The Improbability of Hyperspace

[Citta]

This is not the proper thread necessarily to debate this point. But while we are at it, what you have said amounts to agreeing with me whether you see it or not.

Fact is, the practitioners of science can be dogmatic, evangelical, and closed minded to evidence.

The same way the practitioners of religion can. It is intellectually self-serving to talk about science in the abstract purity of its ideal while only dealing with religion in its base outward manifestations. Neither science, nor religion actually exist in their ideal state... generally.

The point here is that science and religion are very different in their fundamental characteristics, even though either one might manifest itself differently in its practitioners. Therefore I don't really see how the fact that practitioners of science might act irrational has any impliciations for science, or the scientific method, itself. Discussing practitioners of science and religion is another debate altogether.

Ben Franklin, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci, Rene Descares... and nearly every great practitioner of early science were also mystics and spiritualists. Your vitriol for the supernatural can be a bit blinding. Much like the fundamentalist religious believers can be blind to the truths in scientific inquiry.

That practitioners, even how much of an intellectual giant they have been, have been religious in some way has nothing to do with science itself, or whether or not the phenomena they believe in actually exist. This would be equavelent to saying that the fact that your plumber is a muslim somehow implies that him fixing your toilet has any bearings on whether or not Allah exists. Clearly this is not the case...

As much as you might hate the notion of non-physical realities and other such things, there is absolutely nothing in science to disprove such beliefs. Science is agnostic... not atheistic.

Well, a hypotheses of the existence of something paranormal is, as you rightly point out further down in your post, an unfalsifiable hypotheses, so the lack of evidence in this area doesn't mean anything. These hypotheses are formulated in a way that makes it logically impossible to disprove them. Therefore, the lack of unambiguous evidence simply has absolutely nothing to do with the likelihood of these phenomena, and arguments like the one you're serving here are both devoid of value and meaning. You can, for example, change the semantic content of the hypotheses to something like "I turn into a pink goblin while I sleep when nobody is around to see it". This is impossible to disprove, but this impossibility doesn't say anything at all about the likelihood of me actually turning into a pink goblin while I sleep. So again, your argument is meaningless, has no value and is in argumentive terms empty.

1) In your opinion. Science assumes a great many things which it can not prove. Let's start with the objective existence of a material reality in the first place.

This is a classic I have heard before. However, is this really the case? Can you supply me with more spesific cases that supports this statement? Furthermore, that science requires the objective existence of a material reality is simply not true. Science is both open to and perfectly able to handle that something might be immaterial, it's just that there is no evidence to support it. If someone for example could provide inambiguous evidence for telepathy, science would have no problem with handling this. Science goes where the evidence is, nothing more.

There is no good reason to assume that there is no objective material reality of some sort - not even appeal to the brain-in-a-vat-scenario would justify this, because the brain must exist in something and receive inputs from a source outside of itself. One should also note that this hypotheses most likely is falsifiable; if I could suddenly move mountains with my thoughts or something incredible like that, this would dramatically create holes in the original hypotheses of an objective material reality. No such evidence exists, I am afraid.

That the universe is objective just means that its existence is independent of the subjective thoughts a mind might have about it, while a claim that the universe is subjective means that there are no objective truths. This would, for example, imply that a person could walk through a brick wall because this wall wouldn't need to exist for this person, but no such thing has ever happened and is likely not to ever occur. As a last note, claiming that there are no objective truths is absurd, because this argument already presumes that there are objective truths, and thus you are serving a contradiction.

2) Science (as well) has plenty of articles of faith that Religion can do without. The idea that consciousness is an accident of matter, for example. In Religion, what brings one to tears and makes one break down in joy is better than what makes most people yawn or fall asleep. When something truly amazing happens, even most scientists will murmur "Oh my G*d!"

This is absurd. The two claims "consciousness creates matter" and "matter creates consciousness" does not, in isolation, require a different amount of belief. However, the last statement has a towering amount of evidence to support it, while the other has not, thus it is more reasonable to believe in the second than in the first. That consciousness is created by matter is a perfectly falsifiable hypotheses that we trust, because there is nothing there to suggest its wrong. It is also important to remember that the one that claims consciousness creates matter has the burden of proof on his/her head, not the other way around.

And again, science does not require that consciousness is created by matter at all, as it in principle could handle the opposite - it's just (again) that no evidence supports this, and science goes in the direction of evidence.

3) Science has a pretty outstanding faith-based immunity to criticism and scrutiny as well. People tend to believe what scientists say simply by virtue of their being scientists.

This is a gross misunderstanding of science, because science works in the opposite way. One does not believe in someone just because they are scientists, but one believes what they have to say with a certain reservation if it is based in solid research, thourough empiricism, peer review and has a broad support from other, independent scientists with knowledge of the spesific subject. This method is one of the reasons that you can sit on your computer and communicate with me, having this discussion. It is both a shame and an embarassment that while you snort at the scientific method in this manner, you are at the same time daily using the complicated technology that the scientific method made possible for you.

4) Science believes blindly in what it doesn't bother to prove. Dark Matter, Singularites, Super Strings, Higgs-Boson, that the Universe is a random accident... that things actually exist when there is no one around to observe them. Religion accepts only what it can find evidence for in the human spirit, and this is conditioned only upon the quality and quantity of the evidence available to the individuals who have experienced them for themselves (love, bliss, transcendental experiences, OOBEs, precognition, miracles, psychic phenomena etc.).

Science doesn't believe blindly in anything. Believing blindly means believing without evidence, often despite evidence for the contrary, and this is exactly what science is not about doing. Dark matter is not at all without evidence, it's just that we can't observe it directly (because it does not radiate light). I will not go through the evidence for the existence of dark matter, but I can point you to this thread, where I try to explain dark matter and why it must exist in the bottom post. You can also read about this at Wikipedia.

As for singularities, most scientists actually don't believe them to exist (quantum mechanics doesn't let a particle take any less space than its own wavelength). If you talk about black holes, these are observed through gravity-lensing and have a very solid theoretical foundation. Superstrings is not something serious scientists believe in blindly, it's just a possible explanation with a lot of uncertainty, while also being pretty controversial. The Higgs-Boson is also believed in with a solid foundation, as there are many reasons for why it must exist. If we believed in it blindly, billions of dollars wouldn't be put to waste in the search for it at CERN. That the universe started as a random event is also believed with solid foundation, and those who claim otherwise have the burden of proof (also, occam's razor is relevant here). Science would also be able to handle this if someone would provide solid evidence for the claim that the universe was created by something else than a random event.

That something stops existing because conscious creatures move their focus would violate the law of energy conservation and evolution for example, and would lead to absurd conclusions. There is no reason to believe that the existence of something is dependent on observation (Occam's razor is relevant here too).

In short, science does not believe blindly in any of these things, and nothing else either. It's absurd religious quackery to claim otherwise.

Science is not the only self-correcting, revisionary, fallible inquiry into truth.

Yes, it is. No other knowledge system has provided its own set of credentials for approximating truth the way science has. Nature is mysterious, and science has proven itself to be the more correct and better method to approximate truths about her.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

The point here is that science and religion are very different in their fundamental characteristics, even though either one might manifest itself differently in its practitioners. Therefore I don't really see how the fact that practitioners of science might act irrational has any impliciations for science, or the scientific method, itself. Discussing practitioners of science and religion is another debate altogether.

While I agree with you about practitioners, the idea that you can take a methodology like what we are calling "science" and compare it to a thousand different mystical belief systems and lump them together as "religion" is a bit of a red herring.

Mysticism tends to exist on the fringes of (and completely outside of) religion. Mystics go where their own experiences lead them. Much the same way that you say science goes where the evidence is. The main difference is that mystics have experiences that they can either not share (or don't care to share) with the uninitiated.

[again: If you could perform telepathy would you really offer yourself up as a lab rat, or would you just go around and enjoy the massive benefits of being able to do something that others think is impossible?]

I do not want to be the voice against science. As I have stated many times, I am a lover of science. You can try and paint me as the "straw man" to polarize your argument, but it has no traction. I have studied science voraciously for decades and never once stated that I don't recognize the magic in it.

This method is one of the reasons that you can sit on your computer and communicate with me, having this discussion. It is both a shame and an embarassment that while you snort at the scientific method in this manner, you are at the same time daily using the complicated technology that the scientific method made possible for you.

Snort? SWIM might insufflate any number of interesting alkaloids... but what we are doing here is not the sport of porcine mammals.

Well, a hypotheses of the existence of something paranormal is, as you rightly point out further down in your post, an unfalsifiable hypotheses, so the lack of evidence in this area doesn't mean anything. These hypotheses are formulated in a way that makes it logically impossible to disprove them. Therefore, the lack of unambiguous evidence simply has absolutely nothing to do with the likelihood of these phenomena, and arguments like the one you're serving here are both devoid of value and meaning. You can, for example, change the semantic content of the hypotheses to something like "I turn into a pink goblin while I sleep when nobody is around to see it". This is impossible to disprove, but this impossibility doesn't say anything at all about the likelihood of me actually turning into a pink goblin while I sleep. So again, your argument is meaningless, has no value and is in argumentive terms empty.

I think you don't have the same concept of "value and meaning" as I have. I find a lot of value and meaning in abstractions, fantasizing, and even outright fiction.

The fact that some of us here have experiences which lead us to conclusions that you can not get to, is not the same as us trying to prove or validate our conjectures. You will notice that those of us here who have taken mystical stances are usually very careful to make it clear that these are our subjective findings.

I have seen no one here trying to assert that the mystical or consciousness-based worldview is objectively true for all people... let alone force anyone to adopt it. It simply dovetails nicely with the experiences of those of us who have significant Hyperspace experience. It is not inconceivable, illogical, or anti-science to recognize that one is having transpersonal, transtemporal, mystical, spiritual, or other experiences which don't fit well into a Scientific Materialist Worldview.

The fact that you conflate science (the methodology) with the specific subset of philosophical angles we have dubbed "Scientific Materialism," is misleading.

Science is both open to and perfectly able to handle that something might be immaterial, it's just that there is no evidence to support it. If someone for example could provide inambiguous evidence for telepathy, science would have no problem with handling this. Science goes where the evidence is, nothing more.

Science may be able to handle it, but could you?

Hehehe.

I have experienced telepathy. And thus, it is not only possible... but part of my reality. As much as the internet you are so proud of....

Maybe more so.

But, again, I could care less if you believe me. In fact, I thoroughly expect you to disbelieve me. That shows you are a critical thinker. One day you might experience it yourself... then you can decide what to do with that experience.

There is no good reason to assume that there is no objective material reality of some sort - not even appeal to the brain-in-a-vat-scenario would justify this, because the brain must exist in something and receive inputs from a source outside of itself. One should also note that this hypotheses most likely is falsifiable; if I could suddenly move mountains with my thoughts or something incredible like that, this would dramatically create holes in the original hypotheses of an objective material reality. No such evidence exists, I am afraid.

That the universe is objective just means that its existence is independent of the subjective thoughts a mind might have about it, while a claim that the universe is subjective means that there are no objective truths. This would, for example, imply that a person could walk through a brick wall because this wall wouldn't need to exist for this person, but no such thing has ever happened and is likely not to ever occur. As a last note, claiming that there are no objective truths is absurd, because this argument already presumes that there are objective truths, and thus you are serving a contradiction.

I move mountains with my thoughts regularly. I am a very adept practitioner of Lucid Dreaming.

The two claims "consciousness creates matter" and "matter creates consciousness" does not, in isolation, require a different amount of belief. However, the last statement has a towering amount of evidence to support it, while the other has not, thus it is more reasonable to believe in the second than in the first. That consciousness is created by matter is a perfectly falsifiable hypotheses that we trust, because there is nothing there to suggest its wrong. It is also important to remember that the one that claims consciousness creates matter has the burden of proof on his/her head, not the other way around.

And again, science does not require that consciousness is created by matter at all, as it in principle could handle the opposite - it's just (again) that no evidence supports this, and science goes in the direction of evidence.

Once again.... I couldn't care less what you believe. I am not an evangelist. I have no stake in convincing people like you that people like me can transcend this physical world and spend ages exploring astral and causal realms. Why would I?

You have your towering "evidence" which is, in actuality, mostly books and packets of digital information you have perused. I have my "experience" which I regard more highly than the evidence of the sort you are enamored of. Don't get me wrong. I also read books. I also read peer-reviewed journals, and am actually extremely pragmatic. The difference between us is that I can astral project, lucid dream, and engage in a number of arts that you are simply unskilled in.

One does not believe in someone just because they are scientists, but one believes what they have to say with a certain reservation if it is based in solid research, thourough empiricism, peer review and has a broad support from other, independent scientists with knowledge of the spesific subject.

People often do believe white-coats simply by virtue of their degrees. I spent a loooong time at my University. I know how what we call our collective "knowledge" is formulated and attributed based on such things as tenure, funding, and review.

Thorough empiricism is a fantasy.

Plenty of things that have been taught as facts by professors, TA's, and Grad Students... have since been revealed to be less than factual.

[re: Dark Matter, Singularities, Higgs-Boson et al.]

I will not get into the debate about the "must exist because our theories say so" model of belief. Let's just say that no one has ever touched Dark Matter. A lot of physicists I know would actually rather that it just went away... except that it is necessary to balance their equations.

Science would also be able to handle this if someone would provide solid evidence for the claim that the universe was created by something else than a random event.

They would have to, wouldn't they?

No other knowledge system has provided its own set of credentials for approximating truth the way science has. Nature is mysterious, and science has proven itself to be the more correct and better method to approximate truths about her.

That you know of.

Please tell me you don't imagine your 21st Century Human Science to be the end-all-be-all of knowledge?

I personally love me some absurd religious quackery. It goes down nice with entheogenic dissociative gamboling.

Perhaps one day, the entities in your neck of the Omniversal Woods will see fit to blow your mind utterly, and show you some of what they have shown me... maybe not. But I will take their science over yours any day of the week.

 

[Tek]

But, again, I could care less if you believe me. In fact, I thoroughly expect you to disbelieve me. That shows you are a critical thinker. One day you might experience it yourself... then you can decide what to do with that experience.

Perhaps one day, the entities in your neck of the Omniversal Woods will see fit to blow your mind utterly, and show you some of what they have shown me... maybe not. But I will take their science over yours any day of the week.

^ This.

I gave up trying to prove the existence of hyperspace a long time ago. The first rule I was ever taught by the brings from hyperspace is not to try and describe it. After breaking that rule a thousand and one times, literally stumbling over my tongue to try and find a way to put it into words, I finally realized the truth in that first message. Indeed, it became obvious to me that that's exactly why it had been my first lesson. You CANNOT make ANYONE understand it. It is the ONLY thing that I consider to be absolutely impossible.

I again go back to the concept of love as an analogy appropriate to this debate. Try to explain love, especially motherly love, to someone who has never felt it and you'll arrive at the same paradox. You can use all the words you want: I care for them, I want what's best for them, I get this feeling in my chest when I think about them, etc. What combination of words could you ever come up with that would actually make them understand what your talking about? As an intellectual concept, sure they might be able to grasp at it, but to actually KNOW it, to FEEL what your describing, is just as much of an impossibility as proving hyperspace exists to those who have never experienced it.

I went from a hardcore religious fanatic to an atheistic scientific materialist over the course of my life. I was grounded in my firm knowledge of the material universe and the processes that make it what it is and I accepted my insignificat place in that system. Before that, I was so sure of my belief in the Christian god that I once said a prayer that I would rather god strike me down dead rather then let me lose my faith. After having my psychedelic experience, I see now that I never knew a damn thing about what I was talking about in either regard. Nothing can be known, but that's sort of the beauty of it. Life is a mystery to be experienced, not a riddle to be solved.

Much love brothers and sisters

 

[Citta]

Hyperspace Fool:

By the tone of your post I guess this will boil down to that we will have to agree to disagree, as you really were not coming up with some real arguments to continue the discussion. That is fine. However, it almost seems as if you resort to some kind of final defence mechanism here, unable to tackle the arguments I have presented to you - you are repeatedly refering to how this is your own truth and how you are not interested in convincing anyone bladibla.

In response to this I would just like to add that this in no way establishes either a real argument, nor does it validate your beliefs. It essentially boils down to the meaningless "well, that is just my opinion/belief/whatever". Your entitlement to your own beliefs and opinions has no consequence for the truth of them, as it doesn't establish or justify the validity of them. The individual entitlement to hold a view or a belief is actually completely irrelevant (a form of the non-sequitur fallacy). Of course everyone is entitled to hold any view they wish, but it becomes a fallacy of reason to recruit this entitlement as some kind of evidence in support of the truth of that view.

Again, I guess you are walking down this road to end the debate, and we may very well do so. But you do not stand on firm ground and in intellectual and rational honesty with your position.

Peace.

PS:

Oh, and I have had many crazy experiences while on psychedelics - many of which are similar in nature of some of your own. Initially I held the same beliefs you had, but I understood what they were; simply beliefs without evidence, beliefs based on personal subjective events that couldn't be used to draw firm conclusions about the universe. Interesting subjective events no doubt, and I love them and continue to seek them, but I just don't jump to conclusions based on them, rather I become even more skeptical because I can ingest drugs to see shit. Furthermore, the Universe is mysterious and beautiful enough as it is without dmt entities and classical mystical stuff, and I believe our search for answers is a lot more honest by approximating them through the various disciplines of science rather than just believing in arbitrary things and tripping balls 24/7 :d

 

[tele]

Life is a mystery to be experienced, not a riddle to be solved.

Well sed

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Hyperspace Fool:

By the tone of your post I guess this will boil down to that we will have to agree to disagree, as you really were not coming up with some real arguments to continue the discussion. That is fine. However, it almost seems as if you resort to some kind of final defence mechanism here, unable to tackle the arguments I have presented to you - you are repeatedly refering to how this is your own truth and how you are not interested in convincing anyone bladibla.

In response to this I would just like to add that this in no way establishes either a real argument, nor does it validate your beliefs. It essentially boils down to the meaningless "well, that is just my opinion/belief/whatever". Your entitlement to your own beliefs and opinions has no consequence for the truth of them, as it doesn't establish or justify the validity of them. The individual entitlement to hold a view or a belief is actually completely irrelevant (a form of the non-sequitur fallacy). Of course everyone is entitled to hold any view they wish, but it becomes a fallacy of reason to recruit this entitlement as some kind of evidence in support of the truth of that view.

Again, I guess you are walking down this road to end the debate, and we may very well do so. But you do not stand on firm ground and in intellectual and rational honesty with your position.

Peace.

PS:

Oh, and I have had many crazy experiences while on psychedelics - many of which are similar in nature of some of your own. Initially I held the same beliefs you had, but I understood what they were; simply beliefs without evidence, beliefs based on personal subjective events that couldn't be used to draw firm conclusions about the universe. Interesting subjective events no doubt, and I love them and continue to seek them, but I just don't jump to conclusions based on them, rather I become even more skeptical because I can ingest drugs to see shit. Furthermore, the Universe is mysterious and beautiful enough as it is without dmt entities and classical mystical stuff, and I believe our search for answers is a lot more honest by approximating them through the various disciplines of science rather than just believing in arbitrary things and tripping balls 24/7 :d

Perhaps you are merely willfully disregarding the abundance of posts here or simply like to argue, but I have never said I was trying to make an objective/ scientific case for any mystical experiences. I have never said I am trying to convince you of anything.

I have said it a number of times, but I will say it one last time:

I could care less what you believe.

Defense mechanism? Unable to handle your ridiculous arguments? Ha... You are comical, my friend.

I have not been debating you, but merely reminding you that my opinions and experiences are mine to have. If you want to turn an Op-Ed into an excuse for a defense of your beliefs, then it is you who are engaging in defense mechanisms. Again, it is you who is trying to convert me to your way of thinking. I, couldn't care less what you think.

As for agreeing to disagree, I did that weeks ago... but perhaps you were too obsessed with defending your precious materialism to notice.

The idea that you have had experiences and beliefs that mirror my own strikes me as an impossibility. You may have experienced some crazy sh*t. Nearly everyone who takes entheogens does. But if you could astral project with regularity, were anywhere near my skill in lucid dreaming, or had experienced confirmed shared dreaming, confirmed telepathy, or precognition... and truly been able to confirm the results the way I have... you would not be blathering on about how you couldn't draw firm conclusions, and getting hot and bothered with your "science is king" rant. Really not. (note that I only even referenced mystical experiences above that require no drugs whatsoever)

I am not someone who had some weird trips and misunderstood their meanings, but rather someone who can regularly reproduce things that you have no ability to conceive of. We are not on the same level. I can use my mystical skills to my advantage on a daily basis. You are just a blowhard who doesn't like anything you don't understand.

HF out.

 

[tele]

I can use my mystical skills to my advantage on a daily basis.

May I ask what kind of mystical skills they are?

...And can you teach me?

 

[Citta]

Thanks for all the nice comments about what I am or what I am not, Hyperspace Fool. And your bragging is disgusting and your so called mad skills do not justify or validate your religious and mystical beliefs. But if you want to remain superstitious in spite of the evidence flying (except your own subjective experiences) in the opposite direction, so be it. I hope it makes you a better person =)

This "discussion" is done.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

I can use my mystical skills to my advantage on a daily basis.

May I ask what kind of mystical skills they are?

...And can you teach me?

Sure Tele.

I have mentioned them many times on this thread and others... not as an excuse to show off, but as an indication to those starting out along these lines as to a bit of what is possible. The things I am able to do, transcend even the more amazing things I have said here... and I know quite a few others whose abilities dwarf my own.

I have sought out and trained with masters, shaman, mystics, and wizards of every stripe since a very young age. I met my first bonified Kung Fu master when I was only 4 1/2. Thus, by the time others were just discovering that Chi Kung exists, I had moved on to Shen Kung and could alread see chi. I have been aware of entities since well before I even heard the three letters of wonder D M & T.

I say this because I want to be clear that much of what I can do is the result of decades of dedicated practice. I firmly believe that this inner technology is the birthright of all human beings, but I do not think that the mildly curious will be able to manifest these abilities without help and a very concerted effort.

Even the easier of the techniques and their most basic manifestations are not what anyone would consider easy. Remember how long it took you to learn to walk... how much constant trying and failing you endured before it became doable and finally easy. Well, astral travel makes walking look like breathing.

However, as the various Lucid Dreaming threads here have shown, people who begin the threads with no ability to Lucid Dream are able to assimilate the advice of those of us who can do it... and within a relatively short amount of time have their first lucid dreams. Sky Motion & Pandora are merely two of the most recent initiates to the mysteries of oneirologic exploration.

If you don't lucid dream, I recommend that you start there and develop some of the requisite skills for other abilities in a relatively safe, time dilated, reduced boundaries environment. The keys to most of these things, as well as the only real possessions you can take with you when you travel between worlds.. are:

A) Awareness
B) Focus
C) Intention
D) Willpower

When these mind skills are developed, you will be very surprised at what you can accomplish.

In actuality, Tele, this thread is probably not the correct forum for this discussion. I may start a thread more relevant to the topic at some point. There are many tips and secrets I could impart... and if you go through my numerous posts on this site, you will find quite a few gems tucked here and there already. However, I must say to you in all honesty... you will probably need to do some formal training at some point. Finding masters to instruct you and give you direction is a key that can not be underestimated.

Most masters belong to lineages that stretch back into the hoary mists of time. Unbroken chains of one master to the next for thousands of years... there is serious power in this. You do not have to reinvent the wheel. I would start by taking some introductory courses at all the Kung Fu and Yoga schools in your vicinity... pick the one where the general level of skill is the highest and train your ass off.

And, if you do get reasonably good at lucid dreaming, you will be able to find an array of dream masters to guide you. My greatest teacher to date has always been my own future self. A version of me who has already mastered and transcended this reality... I can not say for sure if he is my "highest" self, but he certainly is well beyond this current version of me in the flow of the 4th dimension.

I wish you the very best on your journey.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Thanks for all the nice comments about what I am or what I am not, Hyperspace Fool.

You're welcome. Any time.

And your bragging is disgusting and your so called mad skills do not justify or validate your religious and mystical beliefs.

Actually, the results of my skills validate them. And if you are disgusted, you must like being disgusted, because you certainly seem to be a glutton for it.

But if you want to remain superstitious in spite of the evidence flying (except your own subjective experiences) in the opposite direction, so be it. I hope it makes you a better person =)

Superstition is believing in things you don't understand. I understand what I do, and can replicate these things easier than I can a back handspring. Your "evidence" is merely faith in books and teachers. My evidence is direct proof... subjective, no doubt, but again and for the last time: I couldn't give two shits in hell what you believe.

So I have no need to try and objectively prove anything to anyone... truthfully, anyone that would subject themselves to someone like you (and your testing) merely to convince your extreme materialist type of something they truly don't want to believe... would actually need to have their head examined.

I am not a faith based religious person. There are things I have proven to myself, and things I have yet to prove. No hope, no faith, no fantasy.

And, by the way... my skills have, in fact, made me a better person... healthier, happier, more well adjusted. So much so, that nearly everyone I know comes to me for advice.

As someone, Citta, who chooses an avatar of a demon disguised as Santa Claus... an image even more disturbingly mean-spirited than the Grinch who stole Christmas... The kind of blackhearted creature who would blow out a babies birthday candles or steal the lolipoops from handicapped kids at Disneyland... it is no surprise that we have opposing opinions on most things. In fact, as an example of contrarian philosophy, it could be rather successful to one's overall happiness to simply take everything you say or do... and do the opposite.

This "discussion" is done.

Hallelujah! Thank the great G*d above and all the Aeons of time and space.

 

[Tek]

I was watching the movie Contact last night and I thought of this thread. Has to be one of my favorite movies, I practically cry at the end of it every time since it strikes so close to home.

I'd recommend anyone who hasn't seen it to watch it. To summarize it briefly, Jody Foster is a hardcore scientist (and an atheist) who eventually receives an alien transmission from deep space. Since this is the biggest discovery mankind has ever known, it has far reaching implications with religious fanatics decrying the message as scientist's attempt to spit in the face of god. Throughout this movie you get to imagine the effects true alien contact would have on the world through the eyes of a logical rationalist.

The message ends up being decoded and its blueprints to build a device that would take one human into deep space, to make first contact. Jody's character ends up being selected for the mission. She gets dropped through this huge energy vortex and gets blasted through a wormhole where she discovers beautys and wonders of the universe that no human ever thought was possible. She cries at one point on this journey to comment 'no words.... there are no words... i can't describe this... beautiful...' (I've come back from hyperspace saying the same thing).

She lands on a planet (in a rather trippy sort of way, watch it and you'll know what I mean) and it's an exact replica of a picture of a beech she drew as a child. A translucent being begins to walk up to her and it changes into an image of her father and it begins to talk like him. It would at first appear that she had died, but her scientist mind cued in and she realized that this very advanced being could read her thoughts and had downloaded her memories (also seems very hyperspace like). The being confirms this to be the case and says 'we thought this would be easier on you'.

They have a conversation where the alien tells her that humans are an odd species, capable of great dreams and horrible nightmares. When Jody is told she needs to return to Earth, she says that people back home will want proof. Who would believe her that she had actually made contact with another race of beings? The alien responded that this is the way it has been done for billions of years (thus uniting religion and science under one banner; our myths were never wrong, just misinterpreted over time).

Back on Earth, Jody passes right through the transport machine and to everyone else who witnessed this event, the experiment looked like it had failed. At a hearing later, Jody recounts her experience in an alien world with a strange being and a United States senator grills her on the facts. He accuses her for not being scientific. As a scientist, how could she expect the populace to just take her word for it? What type of alien would send her back without any proof? Wouldn't occum's razor suggest it was a psychological issue due to the stress of the the experiment?

Being a scientist, Jody has to admit that it was possible she had hallucinated the entire thing. When the senator demands she withdraw her testimony however, she claims she can't. She admits that if she was the one giving the hearing she would respond with the same skepticism and disbelief that they had, but in her heart of hearts she knew what had happened was real.


There is seriously no better example of the impossibility of trying to prove hyperspace than this movie imo. If the real fact of the matter is that contact with the alien other is truly a personal thing, something that cannot be quantized or measured, then it will forever be impossible to prove that hyperspace exists.


Seriously, watch this movie if you haven't.

 

[gibran2]

I haven’t posted for a while on this thread, and I’ve noticed that the topic has drifted a bit, to say the least. To anyone interested, take a look at the first post and “The Debate”. It seems that this thread has become a debate about whether or not hyperspace exists.

There is no scientific proof that hyperspace exists as a place outside of “mind”. But it’s equally true there’s no proof that everyday reality exists as a place outside of mind. Science can’t answer such existential/metaphysical questions. That isn’t what science is used for.

The topic of this thread was directed more to those who claim to know what hyperspace is. Those who claim that their interpretations of the experience are right, and contradictory interpretations are wrong. The fact is, we are probably all wrong. The human mind is not capable of properly interpreting something as profound as the DMT experience.


@ Tek – I agree. Contact is a great movie and teaches us all something about faith, belief, and proof.

 

[Tek]

I had an intuition one time (actually on weed which was odd but this was pretty good weed ) and it came sort of as an epiphany so I wrote it down. The thought was (copied verbatim from my notes):

"I have a filter on and I'm not thinking clearly...

That's really what it's about... something is blocking the fullness of you whether benevelont or malvelonet


doesn't really matter... what's true is that your not thinking to your fullest so nothing you come up with
is going to be 100 percent correct. period."


I still find this to be a telling insight. The fact is, our human brains can't handle all of it, we only get little bits of the big picture. I still don't know why that is, if I had to guess it's to keep it interesting and exciting (cause if you knew everything already what would be the point in an adventure of self-discovery) but sometimes I'm not so sure.

 

[Vodsel]

Timely post, Tek.

Contact is based on a novel by Carl Sagan. And bringing up Carl Sagan in an argument like this one, considering both Citta and Hyperspace Fool have drifted towards ad hominem and are not, imho, adding anything not stated before, seems very apt to me. Like the bright reverse of Godwin's Law.

Sagan was an acknowledged skeptic with a wonderful brain. Wonderful enough to write a novel like Contact. I think the point is, subjectivity is real. Experiences are real. Myths are not made up tales, they are facts of the mind. Hyperspace seems to be a fact of the mind. And in the present time, speculating about the objective, consensual reality of such experiences, the same way we would quantify and describe an electromagnetic field, or the macrocosmic behavior of a rock, takes us to a dead end. And I don't think that implies a meek, conformist maneuver. It just accepts that our current paradigm cannot handle it, and unless we take steps to trascend it, we will run in circles chasing our tail.

The problem with modern science is its largely extended assumption that we understand most of reality. The problem with mysticism and spirituality is an excessive attachment to its own vision of the cosmos. I only see a major common ground: lack of doubt.

Let us be open, and doubt a lot. I don't want answers, I want brave new questions. That's what brought me to psychedelics. And I will sooner or later be wrong just like everyone else, but I honestly think that this mindset will take me there faster. Wherever the place is.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

I was watching the movie Contact last night and I thought of this thread. Has to be one of my favorite movies, I practically cry at the end of it every time since it strikes so close to home.

I had the same experience of that film. Your post resonates with me exactly.

Seriously, watch this movie if you haven't.

What Tek said.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Timely post, Tek.

Contact is based on a novel by Carl Sagan. And bringing up Carl Sagan in an argument like this one, considering both Citta and Hyperspace Fool have drifted towards ad hominem and are not, imho, adding anything not stated before, seems very apt to me. Like the bright reverse of Godwin's Law.

Sagan was an acknowledged skeptic with a wonderful brain. Wonderful enough to write a novel like Contact. I think the point is, subjectivity is real. Experiences are real. Myths are not made up tales, they are facts of the mind. Hyperspace seems to be a fact of the mind. And in the present time, speculating about the objective, consensual reality of such experiences, the same way we would quantify and describe an electromagnetic field, or the macrocosmic behavior of a rock, takes us to a dead end. And I don't think that implies a meek, conformist maneuver. It just accepts that our current paradigm cannot handle it, and unless we take steps to trascend it, we will run in circles chasing our tail.

The problem with modern science is its largely extended assumption that we understand most of reality. The problem with mysticism and spirituality is an excessive attachment to its own vision of the cosmos. I only see a major common ground: lack of doubt.

Let us be open, and doubt a lot. I don't want answers, I want brave new questions. That's what brought me to psychedelics. And I will sooner or later be wrong just like everyone else, but I honestly think that this mindset will take me there faster. Wherever the place is.

Amen.

Too bad this forum doesn't have thumbs up or other ways to affirm what others have said.

Let the brave new questions flow...

 

[Tek]

I had posted this in another thread but it's also our quote of the day at work (it was my turn for a quote ). It's applicable to what were talking about.

"Life is a mystery to be experienced, not a riddle to be solved."

 

[tele]

I was watching the movie Contact last night and I thought of this thread. Has to be one of my favorite movies, I practically cry at the end of it every time since it strikes so close to home.

I had the same experience of that film. Your post resonates with me exactly.

Seriously, watch this movie if you haven't.

What Tek said.

+1. The thing in the movie that makes me wonder is the scale of the "machine" they built to access hyperspace. While we here at the nexus just load our magic pipes for the same(and way more) experiences.

HF, thanks for your reply on your skills, however I didn't quite find what are the actual magical abilities, so to speak?
As what comes to masters, I've talked and walked with 100 or more yogis and gurus in India and couple of them were actually very wise and imparted some very deep information just as speaking of normal affairs, the craziest one probably was worldwide flood in the end of november 2012 and places where to go to be saved(some local himalaya mountains). However, I have been through my "masters" route already and it has given me what I needed, however, now the only teaching master is me and my beloved pipe:wink:
I agree one has to go through the "student" stage at some point, that is, to have a master or guru from whom to get knowledge, but even so, it's not necessary for everyone.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

I haven’t posted for a while on this thread, and I’ve noticed that the topic has drifted a bit, to say the least. To anyone interested, take a look at the first post and “The Debate”. It seems that this thread has become a debate about whether or not hyperspace exists.

There is no scientific proof that hyperspace exists as a place outside of “mind”. But it’s equally true there’s no proof that everyday reality exists as a place outside of mind. Science can’t answer such existential/metaphysical questions. That isn’t what science is used for.

The topic of this thread was directed more to those who claim to know what hyperspace is. Those who claim that their interpretations of the experience are right, and contradictory interpretations are wrong. The fact is, we are probably all wrong. The human mind is not capable of properly interpreting something as profound as the DMT experience.


@ Tek – I agree. Contact is a great movie and teaches us all something about faith, belief, and proof.

Glad to see you again G2. I hope you are well my brother.

The more I analyze this debate I see that it is a false dichotomy emerging between rational scientific materialism and mystical spiritualism.

The way I see it, mystics don't deny science usually, but embrace it and use it for what it can offer. (Even Amazonian shaman have iPhones) It is the scientific materialists who seem to be hell bent on convincing the mystics that their mystical experiences are not real.

Meanwhile, most of us on the transpersonal/ Hyperspatial/ multidimensional tip are not overly interested in trying to convince anyone of anything.

There is a kind of aggressive dogmatism that I have found in numerous such discussions and threads. Those of us whose experiences have gone beyond objectively verifiable scientific boundaries are assaulted with the mean-spirited attempts to get us to admit that we are crazy or that our experiences are worthless. It is odd.

I have never tried to force anyone to believe anything that I put forth. In fact, the sharing of sacred and beautiful wonders with people who only want to assert that such things are merely byproducts of deranged thought processes is a somewhat bizarre and unproductive endeavor.

As mystics throughout time have always discovered. You either know what we are talking about... or you don't. The idea that I have become the voice of anti-science on this thread is weird. I use science all day long. I have been one of science's biggest champions throughout the decades... and as someone who regularly hooks people up to brain machines and is regularly engaged in myriad sorts of techno wizardry... the idea that my mystical abilities make me an enemy of science is laughable.

I will contemplate it further as I go float in a high tech sensory deprivation tank...

 

[Citta]

Hyperspace Fool:

I said the discussion was finished, but I couldn't help myself but to come with a reply to your last reply to me. First of all I am sorry we got out into basically fighting personally against eachother instead of discussing in a balanced and good way as we did earlier. I hope we will not repeat it, and that we can stay away from minor ad hominems in our discussion. It's really no need for it, right? You probably think I'm an ass, but if you knew me in person I am sure you would think otherwise. I don't want any ugly tension between us, so please accept my apologies for any rudeness =)

The reason I debate with you is because I want to show that your beliefs and claims are not unproblematic, and I wish to challenge myself and challenge you to refine and critically examine our thoughts and perspectives (as well as anyone else that reads the debate). And as a student of physics and mathematics I have a tendency to jump into discussions like this.

Now for the sake of the argument;

You can't know whether or not the phenomena you experience actually are real as anything else than hallucinations any more than a schizofrenic person can "know" that his water tap actually screams abusive words when he turns it on. There is no reason to assume that the schizofrenic person is right, and there is no way to assume that you are right. Now, I know you have said you do not care about what others think, but if you don't wish to risk that your convictions fall under the weight of objective evidence, then you don't wish to be taken seriously either.

Furthemore, the brain creates a working model of the universe, a model that need not necessary be correct. This can be very easily verified with a few optical illusions. If there is something one experiences that violates everything we know about the universe, then it is far more likely that the brains model is wrong, than it is that the universe suddenly made an exception.

Have you ever considered the fact that you are simply hallucinating things, Hyperspace Fool? I mean, it is a pretty obvious possibility I think many here don't offer enough thought and consideration. I am not sure myself, and I could be wrong with the assumption, but nevertheless I choose to go where objective evidence leads me, not where my own experiences go, simply because subjective models can be (and so often are) wrong.

You say that you have no faith, no hope, no nothing. But I think you do, because you have faith in that your subjective models under hallucinatory states are correct, and you are totally dismissing other obvious possibilities. I may come off as a guy who dismisses a lot too, but to be quite honest I entertain the possibility standing on your side of the fence as well, but I find it to be extremely unlikely and therefore I generally assume otherwise until presented with evidence of the contrary. This is the real scientific spirit; being open, honest and critical while going where the objective evidence leads us. And this, together with the scientific method, is what lands rovers on Mars, gives us the internet, gives us electricity and energy, gives us facts and knowledge about disease, nutrition, the cosmos, the brain, our bodies, life and drugs among many things.

Peace, Hyperspace Fool.