego doesn't change any of that. Having subjective psychedelic experiences where you think god showed you something doesn't change that or make it real. The true Buddha, to use an analogy, understands and can accept what that means. Everything else is just beating around the bush. Its not religion its science.

but yeah, I believe religion and other forms of teaching children to believe in fantasy is what encourages fanaticism, skewed ideals, brainwashing, manipulation of human beings and monopolising the truth by corporations and governments and religions, you name it... and we're all suffering from it, a lot of people walk around basically believing or trusting "higher authorities" for truth, this is probably from evolution, we tend to believe what we're told by people we trust... that's actually correct, you should do that, but the problem is proof, you should do it if you have proof, and science allows you to understand fact from fiction, it's what it's all about.

This is also my concern.

They believe in it for a reason. For example, people have a deeply-ingrained desire for being loved (having a loving Father/Mother). Or having a connection to something divine that they can appreciate and feel "blessed" in its presence (the spiritual drive). These drives may have a basis in reality (= there is really something which we should strive for), or they may have not (= they are just illusions built-in to improve our chance for survival).

Evolutionary biology has already offered explanations why such drives exist and where they come from. It has nothing to do with spirits. Of course some of it is speculation but there is evidence if you look into the history of human beings.

I understand that some atheists think they have gone through this second epiphany: that they went to the depth of their psyche and uncovered their primary drives as irrational nonsense. But I couldn't do that, therefore I see them with suspicion. When I meet someone who really understands where I'm coming from (I can feel that he/she had seen/experienced the same majesties as I did) and could overcome it, realize that it is an illusion... that's when I will be - probably - converted.

Or you have completely deluded yourself just like the Christians? Note I am not saying you are delusional I am just saying the table could easily be turned right around to say the same for those who share your views. Even more so because at least atheists aren't believing in something for which there is no evidence for and that doesn't violate the laws of nature.

 

[polytrip]

Many illusionists in the entertainment industry perform tricks of mindreading and other stuff.
Yet occasionally one of those 'copperfields' claims that what they do is not a trick and that they truly communicate with the spirit world.
And while they perform exactly the same tricks as the guys who don't make such claims, there are always herds of people who believe them.

But why make such a big thing out of a few good con-artists and their followers?

I know that there are places where creationism is tought next to evolution, but i don't see such things as a real threat to science.
Science isn't for the masses.
I would say that this dellusions only inspire children who might become scientists later on, to be more critical. To learn what seperates science and pseudo-science.

You cannot enforce enlightenment upon people. We have been, are and will be always surrounded by lies anyway. The people who emancipated themselves at some moment learn how to see through this. That is what emancipating yourself is all about anyway.

I have to respectfully disagree with this, actually I cant really figure out which direction you're going in, like is it pro science or anti... I don't like the "science isn't for the masses" bit, this feels like a common misconception, it defies logic, because we all do science whether we know we do or not, I actually do believe science [teaching] is for the masses, I think the major pillars of science should be foundation courses for little children, it's like how Einstein said that if a child could not understand it's not right (eh.. or something to that effect)...

I dont believe we should teach children to believe in faith or fiction, it should be understanding and fundamentally appreciating the world for what it really is, but at the same time use it to stimulate imagination, we're not talking about kids not celebrating Christmas, ... sometimes I honestly believe [don't be cynical ] all the worlds problems are caused by the unknown rather than the known, I feel like I'm about to get flamed but yeah, I believe religion and other forms of teaching children to believe in fantasy is what encourages fanaticism, skewed ideals, brainwashing, manipulation of human beings and monopolising the truth by corporations and governments and religions, you name it... and we're all suffering from it, a lot of people walk around basically believing or trusting "higher authorities" for truth, this is probably from evolution, we tend to believe what we're told by people we trust... that's actually correct, you should do that, but the problem is proof, you should do it if you have proof, and science allows you to understand fact from fiction, it's what it's all about.

Also you've got to know what you don't know and a huge amount of people suffer from that problem, they assume they know something and they never ask themselves "wait a minute... why do I know that...?"... because sometimes we "lock" thoughts as facts and never rewind the tape to double check it. If that makes any sense science is the only thing that gets you out of your head.

That's all...

I'm more on burnts side. I'm pro-science. But it's my experience that you just cannot convert people to rationalism. It's a waste of energy.

It sounds elitist, but it's not. There is nothing elitist about aiming for something higher than the masses and accepting that most people just aim lower. Or maybe it is elitistic in some manner. But than you would also have to object that some people want to win olympic medalls while others just see sport as a hobby.

While i was in school, i once asked the teachers if they could teach more in-depth science. So the teachers made a poll and most students where simply against it.
That's one of the personal experiences i have, that made me realize that if you want to gain knowledge, you just have to go after it yourself. And that most people just don't want to look deeper into things.

 

[burnt]

I see what you mean polytrip. Being a science nerd and a scientist professionally I see the lack of interest in science everywhere I go even a general distrust of science. Scientists in popular culture are displayed as evil madmen who make genetic monsters not the hard working disease curing problem solving people that they often are. But I don't think its necessarily because people would rather want to be irrational. I think they are just brought up in a culture where being irrational and stupid is in a way kind of cool. As messed up as that sounds its true. Just look at popular youth culture to see what I mean. Five minutes of MTV should make it very clear. Even channels like the discovery channel now just has shows about cars blowing up and people fishing for crabs and getting throw overboard by vicious storms. Its not educational or really entertaining.

It wasn't always that way. Even if most people were not scientists they could at least appreciate science. The space race got lots of people interested in science because it captured imagination. Popular science writers like Carl Sagan also helped to capture the public's imagination. I think now people have just become so afraid of science that they generally don't like it. People are paranoid about genetically modified organisms, evolution, you name it there is some nut job out there saying its evil and scientists are evil. Unfortunately these people are not regarded as nut jobs they are politicians and policy makers/analysts journalists who should learn to shut the F up about things they don't understand.

 

[ibeing897]

hey polytrip, I dont think sound you sound elitist... I tend to be on burnt's side well... I think it would maybe elitist to attempt covert everyone to rationalism... I still think you should!, I think it's interesting you used the word elitist... because that's kinda what I meant by authority being hijack by assholes... theres nothing wrong with elitism... I like elites !.. I think we should intend to be elite, we should learn to trust in things and learn how to trust authority... learn how to trust the elite, know when someone is more elite than you at a particular subject... know how the tell the difference between fact and faction... science....

When did it become uncool to be elite at something? it's like bullys in highschool who convince the whole school that geeks are bad, jocks are good, when it's a well known fact that the geeks do much better in life than the jocks... people need to known what they don't know.

I think we shouldn't stop trying to encourage rationalism, I know you can't make someone wake up and realise they dont know something... but it can happen in a pro-active way... like I said before though, it's already happening, there is definitely a second renaissance/Zeitgeist shift happening with regards to rationalism and reason... in the last 10 years, there has been more literature, loads more people are a anti-religious these days and loads more people are open to admit it... plus loads of people are starting to live scientific humanist lifestyles.

The only aspects I dont like of this discussion is the shutting off of ideas on the pro science side...I'm willing to believe anything with suitable evidence... I'm just not prepared to act at all on things I a) dont have any evidence to act upon b) no reason to act upon.

 

[ibeing897]

yeah, I think the world is finally starting to wake up to the ills of religious fundamentalism... September 11th followed by 8 years of Christian fundamentalism via bush is enough to make MOST people wake up and hopefully people will start waking up more and more via the self-education of the net... people seriously need classes at an early age about learning bs science from good science... I've said this a few times, but I'm so surprised that most people don't realise humans have a tried and tested tool for figuring out bullshit... most people think they always have to live a world of quasi-theory.

 

[ibeing897]

I don’t believe in ESP, Telekinesis, Ghosts, Channeling, etc… But I am open to being wrong about it. I just haven’t seen enough evidence to prove conclusively that any of that stuff is real. And until I do I must remain a skeptic. However, I also do not associate any of that stuff with spirituality either.

I like your post... yeah, you nailed it, the common misconception with science is that it is used to prove truth, it is, but it does it backwards via disapproval... so if I make a theory (like say Darwin's theory of evolution), that theory holds true (true as true can be, useful) until the theory is disproved, the "theory" of evolution, is not "just a theory" (how many times have you heard that), it's a theory that's never been disproved and that's what makes it "true"... and if there is just one aspect of the theory that is incorrect, then it's an incorrect theory or a sub-set of a greater theory (like relativity and quantum physics)... yeah, in a way science deduces the truth by brute force selection of facts that counter act other facts.

 

[ibeing897]

actually just think about that for a second... the chair I'm sitting on, it's only a chair "in theory" but there is nothing to tell me that theory is incorrect, for all intent and purposes I should believe this "theory"... if I want to sit down

 

[ibeing897]

mmmm..... I'll have to think about that one... I mean I don't think that's faith... because I know something even if that something is nothing... it's like binary information or the guess who game... where you know which face you have by deduction.

 

[ibeing897]

ahh you edited!!!... ya, I think that's taking faith too far... I mean, I think we take "faith" on face value, it is exactly what it says on the tin... believing in something for a reason, but that reason may be invalid due to poor science...

 

[ibeing897]

My point is that technically they are both unproven though. But with scientific knowledge there is a sort of faith in the belief that new information will not overturn the current understanding. This is what people seem to be expressing when they say something like the "theory" of evolution, is not "just a theory"

Oh I have to disagree with this bit... no good scientist has faith that his/her understanding wont be overturned.. most actually begin working on overturning their own work straight away... case in points Einstein & Hawking... both understood that their theories were merely subsets and both fundamentally knew their theories didn't encompass enough... I would bet some scientists believe they may be overturning forever as well (constant adaptation via infinity)... faith in of itself is not a bad thing... I believe instinct is a form of faith in your own abilities... I also believe in a constantly changing mind...

You should have faith in things with more evidence and less faith in things with less evidence...

I have faith in the universe, it's not spiritual but it's the same feeling, I have faith that the universe is amazing because I have a whole universe of evidence.

 

[polytrip]

The so-called induction-problem is a bit of a theoretical problem. It can not serve the sceptic in arguments against science.

The scottish philosopher david hume introduced this problem to proof the superiority of empirism over rationalism.
The thing is that empirism and rationalism are more intertwined then most people tend to think.
We don't exactly know how knowledge and reason devellop in a human mind. But neuropsychologically, you can clearly say that it occurs through interaction between both. There are impulses that trigger innate processes, wich means that perception occurs through inborn capacities to interpret input, but that at the same time these capacities are fed with perceptions.

But even besides the neuropsychological perspective we could keep asking ourselves where our knowledge comes from.
The whole point is that you could keep on asking until you come at a point where you just don't know.
But when you're at that point, theoretically you could still play the sceptic card, but not without throwing almost everything you know overboard.
Once you've reached that point, you've stumbled upon knowledge that is so basic, that, if you're realy sceptical, you would have to accept that almost anything that you DO agree on, is bullshit two.

My argument basically comes down to this..If you basically agree that your sitting behind a screen reading this, you have already implicitely agreed on so many basic things, that you no longer can play the sceptic card of hume's induction-problem.

 

[Dorge]

"You can go on believing whatever you want. But don't you see how much you have to deny and ignore to hold onto those beliefs? Its no different then mainstream religion? It seems like you are picking and choosing what you want to believe in."

more bold assumptions...
i learned that you're experiences are limited by what you believe and disbelieve... so the goal is to believe and disbelieve in the same things with equality until you just know... and even then what you know can be altered and changed...

i have experienced lots of supernatural things, esp to just name a few... and on a regular basis... do i claim like you to be able to tell some one else what ti is or if its real or not... no... thats your hubris not mine...

 

[burnt]

i have experienced lots of supernatural things, esp to just name a few... and on a regular basis... do i claim like you to be able to tell some one else what ti is or if its real or not... no... thats your hubris not mine...

I have experienced many things as well that could be looked at as supernatural. But it does help to take a careful look at what one experiences and what others experience to better understand what really happen. That can and often is done. When its done nothing points to the supernatural. That's all I am really saying. I can go into more detailed analysis and explanations later.

I'll get back to this discussion in few days :d

 

[۩]

consciousness is very sophisticated technology...
many humans think that all of this biology is Analog
when in reality we are far more advanced and alien than most can even fathom.

we are all connected to this thing that is hyperspace, whether you believe it or not,
(spice=crystal essence of all beings - thank ya dorge)
there are many of us who wander this Earth with proof lodged in neurological memory
like some sacred lockets of truth constantly shining reminding us of our true nature.

You want proof? The trick is you really have to want it. Enough to figure out how to get it.
I think the ones who don't // can't understand are the ones who also don't really want proof, they want proof that there is no proof.
Funny cycles spiraling off into beautiful symphonic melodies of light . .

..Coming back to the thread I can offer a hint: Focus. See ya.

 

[burnt]

we are all connected to this thing that is hyperspace, whether you believe it or not,
(spice=crystal essence of all beings - thank ya dorge)

Sure we could agree on that but I happen to think hyperspace is an aspect of our consciousness gone haywire with psychedelic drugs. Its also an aspect of how our consciousness is built. DMT also if it really is a neurotransmitter (which all evidence points to) it is most likely involved in building our perceptions. So in a sense we are all connected to dmt (plus every other neurotransmitters) making us who we are. But there is nothing magical about that its just the way we evolved.

You want proof? The trick is you really have to want it. Enough to figure out how to get it.

Going into a psychedelic experience with a preconceived notion about what kind of truth you want will give you that result whether or not that result is true. Psychedelics have an intense power to confirm things you want to believe in. They can also do the exact opposite.