# The Science of Interconnectedness.



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Aug 17, 2012)

An amazing world view on how there truly is no such thing as being separate from anything in the universe. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake explains his scientific theory of interconnectedness that skeptics find so hard to accept do to their materialistic beliefs. 

I feel no need to debate on this one because Sheldrake does it so beautifully already lol. At the bottom of the article there is a link to Sheldrakes website where he has more than a few debates hosted by well respected skeptical scientists (click "dialogues and controversies)". The majority of the audiences for these debates usually side with Sheldrake. 

He even has a short discussion with Richard Dawkins who had a dogmatic agenda planned for Sheldrake but the discussion was cut short because Dawkins refused to talk about evidence for Sheldrakes theories because it didnt sit well with his "Enemies of Reason" project. 

Poke around both websites, theres great stuff on both. Heres the link to the article. Tell me what ya think! 

http://mindbook.ws/page/the-science-of-interconnectedness


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> An amazing world view on how there truly is no such thing as being separate from anything in the universe. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake explains his scientific theory of interconnectedness that *skeptics find so hard to accept do to their materialistic beliefs.*


Poison the well much?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Aug 18, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Poison the well much?


Not really, thats what to be expected in that article. On his website he talks about healthy skepticism and how he was attacked and ridiculed but not disproved by scientists who wont even consider such theories because its one that doesnt fall into the materialistic paradigm.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Aug 18, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Poison the well much?


Omfg this makes me horny. Lol! I love your posts.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Aug 18, 2012)

What is the thing called that is inbetween atoms? It's called space. No matter what you say Cheif, no matter how you feel, or the so called experiences you have had, you have no knowledge, nor proof, of everything being "interconnected" on an atomic level. 

Yes, as far as we humans can tell, we all did come from the same stuffs of the universe, from the same point in spacetime that began spacetime, the big bang. 

This in no means nor measure can exemplify the theory that we are all "interconnected" whether it be some sort of imaginary supernatural spiritual level, or an atomic level.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Aug 18, 2012)

Bro... That story... It is cool.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Aug 18, 2012)

How can you, or anyone for that matter, be certain of anything? You, nor anyone else, can be. If you claim to be, you, and everyone else the wiser, will know you are a liar.

Not saying you are a liar, one love. But that when we tell ourselves we are certain of something we cannot be certain of... that is called lying.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Aug 18, 2012)

Like being certain that materialism is all there is to prove what is real? Or if gods real, its certain that no religion has any knowledge of him/her? 

How about we keep this from turning into a shit show for once. I didnt throw the first rocks this time, I just stated what was already stated in the article. That this theory does not fall under materialistic paradigm thus resulting in ignorance by those who are so proud to hold that belief. Read the article and go to his website and check out the controversies section and listen to a debate hosted by skeptics that fail to disprove him in any way. 

Im being a good boy this time, just playing by the rules is all. The fact that this theory doesnt fall under the materialist world view should not be offensive in anyway, since you should be uncertain that materialistic science is the best form of knowledge.


----------



## cannabineer (Aug 18, 2012)

If this is indeed a science, why would we need to learn about it on woo sites like Mindbook? I see an article that's long on a blend of hypothesis and a recasting of magical terms in pseudomaterial terminology, and no emphasis at all on test. cn


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Aug 18, 2012)

Ah yes, a website that promotes spirituality, science, and knowledge is woo because it uses spirituality. Sheldrake is a real scientists who clashed heads with the likes of Richard Dawkins only for Dawkins to end the discussion because he only wanted to use biased and dogmatic tactics against Sheldrake and refused to discuss Sheldrakes controlled experiments and evidence. Dawkins knew that Sheldrakes evidence wouldnt look good for is tv show "Enemies Against Reason". If Sheldrake was really so illogical with his studies, why did Dawkins not want to discuss them? Go to the bottom of the article and click the link for Sheldrakes website and click on "Dialogues and Controversies" section and listen to a debate hosted by skeptics of higher stature then yourself and listen to them fail to dismantle Sheldrakes theories. The unbiased educated audiences of these debates tend to favor Sheldrake at the end of the debates and the well respected opposing skeptics hold strong to their "Nuh uhh!" stance. Sheldrake speaks of his evidence and controlled experiments on his website, failure to acknowledge that shows the same ignorance you showed when discussing unlimited/free energy with me. You dont want to know or even consider these things because that makes you happy and more comfortable about your world view.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 18, 2012)

Funny how Chief is never wrong about any subject, and everyone who disagrees falls into the same tight-ass scientist category. Also funny how he never argues any subject directly, but instead prefers to attack motives and personalities. Even funner is how Chief thinks what's convincing to him should be convincing to everyone. Too bad he can't explain why without resorting to conspiracy and arrogance.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Aug 18, 2012)

Funny how you try to dictate discussions about spirituality with materialistic science and expect everyone to agree with your one dimensional concepts of the physical world lol. Funny how top scientists of the world actually take this guy seriously enough to debate him to no avail yet skeptics here ignorantly dismiss Sheldrake... Does one know if hes a pseudo-skeptic?


----------



## dtp5150 (Aug 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Bro... That story... It is cool.



this forum is plagued by quasi-intellectual-circle-jerking-trolls. great thread. thank you for expanding my knowledge. I knew its all about resonance. Ive said many times there is only one real truth, and it is honesty, and you know honesty by how it reverberates.

i have crazy sensitive ears. i can hear a mouse shit like 3 blocks away. its all about resonance.

know what doesnt resonate well? a judge"MENTAL" moderator

ive been sick of this heisenberg dude for a long time. welcome to the club!


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Aug 18, 2012)

Yes! resonance is the shit. Theres so many truths to this world that skeptics fight tooth-n-nail because it doesnt have to do with narrow minded materialism. If only these materialists knew they were obsessed with an illusion of energy vibrating slowly enough to form matter. Matter is all that matters to them... Theres pretty much nothing you can say here without Strife saying "YOU DONT KNOW, YOU'RE A LIAR!" lol they are under the same delusion of certainty that they accuse everyone else of... But yeah, follow the good vibrations


----------



## dtp5150 (Aug 18, 2012)

so in a resonating wave, the positions of the particle are a probability, or no? its like an oscillating function

its almost like ANYTHING is possible, but its just a rating of probability. like the probability of my table being here was high, so its here (by chance). because there is also a probability of there being no table. but its not as high as the probability of the table resonating in my kitchen.

im totally theorizing here, i havent read that whole article yet.


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 18, 2012)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Materialism
*Methodological materialism* is neither a belief nor an assumption but a restriction on method. Briefly stated it holds that a non-material assumption is not to be made. Science, for example, is necessarily methodologically materialist. Science wishes to describe and explain nature. Diversion into the supernatural begins to describe and explain matters that are not natural and obfuscate the natural. 

Methodological materialism is a defining characteristic of science in the same way that methodological woodism is a defining characteristic of carpentry. Science seeks to construct natural explanations for natural phenomena in the same way that carpentry seeks to construct objects out of wood. In operating in this manner neither discipline denies the existence of supernatural forces or sheet plastics, their usefulness or validity. The use of either supernatural forces or sheet plastics is simply distinguished as belonging to separate disciplines. 

Many scientists are also ontological materialists. Richard Dawkins espouses ontological materialism when he claims a completeness of science. 
Both forms of materialism are very closely related to philosophical and methodological naturalism and at first glance seem almost identical. Materialism and naturalism differ only in that while naturalism assumes or studies the _observable_, materialism assumes or studies the observable and _material_. The difference is very, very small. ​ 
So here we have CWE pointing to a ontological materialist, Dawkins and attempts to imply that all skeptics and scientists likewise hold an identical philosophy. Instead of merely discussing Sheldrake, he must take the opportunity to level attacks against science and skeptics conflating the necessary methodological materialism of science with philosophical materialism then whines and complains when others point it out and denies that he threw the first rocks. Denialism must be his philosophy.


----------



## dtp5150 (Aug 18, 2012)

mindphuk, get a new hobby besides being a chief harassing piece of shit. you are a great author. I liked your paragraph, that i can paraphrase as "blah"....lol do you really think anybody will read that crap, delusional freak


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Aug 18, 2012)

I heard similar concepts explained by a couple of people, this is the first scientist I heard talking about it. It does seem like endless possibilities open up with this concept. If this resonating field interacts with consciousness then perhaps you could call it a consciousness field too. Maybe someone who is a master of spirit and resonance can have some control of physical reality  shits crazy lol. I think there were such people at some point of time though. I believe in Graham Hancocks extensive research on a lost god-like civilization, and that we are a species with amnesia that forgot what reality really is due to some cataclysmic event.


----------



## dtp5150 (Aug 18, 2012)

ive been obsessed with a symbol. draw a triangle inside a circle. then a circle inside the triangle. isnt that shit nuts. u can pretty much proof everything known by mathematicians to this day with that diagram. id say thats pretty fucking imporant. why am i discovering it now? ive got a notebook filled with graphs and proofs.

u can draw a peace sign with it


----------



## dtp5150 (Aug 18, 2012)

oh ya, then rotate the triangles and plot the points of the lines!

then realize u can draw triangles inside of circles inside of triangles, forever. and then they rotate, the triangles.

so ya, lol, its strange


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Aug 18, 2012)

I didnt throw the first rock, I merely stated what was already expressed in the article, that scientists and skeptics attacked and ridiculed Sheldrakes theories just because it didnt have anything to do with their world view. Showing the reluctance of scientists and skeptics to step away from their material views is attacking? Like I said, I simply stated what was already stated in the article. The person saying "Like it or not, you're WRONG! You're a LIAR! You dont KNOW!" threw the first rocks. I merely stated the subject matter of the article. 

Why is it so wrong for scientists to study supernatural concepts? How are we supposed to truly figure out reality if scientists that cross that line are looked down upon? If the "supernatural" exists, then wouldnt it be natural because it is a part of nature, since reality and nature and almost the same thing?


----------



## dtp5150 (Aug 18, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I heard similar concepts explained by a couple of people, this is the first scientist I heard talking about it. It does seem like endless possibilities open up with this concept. If this resonating field interacts with consciousness then perhaps you could call it a consciousness field too. Maybe someone who is a master of spirit and resonance can have some control of physical reality  shits crazy lol. I think there were such people at some point of time though. I believe in Graham Hancocks extensive research on a lost god-like civilization, and that we are a species with amnesia that forgot what reality really is due to some cataclysmic event.



there are many examples of thoughts manifesting into reality. its a concept we are familiar with but do not understand

or maybe someone does


----------



## dtp5150 (Aug 18, 2012)

"If somebody learns a new skill, say windsurfing, then the more people that learn it, the easier it becomes for everyone else because of morphic resonance."

that is why IQ tests need to be readjusted thru time.

and why arbitrage in economics is a dwindling asset

"DNA is grossly overrated." lol i love it

collective memory, like a communal consciousness over time

"What my observations indicate is that there&#8217;s more to nature than matter" lets build him a memorial

"*SC: Once the shift in fundamental perception occurs, wouldn&#8217;t it impact the morphic field of most people in addition to scientists?" *lol what a troll

"Science&#8217;s present view of nature is based on the perception that nature is a machine and acts mechanically" OMFG

"S*HELDRAKE:* What we now understand in science is that activity in nature depends on energy, but energy can take any form. " i shall now invent my own nobel prize and award it to this person.

i specifically remember being taught there are 2 kinds of energy in this world. kinetic and potential. what a joke

"For instance, we know in modern physics that quantum fields organize quantum particles" the wave particle duality

"Yes, it&#8217;s a separate field. The gravitational field is separate from the electromagnetic field. It does different things, and quantum fields are different from gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields" i bet 3oz of silver he didnt write this. it was a planted comment. how is a person going to title something the science of INTERCONNECTEDNESS then say fields are separate. he could have said it, but i highly doubt it. It also doenst go with the same flow as previous comments. Fishy

what is electromagnatism? it is gravity. what are "quantum fields" it is gravity/em in relatively small quantities. the non-sense of that comment is revealing that he didnt write it. unless im missing something

"fields that govern living organisms" govern ok fishy

fields do extend beyond the brain. some people call it love, hate etc. coincidences dont exist. im glad they let his true quotes round out the article


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Aug 19, 2012)

dtp5150 said:


> ive been obsessed with a symbol. draw a triangle inside a circle. then a circle inside the triangle. isnt that shit nuts. u can pretty much proof everything known by mathematicians to this day with that diagram. id say thats pretty fucking imporant. why am i discovering it now? ive got a notebook filled with graphs and proofs.
> 
> u can draw a peace sign with it


Is there a name for this symbol? Im assuming its apart of sacred geometry (which I need to start practicing). It reminds me of a similar spiritual concept called "Circling the square and squaring the circle" though I cant remember what the meaning of it was. Though pretty much everything in the universe can be explained with this stuff... Also, that symbol you're obsessed with could be your spiritual symbol. Try and see how that symbol matches up with other spiritual/religious concepts and symbols.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 19, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Why is it so wrong for scientists to study supernatural concepts? How are we supposed to truly figure out reality if scientists that cross that line are looked down upon? If the "supernatural" exists, then wouldnt it be natural because it is a part of nature, since reality and nature and almost the same thing?


How can supernatural concepts be studied?


----------



## dtp5150 (Aug 19, 2012)

nobody has named/identified this symbol. ive searched!

the closest thing is the generalized proof of triangle angles inside a circle. but it ends there. they dont expand the concept with compounded symmetrical figures, or rotating, or etc....


----------



## dtp5150 (Aug 19, 2012)

i think there is a biological being that we cannot comprehend exists, that is ruling us. its only our inflated ego that thinks we are the most advanced life form in the universe. Could we be any more dumb? We are the plateau of universe development? What a joke. We are rats in a cage. monkeys on a planet

higher biological being, i can meet u and my head wont explode. please visit i promise to keep it a secret 

nevermind, ur radiation would hurt me. send me a txt how about that


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 19, 2012)

dtp5150 said:


> i think there is a biological being that we cannot comprehend exists, that is ruling us. its only our inflated ego that thinks we are the most advanced life form in the universe. Could we be any more dumb? We are the plateau of universe development? What a joke. We are rats in a cage. monkeys on a planet
> 
> higher biological being, i can meet u and my head wont explode. please visit i promise to keep it a secret



The problem with this kind of thinking is that it is limitless. What evidence do you have that supports this idea? What's to stop me from saying "I believe the world is candycanes and gumdrops when we die, our soul travels to a land of sugar and sweets, complete with liquid chocolate lakes and graham cracker houses!" and that statement being just as accurate as anything posted in this thread?

Do you understand the implications of proof? Evidence? What use is believing in something we want to be real/true if it actually isn't? What value does tricking ourselves have in the grand scheme of things? How would we advance as a species if that was the accepted standard for proof? Why don't you think about these kinds of things? How would it be OK to simply accept theories without proper experimentation?


----------



## dtp5150 (Aug 19, 2012)

its a theory. i accept this. ok.

btw limitless thinking is not a problem

does a fish know we exist? maybe if they tested the "limits" of the water-air barrier.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 19, 2012)

dtp5150 said:


> its a theory. i accept this. ok.
> 
> btw limitless thinking is not a problem
> 
> does a fish know we exist? maybe if they tested the "limits" of the water-air barrier.


It seems you see it as more than just a theory though, that's the thing..

I thought using the word 'limitless' would become an issue.. I mean that in the sense that there are rules one needs to abide by to ensure testing is accurate. There are limits to science, and we have to accept them to come to an accurate conclusion. Something that's 'supernatural' can't be tested by science, by its very definition. 

The fish analogy is faulty because fish, as far as we know, are not self aware, conscious beings. How could they possibly 'know' we exist?


----------



## dtp5150 (Aug 19, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> It seems you see it as more than just a theory though, that's the thing..
> 
> I thought using the word 'limitless' would become an issue.. I mean that in the sense that there are rules one needs to abide by to ensure testing is accurate. There are limits to science, and we have to accept them to come to an accurate conclusion. Something that's 'supernatural' can't be tested by science, by its very definition.
> 
> The fish analogy is faulty because fish, as far as we know, are not self aware, conscious beings. How could they possibly 'know' we exist?


1: can u talk to fish? how do you factually know the awareness of every single fish .....does that not seem egotistical? Who is judging this trait and by what standards. Redonkulous
2:Rules? abide? lol....


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 19, 2012)

dtp5150 said:


> 1: can u talk to fish? how do you factually know the awareness of every single fish .....does that not seem egotistical? Who is judging this trait and by what standards. Redonkulous
> 2:Rules? abide? lol....


No, clearly I can't. Can you?

Exactly. Why would you _assume _fish are self aware without any evidence to suggest they are? 

Yes, there are rules to discern reality, exactly why I framed the point with the hypothetical. What makes your heaven, hell, afterlife, reincarnation, whatever, more real than my candyland?


----------



## dtp5150 (Aug 19, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> No, clearly I can't. Can you?
> 
> Exactly. Why would you _assume _fish are self aware without any evidence to suggest they are?
> 
> Yes, there are rules to discern reality, exactly why I framed the point with the hypothetical. What makes your heaven, hell, afterlife, reincarnation, whatever, more real than my candyland?


1: dont believe in hell candyland etc. we are made of recycled energy and atoms. its circles, waves, and resonance 
2: why would you assume the opposite


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 19, 2012)

dtp5150 said:


> 1: dont believe in hell candyland etc. we are made of recycled energy and atoms. its circles, waves, and resonance
> 2: why would you assume the opposite



I agree, but why/how is the theory in the OP connected to that?

I assume the opposite because it's the automatic default position to take. You don't automatically assume every positive characteristic about a theory is true then attempt to disprove them, you start off with a theory then attempt to prove it with supporting evidence. If we took the opposite approach we would be in an endless process of disproving every imaginable theory wrong.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 19, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Funny how you try to dictate discussions about spirituality with materialistic science and expect everyone to agree with your one dimensional concepts of the physical world lol. Funny how top scientists of the world actually take this guy seriously enough to debate him to no avail yet skeptics here ignorantly dismiss Sheldrake... Does one know if hes a pseudo-skeptic?


I have no idea what this guy even says, which is why I have not commented on the theory. How have I dictated this discussion? have I prevented you from saying what you want? Where do you see me demanding everyone agree with my concepts? It's easier for you to ignore criticism if you paint it as unfair treatment, and you always do. Everyone who has disagreed with you since you joined this forum has received the same song and dance. Apparently it's impossible for someone to disagree with you based on merit. Do you suppose the only reason there could be to disagree with your ideas is materialism? That's the only explanation? It's the only one you ever point to.

I have no idea if the theory discussed in this thread is a bad idea, but any reason I might list would get the same retort. I am open to the idea that we are all connected because I believe we all came from star stuff. We are each the universe manifested as consciousness, and I believe there is clearly a sacred element to our existence. I am very interested in this type of subject, interested enough to want to weed out the false paths. The way I rule out false paths is skepticism. This is how I personally feel is best for me to gain accurate answers about the things I wonder most. This is my choice, and I am passionate about it. All you have ever done is slam that choice when I express it, disrespect it and even go as far as to make shit up so you don't have to listen to it. You have never given one ounce of consideration to my words beyond degrading me, and for no other reason than I disagree. Yet you are the one constantly playing the hurt and indignant card.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 19, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Materialism
> *Methodological materialism* is neither a belief nor an assumption but a restriction on method. Briefly stated it holds that a non-material assumption is not to be made. Science, for example, is necessarily methodologically materialist. Science wishes to describe and explain nature. Diversion into the &#8220;supernatural&#8221; begins to describe and explain matters that are not natural and obfuscate the natural.
> 
> Methodological materialism is a defining characteristic of science in the same way that &#8220;methodological woodism&#8221; is a defining characteristic of carpentry. Science seeks to construct natural explanations for natural phenomena in the same way that carpentry seeks to construct objects out of wood. In operating in this manner neither discipline denies the existence of supernatural forces or sheet plastics, their usefulness or validity. The use of either supernatural forces or sheet plastics is simply distinguished as belonging to separate disciplines.
> ...


I also love the accusation that skeptics discount these beliefs because it makes them uncomfortable. As if skepticism is a position of comfort. No magic, no God, no ESP, no alternative medicine, no ghosts, no afterlife, no cryptids, no free energy, no miracles, yes entropy, yes mortality, yes heat death, ... where is the comfort part?


----------



## dtp5150 (Aug 19, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I agree, but why/how is the theory in the OP connected to that?
> 
> I assume the opposite because it's the automatic default position to take. You don't automatically assume every positive characteristic about a theory is true then attempt to disprove them, you start off with a theory then attempt to prove it with supporting evidence. If we took the opposite approach we would be in an endless process of disproving every imaginable theory wrong.


dont be scarred of endless, limitless thinking

are you seriously asking me to explain how ideas from different people are connected in a thread titled "the science of interconnectedness"


----------



## zat (Aug 19, 2012)

The Hopi once said that science and medicine would eventually prove the existence of God (or Spirit/Creator...whatever your preferred name is). I think the interconnectedness of all things can only be experienced at higher levels of consciousness....and most people function at the lowest level...a.k.a. Land of the Living Dead. Try this....if your cat/dog is just chilling but not paying attention to you....just sit there and stare at your pet with intent. They will eventually look at you because they can feel the energy from you. Good post Chief. I always enjoy your contributions.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Aug 19, 2012)

If you cannot prove your beliefs to be true beyond reasonable doubt, they are not true... you merely think they are. 

Regardless of how convincing your argument is, it holds no value, no relevance, because you cannot provide enough evidence in order to prove it to be true to everyone else.

If you base your evidence on "experience" where you cannot show anyone unless they experience it too, how can we differentiate between YOU, and some crazy person who says they experience the devil, and that they know from "experience" that the devil is real, it defeated god 3000 years ago, that this is all an illusion, and we are really in hell? 

If you base your knowledge on experience alone, and not evidence, you are put into the same category as someone who claims that existence is a computer simulation constructed by an alien race for their pleasure. 

*(As we all know, that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.)*

We find your convictions to be just as ludacris as everyone else who bases their knowledge on experience rather than evidence. How do you know you aren't crazy if you can't show everyone else what you think is true beyond reasonable doubt? What if you have a mental disorder? How do you know? 

You don't, you merely think you know. Until you can provide yourself or anyone else with enough evidence, you don't know. Because the possibility always exists that these "experiences" could merely be projections of your imagination that you either fear, or want to be true so badly, that your mind actually makes you believe it. 

I seriously think that some people just don't have the ability to think critically, or refuse to, because what they think is true makes them feel good.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 19, 2012)

dtp5150 said:


> dont be scarred of endless, limitless thinking
> 
> are you seriously asking me to explain how ideas from different people are connected in a thread titled "the science of interconnectedness"



It's got nothing to do with 'being scared'. It has to do with abiding by the rules outlined by the scientific method to ensure the most accurate results. 

No, I'm asking you how;

"we are made of recycled energy and atoms. its circles, waves, and resonance"

applies to the OP, and what value a statement like this has.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 19, 2012)

dtp5150 said:


> dont be scarred of endless, limitless thinking
> 
> are you seriously asking me to explain how ideas from different people are connected in a thread titled "the science of interconnectedness"



This seems to be a typical response from you when someone simply asks you to explain your position. Act as if your position is obvious and anyone who doesn't see it is being ridiculous. You do not hesitate to speak your opinion, but you would rather put people on ignore than have them ask questions you can't answer. You complain about ignorance and then depend on it to give you the illusion of being correct.


----------



## dtp5150 (Aug 19, 2012)

ok, i wont make smug comments anymore. i think the more of an asshole i am the more depressed i am. in other places ppl were noticing going manic and I denied it. But I think it was definitely true. Apologies for asshole comments, ill try to identify my depression in the future.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 19, 2012)

dtp5150 said:


> Id say you have done a fine job of describing the situation.
> 
> am i bad person? i like to be correct about my opinions.
> 
> ...


----------



## mindphuk (Aug 19, 2012)

dtp5150 said:


> mindphuk, get a new hobby besides being a chief harassing piece of shit. you are a great author. I liked your paragraph, that i can paraphrase as "blah"....lol do you really think anybody will read that crap, delusional freak


Get some new material, you're insults are boring.

BTW, I figure you and CWE would completely ignore the substance and it appears I was right. Science is necessarily materialistic, not out of a philosophical stances but from a methodological one. Since neither of you can offer up a way to change that, i.e. test something non-materialistic, I guess we are done here with your nonsensical attacks against science.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Aug 19, 2012)

dtp5150 said:


> dont be scarred of endless, limitless thinking


EXACTLY.. That's why I accept the fact that we come from leprechauns. I will NOT fear the unkown even if all these evil skeptics say I'm wrong. Phooey on their closed minds.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 19, 2012)

Hepheastus420 said:


> EXACTLY.. That's why I accept the fact that we come from leprechauns. I will NOT fear the unkown even if all these evil skeptics say I'm wrong. Phooey on their closed minds.


This proves to me that you are not just parroting what skeptics say and giving into pressure, like some here claim. The only way you could construct this sarcastic joke is if you understood the basic principals behind burden of proof. You didn't just learn how to talk like a skeptic, you learned how to think critically. You have my applause.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Aug 19, 2012)

zat said:


> The Hopi once said that science and medicine would eventually prove the existence of God (or Spirit/Creator...whatever your preferred name is). I think the interconnectedness of all things can only be experienced at higher levels of consciousness....and most people function at the lowest level...a.k.a. Land of the Living Dead. Try this....if your cat/dog is just chilling but not paying attention to you....just sit there and stare at your pet with intent. They will eventually look at you because they can feel the energy from you. Good post Chief. I always enjoy your contributions.


I tried this with my dog a few times, only worked once though. Except I imagined saying the word "Treats?" to her and I imagined what her treats look like. After about thirty seconds she ran up to me and stood up on her hind legs, one of her tricks. Another cool thing that often happens to me is I would think about something and that very second someone else would bring up what I was thinking about, it happens most with my best friend and my dad. I think Sheldrake should do different telepathy experiments like with the things I experienced with pets and friends and family. I think he should use altered states of consciousness too with shrooms, LSD, and DMT... I'm assuming you already know of my other infamous telepathic experiences lol. 

I learned about the Hopi prophecy not too long ago from someone on this site, and there prophecy is AMAZINGLY accurate, I couldnt believe how well they predicted what future life was going to be like. "Coincidence" seems unlikely when you read their prophetic description of this world. I think science has already done enough to prove the existence of "god", with things like the Flower of Life, DMT trips, this interconnectedness theory etc. If that doesnt prove god then it at least it proves that this world is not at all what it seems... I think words like "paranormal" and "supernatural" will be out dated and false within 10 years. Telepathy was once thought to be supernatural, but DNA has recently been found to have a telepathic property to it. Also, observers viewing sub atomic particles change the behavior of the sub atomic particles just by looking at them, which to me also hints at telepathy... If it happens, then it is not "paranormal" or "supernatural"... Its normal and natural.

"The world is not only stranger than we suppose, its stranger than we CAN suppose" - Some smart dude who I cant remember lol


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 31, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> "The world is not only stranger than we suppose, its stranger than we CAN suppose" - Some smart dude who I cant remember lol


Sagan would be utterly ashamed.


----------



## Doer (Aug 31, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Ah yes, a website that promotes spirituality, science, and knowledge is woo because it uses spirituality. Sheldrake is a real scientist... who clashed heads with the likes of Richard Dawkins .....hosted by skeptics of higher stature then yourself and listen to them fail to dismantle Sheldrakes theories. The unbiased educated audiences of these debates tend to favor Sheldrake at the end of the debates and the well respected opposing skeptics hold strong to their "Nuh uhh!" stance. Sheldrake speaks of his evidence and controlled experiments on his website, failure to acknowledge that shows the same ignorance you showed when discussing unlimited/free energy with me. You dont want to know or even consider these things because that makes you happy and more comfortable about your world view.



Wow, Why this weird idea that the power of insult and derision is needed to support, (or is it to fog?), what should be a case that can speak for itself? Science is the quest for demonstrable, repeatable result. It's got nothing to do with any of this. It isn't Right. It is Investigative. You, however, as a typical proselyte, get upset and lack useful descriptions when anyone challenges your view. And you act like you need to challenge our viewpoint. Please realize. You are unable to challenge the view of skeptics. You don't have the Math.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Aug 31, 2012)

Doer said:


> Wow, Why this weird idea that the power of insult and derision is needed to support, (or is it to fog?), what should be a case that can speak for itself? Science is the quest for demonstrable, repeatable result. It's got nothing to do with any of this. It isn't Right. It is Investigative. You, however, as a typical proselyte, get upset and lack useful descriptions when anyone
> challenges your view. And you act like you need to challenge our viewpoint. Please realize. You are unable to challenge the view of skeptics. You don't have the Math.


Amen to that brotha! Supreme pownage!


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Aug 31, 2012)

Doer said:


> Wow, Why this weird idea that the power of insult and derision is needed to support, (or is it to fog?), what should be a case that can speak for itself? Science is the quest for demonstrable, repeatable result. It's got nothing to do with any of this. It isn't Right. It is Investigative. You, however, as a typical proselyte, get upset and lack useful descriptions when anyone challenges your view. And you act like you need to challenge our viewpoint. Please realize. You are unable to challenge the view of skeptics. You don't have the Math.


LOL I am not attacking anyone here. I am playing by the rules. I am politely belittling the materialistic mindset just like skeptics politely belittle the theistic mindset, the link and Sheldrakes website politely belittle the materialistic, I am not acting out of line, just talking about the topic. What happens when I do this? Butthurt ensues by the skeptics, because I am politely belittling the materialistic, just like skeptics do with the theistic... I cant find this hurt card you are speaking of, because its not in my hand...


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Aug 31, 2012)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Sagan would be utterly ashamed.


Im pretty sure you mean J.B.S Haldane...


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 31, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> LOL I am not attacking anyone here. I am playing by the rules. I am politely belittling the materialistic mindset just like skeptics politely belittle the theistic mindset, the link and Sheldrakes website politely belittle the materialistic, I am not acting out of line, just talking about the topic. What happens when I do this? Butthurt ensues by the skeptics, because I am politely belittling the materialistic, just like skeptics do with the theistic... I cant find this hurt card you are speaking of, because its not in my hand...


You are equivocating criticism with belittlement, spirituality with theism. If our criticism of bad ideas makes you feel little, you must own that, it doesn't come from us.

I've heard some interesting spiritual ideas, never heard a good theistic idea. Anytime someone posits the existence of god and builds from there, they are confining their spirituality to smaller and smaller areas, and criticism of these ideas may, by design of the idea, lead to belittlement.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Aug 31, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You are equivocating criticism with belittlement, spirituality with theism. If our criticism of bad ideas makes you feel little, you must own that, it doesn't come from us.
> 
> I've heard some interesting spiritual ideas, never heard a good theistic idea. Anytime someone posits the existence of god and builds from there, they are confining their spirituality to smaller and smaller areas, and criticism of these ideas may, by design of the idea, lead to belittlement.


IMO, theism is a form of spirituality, even though its mostly religion, they do in believe in a spirit/soul. Spirituality just puts less importance on the "creator" because we are no different from him/her. At least thats the message I get from most spiritual people I talk to.


----------



## Heisenberg (Aug 31, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> IMO, *theism is a form of spirituality*, even though its mostly religion, they do in believe in a spirit/soul. Spirituality just puts less importance on the "creator" because we are no different from him/her. At least thats the message I get from most spiritual people I talk to.



I agree. I look at the term 'spirituality' as I look at the term 'atheism'. 

Atheism simply tells you one thing, a person is not convinced of god. Any other attributes added now fall under a subset of atheism. If I am mad at my parents so I reject god, I am an atheist, but very different from the scientist who simply wants evidence.

Spirituality tells you one thing for sure, that a person feels (subjective term) that there is a sacred element to consciousness. If I feel reincarnation is a consequence of this sacred element, then I am spiritual, but much different than the person who feels that only humans have a soul and it depends on the love of Jesus. So, we start with spirituality, the idea that there is something extraordinary about consciousness, and any other attributes added now fall under a subset of spirituality.

Just as being mad at your parents is a poor reason to favor atheism, belief in a specific god is a poor reason to favor spiritualism. But in both positions, legitimate reasons are possible.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Aug 31, 2012)

Hepheastus420 said:


> EXACTLY.. That's why I accept the fact that we come from leprechauns. I will NOT fear the unkown even if all these evil skeptics say I'm wrong. Phooey on their closed minds.


...meh, a_theist_ always has the _theist_ in it - I'm over it


----------



## Ballsonrawls (Aug 31, 2012)

Quantum mechanics


----------



## eye exaggerate (Aug 31, 2012)

Super Consciousness

nb: not like "awesome"


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Aug 31, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Im pretty sure you mean J.B.S Haldane...


Could have sworn that was a Sagan quote, but you're right, my mistake.

Though I do think Sagan _would_ be ashamed.


----------



## Doer (Sep 1, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> LOL I am not attacking anyone here. I am playing by the rules. I am politely belittling the materialistic mindset just like skeptics politely belittle the theistic mindset, the link and Sheldrakes website politely belittle the materialistic, I am not acting out of line, just talking about the topic. What happens when I do this? Butthurt ensues by the skeptics, because I am politely belittling the materialistic, just like skeptics do with the theistic... I cant find this hurt card you are speaking of, because its not in my hand...


This is just rewritting to have it your way. Uh, uh, not me, it's them. Not discussion. You are berating and protesting what only you are providing. It's still what I have pointed out. No one is butt-hurt but you. It is the job of the religious to spread the word. But, the true devotee is unconcerned, in a state of bliss, beyond teaching, he is convinced of Self. There are no rules and as you see I didn't call you out about that. More tap dance, Chief, to hide the fact that no one is belittling you. Just you feel belittled. It is a simple lack of confidence, my friend. I've been there and done that. The buddhists call it right action with detachment from result. That is key. Else the responses comes off as hurt and belittled....as you say.

And not knowing you are the looks on your face, I can only point out what it seems, not what it is. I only know one thing, that's IT.


----------



## Doer (Sep 1, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> IMO, theism is a form of spirituality, even though its mostly religion, they do in believe in a spirit/soul. Spirituality just puts less importance on the "creator" because we are no different from him/her. At least thats the message I get from most spiritual people I talk to.


Yet, spiritual is self proclaimed. It is no different than the Cult of Harley Davidson. Just attracts a different kind of person.
And there is different style for Hair, dress., Rings and bangles, speech patterns and such.

Let the blind lead the blind and the dead bury the dead. The fact that you have come here to listen to us, like a moth to a flame is 
meaningful for you. Despite the foggy motives of our natter-minnd, Self will seek Truth. It is my opinion, OK?


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Sep 1, 2012)

The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it. 

"Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who claim to find it."


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 1, 2012)

Doer said:


> This is just rewritting to have it your way. Uh, uh, not me, it's them. Not discussion. You are berating and protesting what only you are providing. It's still what I have pointed out. No one is butt-hurt but you. It is the job of the religious to spread the word. But, the true devotee is unconcerned, in a state of bliss, beyond teaching, he is convinced of Self. There are no rules and as you see I didn't call you out about that. More tap dance, Chief, to hide the fact that no one is belittling you. Just you feel belittled. It is a simple lack of confidence, my friend. I've been there and done that. The buddhists call it right action with detachment from result. That is key. Else the responses comes off as hurt and belittled....as you say.
> 
> And not knowing you are the looks on your face, I can only point out what it seems, not what it is. I only know one thing, that's IT.


Lol what ever you say Doer. It is a form of belittlement when one thinks science is a superior form of knowledge to spirituality. I am just politely speaking with the same condescending tone that skeptics do towards the spiritual and theists. There is no butthurt on my end, I only see it on the skeptics end. Almost no one even considered what I had provided and the ones that did were motivated by ignorance and already had there minds made up that the subject matter is "woo". I was just speaking about the subject matter in a non aggressive, polite way thats open to discussion, but the skeptics have shown no sign of discussing, just ignorance.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 1, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Lol what ever you say Doer. It is a form of belittlement when one thinks science is a superior form of knowledge to spirituality.


You spend 40 years meditating in a cave, and I'll spend 40 years learning what science has to say. Which of us do you suppose will be able to design an airplane at the end? Which of us would be able to design a hydroelectric turbine? You wouldn't even be able to build a toaster. If we value knowledge by how it helps us survive and improve life, then clearly science is superior, and the belittlement is inherit on the side of spirituality. Science gives us much, spirituality has given us little.

That is not to say I feel spiritual concepts have no value, I am speaking only on the idea that one is better than they other. When we need accurate answers about our world, science is clearly superior not only to spirituality, but ever other belief system. It may be foolish to use science to completely discount spirituality, but it is not belittlement, and it is not wrong to favor scientific answers about our world over spiritual ones during times when they both try to speak about the same idea.

It is simply a contradiction to say "My idea is beyond the study of the physical world, my idea effects the physical world."


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 1, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You spend 40 years meditating in a cave, and I'll spend 40 years learning what science has to say. Which of us do you suppose will be able to design an airplane at the end? Which of us would be able to design a hydroelectric turbine? You wouldn't even be able to build a toaster. If we value knowledge by how it helps us survive and improve life, then clearly science is superior, and the belittlement is inherit on the side of spirituality. Science gives us much, spirituality has given us little.
> 
> That is not to say I feel spiritual concepts have no value, I am speaking only on the idea that one is better than they other. When we need accurate answers about our world, science is clearly superior not only to spirituality, but ever other belief system. It may be foolish to use science to completely discount spirituality, but it is not belittlement, and it is not wrong to favor scientific answers about our world over spiritual ones during times when they both try to speak about the same idea.
> 
> It is simply a contradiction to say "My idea is beyond the study of the physical world, my idea effects the physical world."


Do you need an airplane? Do need a hydroelectric turbine? Do I need a toaster? No, we dont. Those are simply wants. We only value them because we are brought up in a world were these things are a must. It is the shallow version of materialism, kinda like having a nice car. Im not against these things though, and I am not against science, it seems you think that, Im just against the out dated material view of science. 

Theres more to spirituality than meditation as well. Z obliviously uses spirituality quite often with his lucid dreams where almost anything is possible. The Flower of Life is a spiritual figure and it uses science because the table of elements is found in its geometry and many other pieces of information are there and its dismissed as multiple coincidences because theres supposedly no way the ancients knew of such things. Can we not agree that all the material rules of reality may be flexible and outright wrong? Since this is a world of complete uncertainty, its impossible to know anything, right? So why so passionately defend the uncertain?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 1, 2012)

Actually, those things are needs. Technology's single mightiest engine of advancement has been war. While an individual might not need jets and guns and stuff, the nation that wishes to remain a nation most definitely does need them. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 1, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Do you need an airplane? Do need a hydroelectric turbine? Do I need a toaster? No, we dont. Those are simply wants. We only value them because we are brought up in a world were these things are a must. It is the shallow version of materialism, kinda like having a nice car. Im not against these things though, and I am not against science, it seems you think that, Im just against the out dated material view of science.
> 
> Theres more to spirituality than meditation as well. Z obliviously uses spirituality quite often with his lucid dreams where almost anything is possible. *The Flower of Life is a spiritual figure and it uses science because the table of elements is found in its geometry* and many other pieces of information are there and its dismissed as multiple coincidences because theres supposedly no way the ancients knew of such things. Can we not agree that all the material rules of reality may be flexible and outright wrong? Since this is a world of complete uncertainty, its impossible to know anything, right? So why so passionately defend the uncertain?


The bolded is backward logic. The Flower of Life is a geometric figure. The periodic table of elements is not. It cannot be found in the figure. This is a prime example of mistaking the suggestive for the conclusive, of trying to provide an illegitimate scientific veneer for a metaphysical concept. 

The blue part is a wolf in sheep's clothing. We can agree that parts of the scientific edifice are probably headed for revision. But the implication is that the whole edifice might be found false. That could only be done if a truly unnatural thing were found to be fact, requiring us to redefine the object of science. But until there is such a thing, the seemingly harmless suggestion is actually an act of sabotage, suggesting without cause or backing that science is just as subjective as, well, the subjective. That way lies madness ... and worse, uselessness. There's a baby in that bathwater. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 1, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Do you need an airplane? Do need a hydroelectric turbine? Do I need a toaster? No, we dont. Those are simply wants. We only value them because we are brought up in a world were these things are a must. It is the shallow version of materialism, kinda like having a nice car.


These examples were arbitrary. The point was, to survive and reduce suffering in the world we need accurate answers about the world. When seeking accurate answers about the world, science is clearly the superior system. It is not shallow to want to be healthy, to want to move around safely, to want to sustain existence in an efficient manner. Science gives us excellent data to aid in this goal, while spirituality speaks to why we face this goal in the first place. When are questions are about the how and not the why, it is not belittlement or arrogance to say science rules, it's proper. Just as it's proper to say that in matters of spiritualism, science does not rule, or even hold sway.




> Im not against these things though, and I am not against science, it seems you think that, Im just against the out dated material view of science.


Science can not be anything other than materialistic. That is because it's paradigm is based on the physical. To try and 'update' science is to want to bring it past the physical, and science is not equipped for that. Use science for what it's worth, tailor your inner filter, your philosophy, as you think will best help you get through life, because life is about more than just the physical. You don't update a hammer to apply it to screws, you just use a screw driver.

You want for science to be outdated because that will then explain the conflict you encounter. You recognize that _something_ must explain the discourse you experience, and so you have decided that the error is on the side of science. The error is just that you do not properly separate science and spirituality in your head, because if you did you would have to radically adjust your answers. If you can conflate science and spirituality then your ideas can agree, but only if you ignore the opposition that comes along with science. Not only do you want to mingle what is by definition different, you want to do it on your own terms.



> Theres more to spirituality than meditation as well. Z obliviously uses spirituality quite often with his lucid dreams where almost anything is possible.


Meditation was an arbitrary example. Can you offer a spiritual practice that does deliver answers that help survival and to reduce suffering?



> The Flower of Life is a spiritual figure and it uses science because the table of elements is found in its geometry and many other pieces of information are there and its dismissed as multiple coincidences because theres supposedly no way the ancients knew of such things.


You are the one who has decided that it's dismissed due to coincidence. What is said is, it's been examined and the presents of those things can not be demonstrated to not be coincidence. Can you give an example of two things happening together and we connect them for no reason? Can you explain why we should automatically assume a connection without a demonstrative reason? You seem to think that it should be considered obvious and the only reason to not say it's obvious is ulterior concepts like the ancients being too ignorant. Maybe we say it's not obvious because we do not find it obvious.




> Can we not agree that all the material rules of reality may be flexible and outright wrong? Since this is a world of complete uncertainty, its impossible to know anything, right? So why so passionately defend the uncertain?


Where do you see me passionately defending the certain? Again we are not talking about the answers science gives, but the process.

It's impossible to know anything to absolute certainty. Even if I think I just tied my shoes, I can't know for sure. Do you suppose that translates into a world of absolute uncertainty? Can I not have anything to say about my shoes being tied? Does the fact that we are forced to experience reality subjectively mean I can never make positive statements with some degree of confidence? What do you suppose the chance is that we someday learn DNA has nothing to do with heredity? What do you think is the likelihood of us finding the moon is made of cheese? Criticizing bad ideas is not the same thing as defending the uncertain. 

If we value self correction, then it must follow that we can never be absolutely certain. The only alternative is a closed mind. When I defend science, I am not defending the uncertain, I am defending concepts like self correction.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 1, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> The bolded is backward logic. The Flower of Life is a geometric figure. The periodic table of elements is not. It cannot be found in the figure. This is a prime example of mistaking the suggestive for the conclusive, of trying to provide an illegitimate scientific veneer for a metaphysical concept.
> 
> The blue part is a wolf in sheep's clothing. We can agree that parts of the scientific edifice are probably headed for revision. But the implication is that the whole edifice might be found false. That could only be done if a truly unnatural thing were found to be fact, requiring us to redefine the object of science. But until there is such a thing, the seemingly harmless suggestion is actually an act of sabotage, suggesting without cause or backing that science is just as subjective as, well, the subjective. That way lies madness ... and worse, uselessness. There's a baby in that bathwater. cn


Professor Robert Moon proved that the periodic table of elements is found in the platonic solids. The platonic solids make up Metitrons Cube. Metitrons Cube is found in the Fruit of Life. The fruit of life is found in the Flower of Life. It is all dismissed as multiple coincidences because the ancients valued the Flower of Life that holds all this amazing information and theres apparently no way they knew these things. Now that you know the periodic table is found in the geometry of the Flower of Life, Im guessing that you too see this as multiple coincidences that say nothing about reality. 

We are starting to form plausible theories that if proven true would abolish the laws of reality that we accept. The topic of this thread is an example of that. It wouldnt completely destroy how we see physics though, we would just view things from a new light and discard out dated material concepts for the good of humanity.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 2, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> These examples were arbitrary. The point was, to survive and reduce suffering in the world we need accurate answers about the world. When seeking accurate answers about the world, science is clearly the superior system. It is not shallow to want to be healthy, to want to move around safely, to want to sustain existence in an efficient manner. Science gives us excellent data to aid in this goal, while spirituality speaks to why we face this goal in the first place. When are questions are about the how and not the why, it is not belittlement or arrogance to say science rules, it's proper. Just as it's proper to say that in matters of spiritualism, science does not rule, or even hold sway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Say theres some people that KNOW 'god' (try to imagine 'god' not as 1 supreme being). Throw that subjectivity stuff out the window for now, these people are not being deluded and they know 'god' (remember, this is only an example). With their true relationship with 'god', they have the knowledge that really matters like how the universe started, what the REAL rules of reality are, what holds things together, and how they can use this knowledge to learn, evolve and achieve bigger and better things. Would science still be the superior form of knowledge? I really hope I dont get the response Im expecting with this question...

Sheldrake is using science to test non-materialistic things and he is getting consistent results. Is the only explanation is that his results are flawed because hes testing non-material things? 

Theres no inner conflict I am going through because of materialistic science not being able to justify my beliefs. I just know that 'if' the supernatural exists (god, spirit world) then materialism is an out dated concept and holding humanity back from objectively knowing these things, not that the scientific process is necessary for knowing these things, imo. 

Isnt the purpose of meditation to reduce suffering and reflect upon yourself to make you a better person? Achieving lucid dreaming can be an example of that as well because you gotta be a well balanced person who is comfortable and has his priorities straight. Lucid dreaming is just another form of astral projection too and theres much you can gain from astral projection. Dont worry, I know what you have to say about things like astral projection lol. Also, negativity and a destructive personality can leave you open to illness, so its good to be balanced and have a healthy spirit. I also know what you have to say about that lol. (edit) Sheldrakes plausible theories are also a good example. 

I could show a few more pieces of credible information that would make coincidence an even smaller fraction of possibility about the Flower of Life, but I dont think you would be at all interested and even if you were I doubt you'd move away from your opinion of it. 

I didnt say criticizing bad ideas is the same as defending the uncertain. Im just saying that a lot of the ideas you see as bad is because of the materialistic paradigm, a paradigm that you are uncertain is the most correct path.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 2, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Professor Robert Moon proved that the periodic table of elements is found in the platonic solids. The platonic solids make up Metitrons Cube. Metitrons Cube is found in the Fruit of Life. The fruit of life is found in the Flower of Life. It is all dismissed as multiple coincidences because the ancients valued the Flower of Life that holds all this amazing information and theres apparently no way they knew these things. Now that you know the periodic table is found in the geometry of the Flower of Life, Im guessing that you too see this as multiple coincidences that say nothing about reality.
> 
> We are starting to form plausible theories that if proven true would abolish the laws of reality that we accept. The topic of this thread is an example of that. It wouldnt completely destroy how we see physics though, we would just view things from a new light and discard out dated material concepts for the good of humanity.


As I understand it, In Professor Moon's model of the Periodic Table, the protons in the nucleus arrange themselves in concentric forms that have the shapes of the Platonic Solids. Okay, so what? None of the ancients, even the Greeks, knew that sub-atomic particles existed. The Greeks were the most advanced, and they theorized that the atom was the absolute smallest unit. So, if it's the protons that are arranged in concentric forms that have the shapes of the Platonic Solids, how would ancients know this when they weren't even aware of anything smaller than atoms? They may have oohed and ahhed at the pretty shapes, but are you suggesting they knew what they were seeing was tied into the forms that protons take? If these things are somehow related, they had no clue. Is that coincidence? I can't think of another word to describe the situation. By the by, have you seen the movie Pi by Darren Aronofsky? It's one of my favorites and would be right up your alley: everything in the universe all comes down to a 217 digit number, once one recognizes the pattern, one can predict everything with absolute certainty; stock prices, hurricane stirkes, the lottery. But, the price to pay for discovering this knowledge is very, very high  It's a well-paced awesome thriller, you should check it out...


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 2, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> As I understand it, In Professor Moon's model of the Periodic Table, the protons in the nucleus arrange themselves in concentric forms that have the shapes of the Platonic Solids. Okay, so what? None of the ancients, even the Greeks, knew that sub-atomic particles existed. The Greeks were the most advanced, and they theorized that the atom was the absolute smallest unit. So, if it's the protons that are arranged in concentric forms that have the shapes of the Platonic Solids, how would ancients know this when they weren't even aware of anything smaller than atoms? They may have oohed and ahhed at the pretty shapes, but are you suggesting they knew what they were seeing was tied into the forms that protons take? If these things are somehow related, they had no clue. Is that coincidence? I can't think of another word to describe the situation. By the by, have you seen the movie Pi by Darren Aronofsky? It's one of my favorites and would be right up your alley: everything in the universe all comes down to a 217 digit number, once one recognizes the pattern, one can predict everything with absolute certainty; stock prices, hurricane stirkes, the lottery. But, the price to pay for discovering this knowledge is very, very high  It's a well-paced awesome thriller, you should check it out...


I dont think the Greeks were the most advanced. I think whoever built the pyramids were, and whoever built Machu Picchu, and who ever built Puma Punku... And... And... And . I think the earlier we go, the smarter we were. The Greeks being one of the first civilizations that lost knowledge, but were still very smart. Their art was more perfect earlier in their existence but had imperfections in their later years. Today we are at the lowest point in knowledge because we are deluded by stupid tech toys that make us think we're smart. Hell, we're still questioning if 'god' exists . 

I'm pretty sure the Greeks valued the Flower of Life as well but I may be mistaken. I know they loved that platonic solids though. The Flower of Life being found in many ancient civilizations that supposedly had no contact with each other should also raise an eyebrow, the oldest being the Egyptians, to which we have no idea on how to understand their ancient writing. We just know they valued the Flower of Life and also the Kabbala that is also found in the flower of life.

I think I might of heard of this movie though. Is it the one where great ancient artists used Pi in their masterpieces so they can be beautiful and mathematically correct?


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 2, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Say theres some people that KNOW 'god' (try to imagine 'god' not as 1 supreme being). Throw that subjectivity stuff out the window for now, these people are not being deluded and they know 'god' (remember, this is only an example). *With their true relationship with 'god', they have the knowledge that really matters like how the universe started, what the REAL rules of reality are, what holds things together, and how they can use this knowledge to learn, evolve and achieve bigger and better things. Would science still be the superior form of knowledge?* I really hope I dont get the response Im expecting with this question...


In your example, how would they acquire this knowledge, would god tell them? As it stands, the thousands of religions who claim to have a true relationship with god all state the he told them a thousand different things. If all religions stated that god said the same thing to all of them, that would be compelling. Using knowledge to learn, evolve and achieve bigger and better things _is_ the scientific method...



> Sheldrake is using science to test non-materialistic things and he is getting consistent results. Is the only explanation is that his results are flawed because hes testing non-material things?


This had me wondering, what is a non-material thing? Aren't all things material? If there were non-material things, how would we know about them?



> Im just saying that a lot of the ideas you see as bad is because of the materialistic paradigm, a paradigm that you are uncertain is the most correct path.


I think the reason that we perceive any ideas as bad is because they are illogical and don't stand up to even mild scrutiny. This goes for any ideas, natural or supernatural...


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 2, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> In your example, how would they acquire this knowledge, would god tell them? As it stands, the thousands of religions who claim to have a true relationship with god all state the he told them a thousand different things. If all religions stated that god said the same thing to all of them, that would be compelling. Using knowledge to learn, evolve and achieve bigger and better things _is_ the scientific method...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're incapable of imaging 'god' as being anything else besides a supreme being that is separate from yourself, so that kinda flew over your head... This would be the scientific method of using spiritual, non material knowledge to achieve bigger and better things?

Telepathy, for one. DNA has recently been found to have a scientifically impossible telepathic quality. To me, the observer effect is telepathic as well, and telepathy is non material. Check out Sheldrakes website ya lazy bum! lol Hes the one with the research and controlled experiments with consistent results of these non material things. The best thing you can do is go to his "controversies" section and listen to a debate hosted by skeptics where you can hear both sides of the argument and decide for yourself.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 2, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I dont think the Greeks were the most advanced. I think whoever built the pyramids were, and whoever built Machu Picchu, and who ever built Puma Punku... And... And... And . I think the earlier we go, the smarter we were. The Greeks being one of the first civilizations that lost knowledge, but were still very smart. Their art was more perfect earlier in their existence but had imperfections in their later years. Today we are at the lowest point in knowledge because we are deluded by stupid tech toys that make us think we're smart. Hell, we're still questioning if 'god' exists .
> 
> I'm pretty sure the Greeks valued the Flower of Life as well but I may be mistaken. I know they loved that platonic solids though. The Flower of Life being found in many ancient civilizations that supposedly had no contact with each other should also raise an eyebrow, the oldest being the Egyptians, to which we have no idea on how to understand their ancient writing. We just know they valued the Flower of Life and also the Kabbala that is also found in the flower of life.
> 
> I think I might of heard of this movie though. Is it the one where great ancient artists used Pi in their masterpieces so they can be beautiful and mathematically correct?


Well, you didn't answer my questions about the sub-atomic particles and the lack of knowledge these peoples had of them. The earlier we go the smarter we were? So, it is your view that we were smarter as hairy primitive beings with no language than the peoples that built the impressive structures you mentioned? That doesn't seem logical. How was ancient Greek art imperfect, and what makes any art perfect or non-perfect? Art is merely self-expression. For instance, their human sculptures' proportions may have been more realistic earlier on, but they realized they would have more of an aesthetic impact if they exaggerated certain aspects (larger hands, unrealistically longer torsos). This was by design and showed more creativity imo. Their literature certainly got better over time. What are your examples of their artistic sense degrading? 

I asked you a question earlier in another thread that was sincere: If we ever get to the point of acquiring knowledge that showed that there is certainly nothing spiritual/supernatural, would you be okay with that and adjust your beliefs accordingly? I can tell you that if it were shown that that realm were true, I would certainly adjust my beliefs.

That movie Pi is much different than the one your thinking of, this one is about a lone, reclusive genius mathematician in modern America who is on a similar quest as yourself, and the closer he gets to the truth about everything being connected, the more everyone is after him (the DOD, Wallstreet, corporations) and the closer he comes to madness. It's awesome, you'll love it...


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 2, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> You're incapable of imaging 'god' as being anything else besides a supreme being that is separate from yourself, so that kinda flew over your head... This would be the scientific method of using spiritual, non material knowledge to achieve bigger and better things?
> 
> Telepathy, for one. DNA has recently been found to have a scientifically impossible telepathic quality. To me, the observer effect is telepathic as well, and telepathy is non material. Check out Sheldrakes website ya lazy bum! lol Hes the one with the research and controlled experiments with consistent results of these non material things. The best thing you can do is go to his "controversies" section and listen to a debate hosted by skeptics where you can hear both sides of the argument and decide for yourself.


To be fair, you cannot know what I'm capable of. I could easily imagine any definition of god you'd like to convey. If it's knowledge, it is necessarily material as knowledge is a series of neural connections in the brain, or a series of symbols or words representing such. How would we go about knowing something without the requisite neural connections? Telepathy, if it existed, would also be a material phenomena, much like radio waves. Some form of energy would be needed to send thoughts between brains, that would be material. What's much stranger than DNA's seemingly telepathic properties is quantum entanglement, or what Einstein called 'Spooky action at a distance'. There are many strange phenomena we know to exist, but don't have the slightest clue on how they work. Scientists LOVE this shit, they live to attempt to observe and explain these mysterious things. They'll do so by careful and thorough observation and testing, not by some non-material magical process. So, we're still stuck not being able to identify anything either of us know of that is non-material. 
You're right about me being lazy about looking at Sheldrake's info, I'll get off my ass and spend (waste?) an hour doing so. Probably when there's nothing on TV...


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 2, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Well, you didn't answer my questions about the sub-atomic particles and the lack of knowledge these peoples had of them. The earlier we go the smarter we were? So, it is your view that we were smarter as hairy primitive beings with no language than the peoples that built the impressive structures you mentioned? That doesn't seem logical. How was ancient Greek art imperfect, and what makes any art perfect or non-perfect? Art is merely self-expression. For instance, their human sculptures' proportions may have been more realistic earlier on, but they realized they would have more of an aesthetic impact if they exaggerated certain aspects (larger hands, unrealistically longer torsos). This was by design and showed more creativity imo. Their literature certainly got better over time. What are your examples of their artistic sense degrading?
> 
> I asked you a question earlier in another thread that was sincere: If we ever get to the point of acquiring knowledge that showed that there is certainly nothing spiritual/supernatural, would you be okay with that and adjust your beliefs accordingly? I can tell you that if it were shown that that realm were true, I would certainly adjust my beliefs.
> 
> That movie Pi is much different than the one your thinking of, this one is about a lone, reclusive genius mathematician in modern America who is on a similar quest as yourself, and the closer he gets to the truth about everything being connected, the more everyone is after him (the DOD, Wallstreet, corporations) and the closer he comes to madness. It's awesome, you'll love it...


I kinda answered your question about the sub-atomic particles. The Greeks being one of the first civilizations to lose knowledge, of that knowledge was sub atomic particles and ways of the spirit and reality. Though they obliviously had the representation of sub-atomic particles with the platonic solids... The past is a mystery. We were primitive hunter gatherers for the longest time then BAM! Full on structured civilization with fully written languages, there was no gradual change into that, it was very sudden, shits crazy. I believe the very earliest civilizations to be the most intelligent and those are the Egyptians and Sumarians. Though primitive hunter gatherers went through some amazing evolutions of knowledge as well with how they spontaneously developed imagination, symbolism, and art... And I think it was that movie I was talking about where Greeks and other artists from hundreds of years ago used Pi and the Golden Ratio to make their artwork more perfect. I watched about 10 minutes of it and only remember seeing one example of Greek art where the sculpture had to have a support placed in for one of the arms because the sculpture wasnt mathematically correct, and that was later on in Greeks history. 

Im not too worried about science making such discoveries, I think it would of already happened if it was possible, and I dont think its possible at all. I just see hard atheist scientists trying so hard to convince the world of a completely godless theory. 

I guess I can simplify my question that went over your head. Never mind asking "how did they get this information?" because this is only an example. Say the world of the gods was proven to be real and we could now interact with this world. Would you see/feel the amazing things they are capable of and accept their humble explanations of reality or would you still stick to the materialistic paradigm and not use spirituality to test there explanations?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 2, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> To be fair, you cannot know what I'm capable of. I could easily imagine any definition of god you'd like to convey. If it's knowledge, it is necessarily material as knowledge is a series of neural connections in the brain, or a series of symbols or words representing such. How would we go about knowing something without the requisite neural connections? Telepathy, if it existed, would also be a material phenomena, much like radio waves. Some form of energy would be needed to send thoughts between brains, that would be material. What's much stranger than DNA's seemingly telepathic properties is quantum entanglement, or what Einstein called 'Spooky action at a distance'. There are many strange phenomena we know to exist, but don't have the slightest clue on how they work. Scientists LOVE this shit, they live to attempt to observe and explain these mysterious things. They'll do so by careful and thorough observation and testing, not by some non-material magical process. So, we're still stuck not being able to identify anything either of us know of that is non-material.
> You're right about me being lazy about looking at Sheldrake's info, I'll get off my ass and spend (waste?) an hour doing so. Probably when there's nothing on TV...


Ah the certainty of materialism... In a universe that is uncertain...


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 2, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Ah the certainty of materialism... In a universe that is uncertain...


Well, we both seem pretty certain that there are no non-material things, as neither of us can name a single one...


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 2, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Well, we both seem pretty certain that there are no non-material things, as neither of us can name a single one...


So the soul would have to be material? Even though when the soul leaves the body theres no physical mind to hold knowledge yet us souls still have vast knowledge and consciousness? I think if the supernatural were to be proven to be natural, you would stubbornly label them material even if you have no idea on how they function. This certainty of materialism has reached its limits in my opinion, its time to evolve and move on to bigger and better things. 

*

I guess I can simplify my question that went over your head. Never mind asking "how did they get this information?" because this is only an example. Say the world of the gods was proven to be real and we could now interact with this world. Would you see/feel the amazing things they are capable of and accept their humble explanations of reality or would you still stick to the materialistic paradigm and not use spirituality to test there explanations?

In case you forgot...​




*


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 2, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Say theres some people that KNOW 'god' (try to imagine 'god' not as 1 supreme being). Throw that subjectivity stuff out the window for now, these people are not being deluded and they know 'god' (remember, this is only an example). With their true relationship with 'god', they have the knowledge that really matters like how the universe started, what the REAL rules of reality are, what holds things together, and how they can use this knowledge to learn, evolve and achieve bigger and better things. Would science still be the superior form of knowledge? I really hope I dont get the response Im expecting with this question...


Science is not a form of knowledge, it is a process used to gain knowledge. If some other process delivered more accurate answers, then it would be superior. I concede that the value in science is it's ability to demonstrate accuracy. If communing with god gives us better answers, then science is inferior. This is assuming our goal is to gain the closest approximation of the truth possible by subjective beings. If something gets us closer to the truth than science, then I would be foolish not to acknowledge that.




> Theres no inner conflict I am going through because of materialistic science not being able to justify my beliefs. I just know that 'if' the supernatural exists (god, spirit world) then materialism is an out dated concept and holding humanity back from objectively knowing these things, not that the scientific process is necessary for knowing these things, imo.


Materialism is a philosophy, a worldview. Science is not a worldview, it's a tool. 

I never said you had inner conflict as in you struggle inside, I meant your ideas conflict, they demonstrate discourse that you can't ignore, and so you preserve your ideas by blaming this discourse on science, since science seems to be the source of the opposition. The concept of cognitive dissonance tells us this can easily happen with no inner struggle.

The only parts of science you want to 'update' is the quality controls, because it is the quality control that filters you out. What you want essentially is to dumb down science to your level.



> Isnt the purpose of meditation to reduce suffering and reflect upon yourself to make you a better person? Achieving lucid dreaming can be an example of that as well because you gotta be a well balanced person who is comfortable and has his priorities straight. Lucid dreaming is just another form of astral projection too and theres much you can gain from astral projection. Dont worry, I know what you have to say about things like astral projection lol. Also, negativity and a destructive personality can leave you open to illness, so its good to be balanced and have a healthy spirit. I also know what you have to say about that lol.


I asked for a spiritual practice that gives us answers that help to reduce suffering. Laughing makes me feel good and helps my health. Meditation can help my mental state. Lucid dreaming can help me understand unrealized truths about myself. In none of those areas do I get any answers which can be used to help people survive or to reduce their suffering. As I said, spiritual practices can have benefits, but you were comparing it to answers science gives us and saying that to favor scientific answers is to belittle spirituality.



> I didnt say criticizing bad ideas is the same as defending the uncertain. Im just saying that a lot of the ideas you see as bad is because of the materialistic paradigm, a paradigm that you are uncertain is the most correct path.


Again, admitting that we do not have absolute certainty is not the same as saying nothing has any degree of certainty. This is where the term 'reasonably certain' comes from. Since reasonably certain is all we can ever be, it becomes the highest level of certainty achievable. That fact that it's 'reasonably' certain means it's open to change, or reasoning. and based on logic or prior knowledge, aka reasoning.

People like Sheldrake want to play ball without learning the game, and when they break rules they blame it on the rule book. He is a bit like an american idol reject. He is unable to properly self-asses. He thinks his worldview is special and pleads the case, and when rejected he acts indignant and blames the system.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 2, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Professor Robert Moon proved that the periodic table of elements is found in the platonic solids.


I will restrict myself to the first link in tis chain of not-consequence.
Do you know what the periodic table of elements is?
It is a very specific and specified arrangement of the chemical elements. It has definite and definible properties.
The five Platonic solids are geometric concepts/constructs.
So tell me then, how can an arranged tabulation of the chemical elements be found in the Platonic solids? 

The only way I can see is by engaging in the irresistibly human, irredeemably counterscientific activity: evocation. The only way periodic and Platonic can come together is by an act of magical thinking: to see *meaning *in the similarity of A to B. 
I cannot stress how dangerous this is, because it is so easy and fun to do, how utterly human, and yet it always runs counter to science.
We humans are obsessed with pattern, correspondence, meaning, beauty. Our capacity for apophenia gives great leverage to that quest for pattern and correspondence. 
Now if you can show me that the periodic table is objectively contained in the set of Platonic solids, and can supply a text reference to support this ... without involving the cheat of meaning, then I'll listen.
But I am not confident, since your view of the world seems to be all about _meaning _as a liaison between disparate patterns. It's why you're sympathetic to the works of Graham Hancock ... he glorifies and exploits the idea that there are_ meaningful_ links between, say, an asterism and the arrangement of the Pyramids.
The thing about meaning is that, even while it is so attractive, it is definitively subjective. The only time you'll hear scientists say "what does it mean", they're using a "safed" syntax ... what is the relation, never what is the purpose. Science doesn't do teleology. There is no delineation between a seemingly sober discussion of meaning ... and a slide into frank magic: portents, significations, reminders of our place in a shadowy pantheon of insensible but fateful monsters. 

I am not saying that a search for pattern is a bad thing. Much of our personal experience of beauty comes from our seeing patterns and their beauty, and the especial sensation of beauty we get when disparate patterns correlate. But to elevate our nonrational, instinctive sense that these pattens mean something to a doctrine about physical reality ... is at best a hypothesis that would need to be proven by other means. If a scientific proof is sought, then the rules and limitations of science must be respected. The proponents of "sacred geometry" fail, because they cannot advance their models without invoking evocation, without pointing to beauty and insisting there be meaningfulness there. 

But science requires one thing of any hypothesis that is advanced by virtue of its prettiness: *physical test*. In this description of the Moon hypothesis, I saw tremendous use of the words "imagine" and "assume" in order to build the conceptual bridge, and a complete absence of emphasis on test. In fact an admission that the Moon model was not consistent with physical measurement (e.g. spectroscopy, which revealed the particulars about the quantum energetics of the atom) was made, then ignored. This is a plain violation of the rules of the game. 
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/moon_nuc.html
(N.b. 21st-Century Science is a publication of the LaRouche movement.) 



> The platonic solids make up Metitrons Cube. Metitrons Cube is found in the Fruit of Life. The fruit of life is found in the Flower of Life. It is all dismissed as multiple coincidences because the ancients valued the Flower of Life that holds all this amazing information and theres apparently no way they knew these things. Now that you know the periodic table is found in the geometry of the Flower of Life, Im guessing that you too see this as multiple coincidences that say nothing about reality.
> 
> We are starting to form plausible theories that if proven true would abolish the laws of reality that we accept. The topic of this thread is an example of that. It wouldnt completely destroy how we see physics though, we would just view things from a new light and discard out dated material concepts for the good of humanity.


Forming plausible hypotheses (theories are essentially confirmed by physical test) is a worthy pursuit. But equal priority should be given to figuring out how to test the hypotheses, how to subject them to a proofing. Hypotheses that resist test will naturally lose stature. The key is your phrase "if proven true". This will require, that these hypotheses confine themselves to the provable-true. And we must always be faithful to T.H. Huxley's maxim: "The great tragedy of science ... the slaying of a beautiful theory by an inconvenient fact." That is what slays the Moon nuclear model, and breaks the chain of meaning needed to give the appearance of science to the mysticism of "sacred geometry". cn


----------



## Doer (Sep 2, 2012)

If we throw in but one word, what do we have?

"*The platonic solids make up Metitrons Theatan Cube. Metitrons **Theatan **Cube is found in the Fruit of **Theatan **Life. The fruit of **Theatan **life is found in the **Theatan **Flower of Life. It is all dismissed as multiple coincidences because the ancients valued the **Theatan **Flower of Life that holds all this amazing information and theres apparently no way they knew these things. Now that you know the periodic table is found in the geometry of the **Theatan **Flower of Life, Im guessing that you too see this as multiple coincidences that say nothing about reality. 

We are starting to form plausible **Theatan** theories that if proven true would abolish the laws of reality that we accept. The topic of this thread is an example of that. It wouldn't completely destroy how we see physics though, we would just view **Theatan **things from a new light and discard out dated material, concepts for the **Theatan **good of **Theatan **humanity. "*

Scientology. 

-*...dismissed...**because the ancients valued...
-...**holds all this amazing information..*
-...*apparently no way they knew these things
-...** Now that you !!know!!...**the periodic table is found in the geometry*
-...*starting to form plausible **
-...** if proven true 
-...**would abolish the laws of reality*
-...*wouldn't completely destroy how we see physics*
-...*discard out dated, material concepts*
-...*for the good of** humanity*


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 2, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I will restrict myself to the first link in tis chain of not-consequence.
> Do you know what the periodic table of elements is?
> It is a very specific and specified arrangement of the chemical elements. It has definite and definible properties.
> The five Platonic solids are geometric concepts/constructs.
> ...


Im sorry Neer, but I just see a whole argument out of ignorance. You WANT it to be a form of magical irrelevant pattern recognition because it makes you feel more comfortable about your world views. Much like you didnt reply to my last response about free/unlimited energy because my argument actually made sense and acknowledging that would drastically change some of your faulty world views (political and scientific) that you hold so dearly. The funny thing is that the Flower of Life plays a key role in the many versions of free/unlimited energy devices that I presented to you. I just decided to not show you that part of the video and just show you the strictly scientific part so that you might take more interest in it, but you didnt, and an argument out of ignorance resulted from it. 

I stumbled upon the perfect link to show you though. I'm about half way through it and its been going in the right direction the whole time, and its not even the least bit spiritual. I'm so surprised this guy never made the connection to sacred geometry, everything he talks about has to do with it, he must be atheist and not even interested or aware of sacred geometry I guess. I knew of a lot of the information he has covered though, he had no idea that it was also spirit science . I especially enjoyed "The Philosopher Stoned" article that he provided that shows the 64 tetrahedron structure. Little did he know that if you put a sphere around each of the 64 tetrahedrons you get... wait for it... The Flower of Life.

Enjoy. 
http://www.energeticforum.com/new-members-area/7372-better-way-present-periodic-table.html


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 2, 2012)

I cant help thinking this when discussing here... "This is the song that never ends. It goes on and on my friends!..."... It seems impossible to agree to disagree and leave it at that.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 2, 2012)

I do not recall you presenting any free/unlimited energy devices. 
And no; I'd really enjoy a reproducible way to access something beyond nature. I truly would. But I would also want to know that I am not simply being hoodwinked by my human talent for divining pattern and purpose where that may not be appropriate. cn


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 2, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I do not recall you presenting any free/unlimited energy devices.
> And no; I'd really enjoy a reproducible way to access something beyond nature. I truly would. But I would also want to know that I am not simply being hoodwinked by my human talent for divining pattern and purpose where that may not be appropriate. cn


I did present such devices in the form of a video. One of the genius inventors did a great job at explaining his device. This technology could of been old news and apart of every day life but Tesla's free, radiant energy breakthrough was repressed and destroyed because it would of meant a huge loss of money and power for those that had it. Thats a fact of what happened in the past, but if the same thing happens in the future then its automatically a crazy conspiracy theory?... Btw, if it happens, then it is nature, not above it lol.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 2, 2012)

Here is the thread where I presented the information. 
https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/552831-abortion-
birth-control-resource-depletion-2.html

(edit) start watching the video at 16 minutes if you want to know how the flower of life has to do with these unlimited/free energy devices. I warn you that what you see you have a good chance as dismissing as "woo" because of previous things supposedly "debunked".


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 2, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I did present such devices in the form of a video. One of the genius inventors did a great job at explaining his device. This technology could of been old news and apart of every day life but Tesla's free, radiant energy breakthrough was repressed and destroyed because it would of meant a huge loss of money and power for those that had it. Thats a fact of what happened in the past, but if the same thing happens in the future then its automatically a crazy conspiracy theory?... Btw, if it happens, then it is nature, not above it lol.


One thing that argues strongly for it being bad science (or technology) is that harnessing such a thing would give any national entity a colossal edge. There can be no suppressing such a thing if it could be made to work. The only way to hold onto such a wacky sci-tech idea is to counterweight it with an even less likely assertion: that every organization in the world is conspiring to keep it secret; keep it safe. And that beggars the belief of all but the most credulous. What is it about the human organism that we so love the idea of a colossal conspiracy? Could it be that that way, we get to believe that there is magic, but it's being blocked by the storm troopers of materialism? ~nnaahh~ cn


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 2, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> One thing that argues strongly for it being bad science (or technology) is that harnessing such a thing would give any national entity a colossal edge. There can be no suppressing such a thing if it could be made to work. The only way to hold onto such a wacky sci-tech idea is to counterweight it with an even less likely assertion: that every organization in the world is conspiring to keep it secret; keep it safe. And that beggars the belief of all but the most credulous. What is it about the human organism that we so love the idea of a colossal conspiracy? Could it be that that way, we get to believe that there is magic, but it's being blocked by the storm troopers of materialism? ~nnaahh~ cn


Read the argument that you didnt reply to in the thread that this was originally brought up in for my response to this argument... Also, once again, this has happened before with Tesla. Do you not agree that those that were in power repressed and destroyed Teslas research when he was about to discover free/unlimited energy? You seem to block that part of the argument out of your mind. The repression of this technology has happened before in the past, but if one says that its happening now then its a crazy conspiracy theory?... C'mon now Neer... This would leave all other energy obsolete and 200 trillion dollars would be tossed down the drain because energy would be FREE!. It makes sense Neer lol


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 2, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Im sorry Neer, but I just see a whole argument out of ignorance. You WANT it to be a form of magical irrelevant pattern recognition because it makes you feel more comfortable about your world views.


You see patterns, you make assumptions, and you figure your assumption is beyond scrutiny. In fact, any who scrutinize and doubt your conclusion just can't handle the truth. You've left no possibility for yourself to be wrong. You have a closed mind.

The only parts of science you want to 'update' is the quality controls, because it is the quality control that filters you out. What you want essentially is to dumb down science to your level.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 2, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Read the argument that you didnt reply to in the thread that this was originally brought up in for my response to this argument... Also, once again, *this has happened before with Tesla*. *Do you not agree that those that were in power repressed and destroyed Teslas research when he was about to discover free/unlimited energy?* You seem to block that part of the argument out of your mind. The repression of this technology has happened before in the past, but if one says that its happening now then its a crazy conspiracy theory?... C'mon now Neer... This would leave all other energy obsolete and 200 trillion dollars would be tossed down the drain because energy would be FREE!. It makes sense Neer lol


No. And no. I think you've been lured in by something irresistible to you ... a combination of supernature, science and grand conspiracy. It's your tuna fish sandwich. cn


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 2, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You see patterns, you make assumptions, and you figure your assumption is beyond scrutiny. In fact, any who scrutinize and doubt your conclusion just can't handle the truth. You've left no possibility for yourself to be wrong. You have a closed mind.
> 
> The only parts of science you want to 'update' is the quality controls, because it is the quality control that filters you out. What you want essentially is to dumb down science to your level.


"This is the song that never ends, it goes on and on my friends! Everyone started singing it not knowing what it was, but everyone kept on singing it, forever JUST BECAUSE!"

Its impossible for you to agree to disagree, you are the prime example of this. We both present information about our world views but our world views conflict at every turn so nothing gets accomplished. Its an infinite loop with both sides saying "You're closed minded!". We both think that our passions are deluding us about reality, so why bother arguing any further? We both think that the others standards for reality is ridiculous, nothing gets accomplished. So whats the point of these exchanges? Do you want to understand other perspectives of life or do you want to be a guardian of material facts and engage those that attempt to spread information that conflicts with your knowledge of reality thus feeling like you're protecting people from being fooled? 

Im not trying to dumb down science. Things like god, the soul, the spirit world, they are not material. So 'if' they are real then we are being mislead by these materialistic standards that the majority of the scientific community holds so dearly. But, no matter how against it you are, scientists are finally starting to look past these out dated materialistic concepts and test the natural qualities of the "supernatural" and they are getting consistent results. Progress does not care what you think or what you value.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 2, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> No. And no. I think you've been lured in by something irresistible to you ... a combination of supernature, science and grand conspiracy. It's your tuna fish sandwich. cn


Ah, so you dismiss what happened to Tesla as false because it conflicts with your political, scientific views?... Ignorance is bliss


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 2, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Ah, so you dismiss what happened to Tesla as false because it conflicts with your political, scientific views?... Ignorance is bliss


A different reason ... because it didn't happen. cn


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 2, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> A different reason ... because it didn't happen. cn


Ah, so Tesla wasnt studying radiant energy after all?... You say it didnt happen because it makes you feel more comfortable about your political and scientific views. Ignorance is bliss =)


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 2, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Ah, so Tesla wasnt studying radiant energy after all?... You say it didnt happen because it makes you feel more comfortable about your political and scientific views. Ignorance is bliss =)


Oh I dunno about that.  

I am sure Tesla did study radiant energy, and that he did study transmission of electrical power at a modest distance. 
However I do not believe that he found "free" energy or an efficient way to capture it. 
There's a baby in that bathwater. cn


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 2, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Oh I dunno about that.
> 
> I am sure Tesla did study radiant energy, and that he did study transmission of electrical power at a modest distance.
> However I do not believe that he found "free" energy or an efficient way to capture it.
> There's a baby in that bathwater. cn


So if he DID find free/radiant energy and he DID transfer energy at kinda long distance, his main investor J.P Morgan (makes millions off of costly energy) wouldnt of destroyed Tesla's lab and repress this information because this information would of cost him millions?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 2, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> "This is the song that never ends, it goes on and on my friends! Everyone started singing it not knowing what it was, but everyone kept on singing it, forever JUST BECAUSE!"
> 
> Its impossible for you to agree to disagree, you are the prime example of this. We both present information about our world views but our world views conflict at every turn so nothing gets accomplished. Its an infinite loop with both sides saying "You're closed minded!". We both think that our passions are deluding us about reality, so why bother arguing any further? We both think that the others standards for reality is ridiculous, nothing gets accomplished. So whats the point of these exchanges? Do you want to understand other perspectives of life or do you want to be a guardian of material facts and engage those that attempt to spread information that conflicts with your knowledge of reality thus feeling like you're protecting people from being fooled?


Nothing gets accomplished because you are unwilling to grow, and you are unable to present any information that helps me grow. You are uneducated academically and green when it comes to life. The problem isn't that we can't agree to disagree, the problem is you are unwilling to learn and unable to teach. The problem is not that your views conflict with mine, it's that they conflict with logic and each other while managing to say nothing meaningful. They are the refuge of a confused and inadequate mind, and because your mind is closed, it will always be inadequate. This is the reason you are constantly missing the point. This is the reason you have trouble with subtleties and nuance. You have forgone teaching yourself how to think, and concentrated completely on telling yourself what to think. Learning how to think is a life long process that you somehow got completely right by age 20.



> Im not trying to dumb down science. Things like god, the soul, the spirit world, they are not material. So 'if' they are real then we are being mislead by these materialistic standards that the majority of the scientific community holds so dearly.


Yes, you hide behind the idea that spirit is beyond science so science must change, yet the only changes you want to make are the ones that causes science to agree with you. 



> But, no matter how against it you are, scientists are finally starting to look past these out dated materialistic concepts and test the natural qualities of the "supernatural" and they are getting consistent results. Progress does not care what you think or what you value.


This is only true if you do not understand the difference between science and pseudoscience. There are in fact real scientists researching these subjects, and they are getting consistent results, negative ones, for nearly 100 years. We can make the results positive, but we must throw out certain standards of science, making it pseudoscience.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 2, 2012)

Here is an example of one of the things Sheldrake would change about science, the null hypothesis. 

His posit of morphic resonance basically states that memory is inherit in nature. So when a certain shape, structure, behavior, ect has occurred many times, it becomes more likely to occur again. We each have fields, and those fields are based off previous fields. Similar fields are connected and resonate with each other. This offers an explanation for all sorts of phenomena like esp and precognition, such as knowing who is calling on the phone before you answer. He points to examples of these fields when we see a flock of birds move in perfect unison, or how a squirrel knows to gather nuts for the winter when he has never been through one. It's basically an expanded concept of collective memory to include consciousness.

But science looks at this hypothesis and see possible predictions. If the idea were happening, shouldn't we see chemical compounds being easier and easier to synthesize as their shapes enter into natures memory? Shouldn't things like puzzles and video games become easier to solve as they enter more and more into the collective consciousnesses? Mankind has been learning to ride a bike for a pretty long time now, how come it has not gotten any easier for children of today to learn than it was 100 years ago? How come every year there are a percentage of squirrels who do not gather food for winter and die? 

Well this is where Sheldrake starts criticizing science. Somehow, asking these questions becomes being anchored in the materialistic paradigm. He feels no need to consider the null hypothesis. Yet, when he finds studies that seem to support the idea, he accepts them. Rats learning to run a maze better and better with each generation. Termites working together perfectly even though they are blind and separated by a steal plate. When it is pointed out that these studies are sloppy and flawed, it's back to the "science is outdated" rhetoric.

Sheldrake sees evidence in anecdotal information. If someone feels compelled to stop their car and then a tree falls in front of them, it''s confirmation. If someone is thinking about their mother and then she calls, it's evidence. He makes no mention of the times when we think of someone and they do not call, or the times we stop our car and nothing happens. He glances over basic critical thinking concepts such as confirmation bias, he devalues scientific concepts like experimental protocol, and then when he isn't taken seriously he blames the system for not being as deluded as him.

Here is a paper that demonstrates what can happen when we ignore scientific protocols when doing science. This paper shows a positive conclusion that listening to music about being old actually makes you physically younger. When you use methods such as Sheldrake's you can pretty much show a positive result for anything. So the idea that listening to music about being old will reverse your aging process has as much support as Sheldrake's interconectedness.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 2, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> So if he DID find free/radiant energy and he DID transfer energy at kinda long distance, his main investor J.P Morgan (makes millions off of costly energy) wouldnt of destroyed Tesla's lab and repress this information because this information would of cost him millions?


If he DID and DID, and J.P Morgan DID ... then someone somewhere in the intervening century WOULD have. But nobody DID. So I consider it very unlikely that there was anything to it except rumor, sweet juicy rumor.

But what benefit in playing what-if games? It's a bit like saying what if Cindy Crawford DID show up at your front door and she DID most huskily say "I have had the most _revealing _dream about you" ... the end result is the same. cn


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 2, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Nothing gets accomplished because you are unwilling to grow, and you are unable to present any information that helps me grow. You are uneducated academically and green when it comes to life. The problem isn't that we can't agree to disagree, the problem is you are unwilling to learn and unable to teach. The problem is not that your views conflict with mine, it's that they conflict with logic and each other while managing to say nothing meaningful. They are the refuge of a confused and inadequate mind, and because your mind is closed, it will always be inadequate. This is the reason you are constantly missing the point. This is the reason you have trouble with subtleties and nuance. You have forgone teaching yourself how to think, and concentrated completely on telling yourself what to think. Learning how to think is a life long process that you somehow got completely right by age 20.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The expected response from you Heis. Twisting things in favor of material logic so that you must have the upper hand instead of agreeing to disagree. You will forever use the same condescending tone because of the inflated scientific ego that you have grown over the years. You are so far deep into materialism that you couldnt even comprehend what Sheldrake was saying in his article. I could use the same argument that you are using, but I feel that I have a better understanding of the situation. Opposite passions collide and results in pointless attempts to get the other to see things in a different view yet we both think that each other is far too deluded to understand anything the other says... Yet you still try and engage those that you KNOW wont budge from their views. 

So if god, the soul, the spirit world exist then it must be material? You are certain of this? Is this an exception to the rule of forbidden certainty? If they are made of material, then wouldnt it be easy to detect? It cannot be detected using material tools, so therefore it probably doesnt exist? Argument out of ignorance... These things are labelled by the scientific community as "supernatural", so yes, I think they are beyond materialistic science, and apparently materialistic science agrees with me, because the "supernatural" is above nature. If they werent above materialistic science then materialistic science would of found these things and proved them to be materially natural. Why is it so hard to accept that 'god' is not made of material? "Because everything else in this world is material" is a shit poor excuse. 'If' we die and our souls go to the spirit world to join other spirits and gods, obviously their world functions differently than ours. It is a completely different reality with different rules. Do you think materialistic science has value in the spirit world?

Another argument out of ignorance. If a scientist is getting positive results of the supernatural then his experiments must be flawed? Really? So a scientist that proves 'god' without a doubt, with repeatable and consistent results every single time is being deluded because he didnt use materialistic concepts? How do you not get claustrophobic in that box of materialism? Sheldrake has controlled experiments with consistent positive results and the scientific skeptics of much higher stature than yourself have the same argument out of ignorance. That he doesnt use materialism therefore his results must be flawed, they just say that over and over again without demonstrating how he is wrong and he goes on to win the approval of the unbiased audiences of these debates that are hosted by skeptics.

This is the song that never ends...


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 2, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> If he DID and DID, and J.P Morgan DID ... then someone somewhere in the intervening century WOULD have. But nobody DID. So I consider it very unlikely that there was anything to it except rumor, sweet juicy rumor.
> 
> But what benefit in playing what-if games? It's a bit like saying what if Cindy Crawford DID show up at your front door and she DID most huskily say "I have had the most _revealing _dream about you" ... the end result is the same. cn


LOL but inventors DID follow up on Tesla's studies and improved on it! Man I am starting to like this exchange lol. Money is power in this world, and if knowledge reduces the flow of money than that knowledge will be repressed. If free/unlimited energy were made public then 200 trillion dollars worth of limited energy would be useless. No oil, no coal, no hydro, no NOTHIN. Making this technology public would NEVER make up for that 200 trillion dollars that would be lost. Please watch the parts of the video I told you to watch and quit spewing arguments out of ignorance lol I never felt more in control.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 2, 2012)

ha ha he proves you wrong(based on your premise) and you just ignore it and go on with what if statements and shoulda beena talk . . . .. i love it, im entertained


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 2, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> The expected response from you Heis. Twisting things in favor of material logic so that you must have the upper hand instead of agreeing to disagree. You will forever use the same condescending tone because of the inflated scientific ego that you have grown over the years. You are so far deep into materialism that you couldnt even comprehend what Sheldrake was saying in his article. I could use the same argument that you are using, but I feel that I have a better understanding of the situation. Opposite passions collide and results in pointless attempts to get the other to see things in a different view yet we both think that each other is far too deluded to understand anything the other says... Yet you still try and engage those that you KNOW wont budge from their views.


Your attempts to shut others up have become more subtle, but still recognizable. No matter the reason I engage you, you will continue to be engaged. Condescending or not, my words are there to critisize, it depends on your ability to explain and defend, to find and communicate merit.



> So if god, the soul, the spirit world exist then it must be material? You are certain of this? Is this an exception to the rule of forbidden certainty? If they are made of material, then wouldnt it be easy to detect? It cannot be detected using material tools, so therefore it probably doesnt exist? Argument out of ignorance... These things are labelled by the scientific community as "supernatural", so yes, I think they are beyond materialistic science, and apparently materialistic science agrees with me, because the "supernatural" is above nature. If they werent above materialistic science then materialistic science would of found these things and proved them to be materially natural. Why is it so hard to accept that 'god' is not made of material? "Because everything else in this world is material" is a shit poor excuse. 'If' we die and our souls go to the spirit world to join other spirits and gods, obviously their world functions differently than ours. It is a completely different reality with different rules. Do you think materialistic science has value in the spirit world?


You are not talking to me, unless you have not been reading my posts. I believe there is more to conscious existence than material things. Afterall, I accept psychology and sociology, which are not sciences.




> Another argument out of ignorance. If a scientist is getting positive results of the supernatural then his experiments must be flawed?


This is not what an argument from ignorance is BTW. But anyhow, no one is saying that because he has positive results his methods are flawed. We are saying that because his methods are flawed he is getting positive results. This is what I mean when I say you have a problem understanding nuance.



> Really? So a scientist that proves 'god' without a doubt, with repeatable and consistent results every single time is being deluded because he didnt use materialistic concepts? How do you not get claustrophobic in that box of materialism? Sheldrake has controlled experiments with consistent positive results and the scientific skeptics of much higher stature than yourself have the same argument out of ignorance. That he doesnt use materialism therefore his results must be flawed, they just say that over and over again without demonstrating how he is wrong and he goes on to win the approval of the unbiased audiences of these debates that are hosted by skeptics.


Sheldrake uses the controls he sees fit, and discounts those he doesn't like, which is also known as pseudoscience. It has nothing to do with materialism, Sheldrake has "American idol reject" syndrome.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 2, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> LOL but inventors DID follow up on Tesla's studies and improved on it! Man I am starting to like this exchange lol. Money is power in this world, and if knowledge reduces the flow of money than that knowledge will be repressed. If free/unlimited energy were made public then 200 trillion dollars worth of limited energy would be useless. No oil, no coal, no hydro, no NOTHIN. Making this technology public would NEVER make up for that 200 trillion dollars that would be lost. Please watch the parts of the video I told you to watch and quit spewing arguments out of ignorance lol I never felt more in control.


The United States isn't the whole world. Don't you think the Germans would have done this, if they could? And I don't mean the woo <cough> foo fighter thing either.

Or the Sovs. Or the Imperial Japanese. or even the poor dear Austrians. If there had been anything to it at all, J.P. Morgan and his merrie men would have had no capacity at all to stop the research in a developed but unaligned nation. The Germans of the '20s through '40s were a force, the masters of technological creation until the war those fools started and lost kicked the USA off their complacent neutralist butts. _Sic transit Gloria_. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 2, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I never felt more in control.


Is debate about control to you Chief? 


Can you define what an argument from ignorance is?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 2, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Is debate about control to you Chief?
> 
> 
> Can you define what an argument from ignorance is?


You might get a bit of ignorant argument. ~couldn't resist~ cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 2, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> You might get a bit of ignorant argument. ~couldn't resist~ cn


heh, there is a bit of special irony there. Being ignorant about what an argument from ignorance is, and arguing about it. Not a bad representation of the Chiefs entire forte.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Here is an example of one of the things Sheldrake would change about science, the null hypothesis.
> 
> His posit of morphic resonance basically states that memory is inherit in nature. So when a certain shape, structure, behavior, ect has occurred many times, it becomes more likely to occur again. We each have fields, and those fields are based off previous fields. Similar fields are connected and resonate with each other. This offers an explanation for all sorts of phenomena like esp and precognition, such as knowing who is calling on the phone before you answer. He points to examples of these fields when we see a flock of birds move in perfect unison, or how a squirrel knows to gather nuts for the winter when he has never been through one. It's basically an expanded concept of collective memory to include consciousness.
> 
> ...


Oh so all of the sudden you are able to understand what Sheldrake is trying to say? I think the copy-n-paste is being used here... 

Consciousness is a factor in Sheldrakes theory. Do all organisms of the same type share the exact same consciousness? They do not. They have different personalities. Its about harmonious resonance with those that emit a vibration field that is similar to yours and your consciousness/personality effects what vibration you emit. There are many people and things that we are not in harmony (like me and you) so, according to his theory, that is why we are not completely connected. Not because Sheldrake ignores hard facts. You are more connected to those that you are in harmony with. I could be using the word "soul" as well but I think thats a bit too far fetched for you.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> The United States isn't the whole world. Don't you think the Germans would have done this, if they could? And I don't mean the woo <cough> foo fighter thing either.
> 
> Or the Sovs. Or the Imperial Japanese. or even the poor dear Austrians. If there had been anything to it at all, J.P. Morgan and his merrie men would have had no capacity at all to stop the research in a developed but unaligned nation. The Germans of the '20s through '40s were a force, the masters of technological creation until the war those fools started and lost kicked the USA off their complacent neutralist butts. _Sic transit Gloria_. cn


Why would this information be impossible to repress by J.P. Morgan? He would of been one of the first to know about it, he was a powerful man and he made things happen. Not expecting anything, Teslas lab was burnt down and all information was lost and he was threatened to not continue his studies on radiant energy. How would this information of got leaked when it was so quickly put under wraps? How would other countries have knowledge of this extensive research if barely any of them knew he was studying radiant energy? How many countries even cared that he was doing these studies?... Money is the world man and this form of knowledge would of threw 200 trillion dollars down the drain, making those in power MUCH less powerful.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Your attempts to shut others up have become more subtle, but still recognizable. No matter the reason I engage you, you will continue to be engaged. Condescending or not, my words are there to critisize, it depends on your ability to explain and defend, to find and communicate merit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Even though you know your engagements are completely useless, you engage. You like wild goose chases. And I do criticize and explain, then you criticize and explain, then I criticize and explain, forever and ever pointlessly. With both sides saying that the other is refusing to learn... Because one side likes wild goose chases...

You completely avoided my argument here, please answer every question in the second paragraph. 

You only say his methods are flawed because he is not sticking to the material paradigm of science, therefore every positive result must be flawed, according to you. 

I explained more about Sheldrakes theory with my last response to you. I use that as a response to this.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Oh so all of the sudden you are able to understand what Sheldrake is trying to say? I think the copy-n-paste is being used here...


If you think these aren't my words I welcome you to locate the page I copied from. I have heard of Sheldrake's research since back in 2006 when he did the telephone study. I've listened to him debate Richard Wiseman, and heard him interviewed on Theater of the Mind. Morphic fields were integral to the plot of Torchwood last season. I realized this was the person you were championing about 10 pages ago, and no, I still haven't followed your original link.




> Consciousness is a factor in Sheldrakes theory. Do all organisms of the same type share the exact same consciousness? They do not. They have different personalities. Its about harmonious resonance with those that emit a vibration field that is similar to yours and your consciousness/personality effects what vibration you emit. There are many people and things that we are not in harmony (like me and you) so, according to his theory, that is why we are not completely connected. Not because Sheldrake ignores hard facts. You are more connected to those that you are in harmony with. I could be using the word "soul" as well but I think thats a bit too far fetched for you.


Exactly, when his assumptions are criticized, like asking these questions, 



> If the idea were happening, shouldn't we see chemical compounds being easier and easier to synthesize as their shapes enter into natures memory? Shouldn't things like puzzles and video games become easier to solve as the enter more and more into the collective consciousnesses? Mankind has been learning to ride a bike for a pretty long time now, how come it has not gotten any easier for children of today to learn than it was 100 years ago?


He defends by making more assumptions. He heaps more bullshit onto the pile to cover up the bullshit that's being pointed to. When it's pointed out that science values parsimony when making assumptions, he says science is outdated. It is only the disqualifying controls he has problems with.

Following these standards you can prove just about anything you want, even in a scientific looking way. When something looks like science but makes mistakes which science avoids, we call it pseudoscience. Sheldrakes brand of pseudoscience is not hard to understand, they all arise for a similar reason, which is, 'Parts of science disagree with my pet theory so lets throw those parts out".


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Even though you know your engagements are completely useless, you engage. You like wild goose chases. And I do criticize and explain, then you criticize and explain, then I criticize and explain, forever and ever pointlessly. With both sides saying that the other is refusing to learn... Because one side likes wild goose chases...


I don't think they are useless, which is why I engage. If my goal were to change your mind I might reconsider, but obviously that is not my motivation.



> You completely avoided my argument here, please answer every question in the second paragraph.


That paragraph was not addressed to me, or else it was written to me by someone who has not read my posts on the subject. I do not take the position that life is only about material concepts. I believe Tyler was discussing that issue with you.



> You only say his methods are flawed because he is not sticking to the material paradigm of science, therefore every positive result must be flawed, according to you.


I am saying he relaxes any protocols which allow him to massage the data, on top of misunderstanding the distinction between science and pretend science, and why it's important to distinguish. You would like me to say something like "therefore every positive result must be flawed", but I didn't, unless you ignore nuance and make assumptions. I am saying he ignores methodology which controls for certain errors because his very hypotheses depends on those errors.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> If you think these aren't my words I welcome you to locate the page I copied from. I have heard of Sheldrake's research since back in 2006 when he did the telephone study. I've listened to him debate Richard Wiseman, and heard him interviewed on Theater of the Mind. I realized this was the person you were championing about 10 pages ago, and no, I still haven't followed your original link.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My explanation still counters the errors you presented. Chemicals compounds are not living organisms so they have less of an effect of the fields of reality. Their mechanisms and habits are more fixed. A puzzle would be easier to solve if many that share a similar consciousness/personality were doing that puzzle. Bikes would be easier to ride if many kids that share a similar consciousness/personality were learning to ride a bike.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I don't think they are useless, which is why I engage. If my goal were to change your mind I might reconsider, but obviously that is not my motivation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So your motivation is that you are protecting people from being fooled because the information being presented doesnt sit well with how you view material reality? Please tell me your motivation for these wild goose chases. 

I am talking about god, souls, and the spirit world and how they are not of material. You criticized me like you think such things would be of material, my argument was completely relevant. I think you are avoiding that argument because I would be proving a point.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> So your motivation is that you are protecting people from being fooled because the information being presented doesnt sit well with how you view material reality? Please tell me your motivation for these wild goose chases.


You would like for this to be an issue of motivation. The only motivation we need to criticize bad ideas is to agree that some ideas are worthless and some are useful. Even useful ones have room for improvement.



> I am talking about god, souls, and the spirit world and how they are not of material. You criticized me like you think such things would be of material, my argument was completely relevant. I think you are avoiding that argument because I would be proving a point.


Again, you would like me to make this argument, but I am not. Ive made statements such as 



> If we lived by scientific rationale, we would be forced to ignore sentimental value, yet each of us has some item that means something special to us because of who gave it to us or possessed it previously. Science is forever objective, the human experience is subjective. Science can't give me any reason why I do not like the taste of spinach. If science can't hold sway of such a simple thing just because it's subjective, then science is obviously not the only tool we use to navigate life. Science is both necessary and insufficient.


and



> Just as it's proper to say that in matters of spiritualism, science does not rule, or even hold sway.


And just so there is no confusion, I accept that there may be a sacred element to our consciousnesses and that element could very well be beyond the understanding of science. I value spiritual investigation, I just don't over value it. I accept that science may be too objective to fully grasp the subjectivity of consciousnesses, but I do not accept the false dichotomy that this means we have to accept pseudoscience. 

And as I have pointed out before, when spiritual concepts tread into the physical world, like morphic fields certainly do, they must then play by the rules nature has outlined, or give proper motivation to adjust the rules. Hand-waving dismissal of criticism is not proper motivation. Morphic resonance is a bad idea and it falls apart in the same ways all bad ideas fall apart, and Sheldrake justifies it in the same way all pseudoscientists do.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> My explanation still counters the errors you presented. Chemicals compounds are not living organisms so they have less of an effect of the fields of reality. Their mechanisms and habits are more fixed. A puzzle would be easier to solve if many that share a similar consciousness/personality were doing that puzzle. Bikes would be easier to ride if many kids that share a similar consciousness/personality were learning to ride a bike.


This is not a counter, this is an example of you making as many assumptions as needed to support your view. Show to me that these aren't assumptions and I will pay attention. You do not think similar minded people find puzzles an interesting hobby? You don't think similar personalities are attracted to video games? You think bike riding is so uncommon that not enough of the same group has learned to ride? Certainly all types of people have learned to use the English alphabet, yet it has not gotten any easier for kids to grasp when learning it. Are there just not enough of the same personalities that read for it to become easier? How many Chinese children have learned to use chopsticks? Shouldn't they be using them shortly after birth by now?

Strange how resonance fields are unique in just that certain way which gets them around elementary scrutiny.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You would like for this to be an issue of motivation. The only motivation we need to criticize bad ideas is to agree that some ideas are worthless and some are useful. Even useful ones have room for improvement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, you said "this is not my motivation" for engaging in wild goose chases, so I figured the topic was motivation. It seems like you twisting things in your favor again. Can you tell me your motivation for starting wild goose chases? Im trying to improve science by taking the materialism out of it because I'm convinced things like the soul, the spirit world, and god are not of material. 

Again, you are avoiding the argument. I am talking about specific things, not about the non material examples that you have provided... Why do you think that things like the soul, the spirit world, and god would be made of material? We cannot detect the soul, the spirit world, and god using materialism, therefore it probably doesnt exist? 

So if you except that there may be something sacred about reality that is above science, why not remove the part of science that is stopping it from exploring this sacred reality? Why are controlled experiments impossible when materialism is thrown away? It seems stubborn and lazy. Im only making this point because I got the impression that you think things like god must be material. 

I told you why your take on Sheldrake is wrong in my last response about his theory. You seem pretty confident that you have proved him wrong when scientists of much higher stature than yourself have failed to.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 3, 2012)

you want to use science to prove your concepts hold weight , . but you want to ignore how the scientific method is done


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> This is not a counter, this is an example of you making as many assumptions as needed to support your view. Show to me that these aren't assumptions and I will pay attention. You do not think similar minded people find puzzles an interesting hobby? You don't think similar personalities are attracted to video games? You think bike riding is so uncommon that not enough of the same group has learned to ride? Certainly all types of people have learned to use the English alphabet, yet it has not gotten any easier for kids to grasp when learning it. Are there just not enough of the same personalities that read for it to become easier? How many Chinese children have learned to use chopsticks? Shouldn't they be using them shortly after birth by now?
> 
> Strange how resonance fields are unique in just that certain way which gets them around elementary scrutiny.


It is a counter, but you have a "you're definitely wrong" attitude instead of a "I think you're wrong" attitude because of the ego you have grown. How often are similar personalities doing the same puzzle? I dont know what your point is about video games. Children are unstable and all over the place so how can they be in harmony with other unstable children with different personalities? I guess you'll dismiss this as desperate assumptions to prove the theory though. A theory that brilliant scientists couldnt disprove yet somehow you can, funny. 

This is the song that never ends...


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> you want to use science to prove your concepts hold weight , . but you want to ignore how the scientific method is done


I dont NEED science to prove these things to me. I have experienced enough to know how these things work. My experiences mean nothing to anyone else though so Im just trying to show that science can be applied to these things but the scientific community stubbornly holds on to materialism.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 3, 2012)

you call it materialism . .. i call it causality . . .and the scientific method how ever mis used is still the only quantitative way to explain our universe, and there are new particles and types of matter being worked on every year to explain the elements of the our galaxy and there relationship to each other, quantum physics . . . , math is king and the human brain and perception is entirely fallible


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

Then why like my post on page 5 that is totally against materialistic science?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 3, 2012)

you got spunk, i like your thoughts . . . . but if you have to throw away a good methodology in order to believe another that is unproven in any way other then in your head, then i see no logic in that

to invalidate science in order to give weight to your beliefs, is a fallacy . . . 

if life was interconnected then it would follow a design or constant, but it doesn't , the only constant is change and evolution of ideas. some of your ideas might come together with science some day but until then its entertainment and without people thinking against the grain like yourself not much would ever change

doesnt mean i agree with you though . . . .friends . . . ?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

I dont want to throw it away. I dont think throwing materialism away is throwing science away. A lot of science fanatics agree that there may indeed be things that are above materialistic science that influence our reality (god). So how is it the closest approximation to the truth if it is forbidden to go beyond materialism?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 3, 2012)

ill got to go back and re read your thoughts on materialism . . . as my ideas of how/why science is key to quantitative results is the scientific method, and thats it


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> It is a counter, but you have a "you're definitely wrong" attitude instead of a "I think you're wrong" attitude because of the ego you have grown. How often are similar personalities doing the same puzzle? I dont know what your point is about video games. Children are unstable and all over the place so how can they be in harmony with other unstable children with different personalities? I guess you'll dismiss this as desperate assumptions to prove the theory though. A theory that brilliant scientists couldnt disprove yet somehow you can, funny.
> 
> This is the song that never ends...



You like to re-frame my words. I didn't say you are definitely wrong, I said your hypothesis makes predictions that do not hold true. In each case, you ignore the null and instead make the assumptions you need to explain away the lack of results. People of all ages and types use math, math is all about symbols. Math is integral to the universe, one of the oldest studies, yet we do not see intuitive quantitative aptitude. Math still takes study and discipline, just as it always has. 

It's odd how morphic fields just happen to behave in such a way to avoid the concept of null hypothesis. When you throw out principals such as null hypothesis and Occam's razor, you throw out science and replace it with a corrupt form of science, aka pseudoscience. It could be true that spiritual matters are beyond science and we need a different tool, but you are using that idea as an excuse to favor junk science. Using a different tool is one thing, pleading that your theory is special and deserves a pass through science's filters is another.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You like to re-frame my words. I didn't say you are definitely wrong, I said your hypothesis makes predictions that do not hold true. In each case, you ignore the null and instead make the assumptions you need to explain away the lack of results. People of all ages and types use math, math is all about symbols. Math is integral to the universe, one of the oldest studies, yet we do not see quantitative aptitude. Math still takes study and discipline, just as it always has.
> 
> It's odd how morphic fields just happen to behave in such a way to avoid the concept of null hypothesis. When you throw out principals such as null hypothesis and Occam's razor, you throw out science and replace it with a corrupt form of science, aka pseudoscience. It could be true that spiritual matters are beyond science and we need a different tool, but you are using that idea as an excuse to favor junk science. Using a different tool is one thing, pleading that your theory is special and deserves a pass through science's filters is another.


How come this argument has not won over unbiased audiences of debates hosted by brilliant scientific minds? Surely if it was so logical and undeniable it would of made some progress in dismantling his theory. It seems you have done what much greater scientists have failed to do and disproved Sheldrakes theory, that is quite an accomplishment.

This is the song that never ends....


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 3, 2012)

theorys get proved or they are considered unproven already by the classification as a theory .. . . . . not fact


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> How come this argument has not won over unbiased audiences of debates hosted by brilliant scientific minds? Surely if it was so logical and undeniable it would of made some progress in dismantling his theory. It seems you have done what much greater scientists have failed to do and disproved Sheldrakes theory, that is quite an accomplishment.
> 
> This is the song that never ends....


Really? You're gonna fall back on the authority angle? "I can't defend or even explain this theory but someone did before and some other people said it was right" Are you trying to imply that there are aspects of his explanations which I can not understand, and therefore must rely on scientists who do AND agree? It seems you are the one who doesn't understand the theory, since you are unable to answer these basic questions that must have been asked by these brilliant scientists. Your answer is to move the goalpost and plead for special consideration, but you're unable to demonstrate why, just like Sheldrake. The theory does not stand up to it's own implications. We do not see evidence for his theory when we look in the most likely places to find it, and only on the fringes when we make those fringes very wide, wide enough in fact to include all pseudoscience. This is why it is not taken seriously. It's defense of an ideology, not of a explanatory model.


----------



## Doer (Sep 3, 2012)

*




Originally Posted by Chief Walkin Eagle  
........ I just see a whole argument out of ignorance. You WANT it to be a form of magical irrelevant pattern recognition because it makes you feel more comfortable about your world views.


*No, no, no. This is why we have science. Because what we "want", and "comfortable world views" are precisely the problem. You act like we happy to be deaf, dumb and blind to your truth. I know I spent a lifetime wishing this all was true. Cn would sign over his Lear Jet to you, I'm sure, if you could provide Proof of anything but, talk, teachings, opinions, and passing along the confusion of other folks with comfortable world views like yours.

The Spiritual,"want" to believe after only being told about something. When you experience Self, the rest is stories.

In Science, we are not Right, we are in a lather to Investigate anything and everything, for which experimentation can be created. And it ALL has been investigated. I, myself, have spend considerable time tracking down the stories. Dead Ends. 

Now, do I believe myself as a Spiritual Being in a Human existence? Yes! Do I ever expect to prove that to cn for the keys to his Lear Jet......no.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Yes, you said "this is not my motivation" for engaging in wild goose chases, so I figured the topic was motivation. It seems like you twisting things in your favor again. Can you tell me your motivation for starting wild goose chases? Im trying to improve science by taking the materialism out of it because I'm convinced things like the soul, the spirit world, and god are not of material.
> 
> Again, you are avoiding the argument. I am talking about specific things, not about the non material examples that you have provided... Why do you think that things like the soul, the spirit world, and god would be made of material? *We cannot detect the soul, the spirit world, and god using materialism, *therefore it probably doesnt exist?
> 
> ...


You have just shot your entire thesis in the foot. You've been maintaining all along that there can be a science of the spirit. If these things cannot be detected in the world our sensory organs inhabit, then there can be no study of them. Every last single interaction of a person wit the supernatural has been mediated by the meat of our sensation, perception and cognition. We describe dreams, visions, visitations in sensory terms. I would replace the word "materialism", which describes a philosophy and premise (and so sneaks that _persona non grata_, meaning, in through a back door) with "the material", which describes a condition, a property of our sensory and cognitive equipment, both organic and artificial. 

But you've just laid out in plainest language that what you seek, you cannot get, entirely using premises you've provided. 

The remainder of the post is a dizzying sleighride down the contradiction thus created into triple-distilled woo. You really are not listening at all. *One cannot selectively keep or discard pretty/inconvenient bits of the edifice*. Remember Huxley: _there is nothing so tragic as a beautiful theory slain by one inconvenient fact._ Any system of "learning" or "knowledge" that seeks to ignore that basic principle fails from wilful abandonment of rigor. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I dont NEED science to prove these things to me. I have experienced enough to know how these things work. My experiences mean nothing to anyone else though so Im just trying to show that science can be applied to these things but *the scientific community stubbornly holds on to materialism.*


Chief, would you like to play Scrabble? However, I don't want you to stubbornly hold onto the dictionary. It's so limiting. And of course this way, when I triumphantly claim a Triple Word Score with ZARQXVUB, there is no objection you can make. Sound like fun? No? Why not?

Because if you make up your own rules, you'll be playing by yourself. 
cn


----------



## Doer (Sep 3, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> theorys get proved or they are considered unproven already by the classification as a theory .. . . not fact


Not hardly! Quite the opposite in fact. Every job, has it's on terms and meaning. In Science, Theory is good as it gets. For example, we have a very tech based Theory of Gravity, we know what it does, but not how. There is Black Hole Theory that is standing up very well. And of course, we have Theory of Evolution, which has no counter evidence.


Only Religion has to hide behind shouting THIS IS RIGHT!! you poor ignorants just need the Koolaid.


----------



## Doer (Sep 3, 2012)

OMG, you invoked the Sacred name of a Frst Order deamon of the XDR-M.....(tremble) *ZARQXVUB*


....and nothing happened, see Chief?


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 3, 2012)

Got to hand it to you gentlemen, this thread is awesome! Chief, it is obvious to anyone with critical thinking and logic skills that you were knocked out pages ago by post #100 if not before. You didn't expect Heis to be so familiar with your quack messiah's bullshit, he understands it even better than you and your the one who brought it to the table. That's gotta sting. You complain about the uselessness of engaging each other, yet you couldn't wait to keep engaging yourself. You're obviously not trying to convince anyone here but yourself, I've never seen someone so desperate to believe in something. I've asked you multiple times if you would be able to handle a material world with nothing beyond, it is obvious that this concept scares you to death. What made you so afraid of this world that you constantly need to try to find an escape hatch?
To Heis, Neer and Doer, that was thoroughly thought-provoking and entertaining shit. My hat is off to you...


----------



## Doer (Sep 3, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Got to hand it to you gentlemen, this thread is awesome! Chief, it is obvious to anyone with critical thinking and logic skills that you were knocked out pages ago by post #100 if not before. You didn't expect Heis to be so familiar with your quack messiah's bullshit, he understands it even better than you and your the one who brought it to the table. That's gotta sting. You complain about the uselessness of engaging each other, yet you couldn't wait to keep engaging yourself. You're obviously not trying to convince anyone here but yourself, I've never seen someone so desperate to believe in something. I've asked you multiple times if you would be able to handle a material world with nothing beyond, it is obvious that this concept scares you to death. What made you so afraid of this world that constantly need to try to find an escape hatch?
> To Heis, Neer and Doer, that was thoroughly thought-provoking and entertaining shit. My hat is off to you...


With a mountain of very due, respect, let me add this. It is really beyond the vague "world view" of the Natter-Mind. Anyone and everyone is in the same boat.

And the N-M can't be expected to admit anything. But, you said, you're self, 100s of posts and we are all still here. Like Moths to the Idea flame. 

It's never been about us and them to me. I'm sure, Chief has invested his attention to a sufficient degree, in his life and in response to us, to awaken Self. (just my opinion, OK?)

The rest of it is just talking it out to Unify this "material vs spiritual world" business. 

In the quest of Oneness we can have no Duality.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 3, 2012)

Doer said:


> Not hardly! Quite the opposite in fact. Every job, has it's on terms and meaning. In Science, Theory is good as it gets. For example, we have a very tech based Theory of Gravity, we know what it does, but not how. There is Black Hole Theory that is standing up very well. And of course, we have Theory of Evolution, which has no counter evidence.
> 
> 
> Only Religion has to hide behind shouting THIS IS RIGHT!! you poor ignorants just need the Koolaid.


ok my definition of a theory was flawed, but theorys have to be disproven or proved, or they are just theorys(edit ideas), but they are always becoming more complex so i get what you mean

also there is totally another theory to evolution that holds water, the theory of genetic drift and variation to by chance produce a better more adapted version of the original genetic code . . . . i think current idea on evolution fall short in a few areas like taking into account for random mutations that end up being dominate and expressive traits to help those who express them to get ahead


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 3, 2012)

Lets just hope it's a while before Chief discovers Dean Radin or Daryl J. Bem.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 3, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> ok my definition of a theory was slightly simple, but theorys have to be disproven or proved, or they are jsut theorys, but they are always becoming more complex so i get what you mean


In science, "theory" means "established". Something that still needs to be verified by experiment or observation is classed as "hypothesis". So, gravitation is theory, but supersymmetry (in particle models) is hypothesis.


> also there is totally another theory to evolution that holds water, the theory of genetic drift and variation to by chance produce a better more adapted version of the original genetic code . . . . i think current idea on evolution fall short in a few areas like taking into account for random mutations that end up being dominate and expressive traits to help those who express them to get ahead


I think that modern evolutionary theory has no trouble reconciling Darwinian and molecular-genetic concepts. I see no contradiction between the two. cn


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Really? You're gonna fall back on the authority angle? "I can't defend or even explain this theory but someone did before and some other people said it was right" Are you trying to imply that there are aspects of his explanations which I can not understand, and therefore must rely on scientists who do AND agree? It seems you are the one who doesn't understand the theory, since you are unable to answer these basic questions that must have been asked by these brilliant scientists. Your answer is to move the goalpost and plead for special consideration, but you're unable to demonstrate why, just like Sheldrake. The theory does not stand up to it's own implications. We do not see evidence for his theory when we look in the most likely places to find it, and only on the fringes when we make those fringes very wide, wide enough in fact to include all pseudoscience. This is why it is not taken seriously. It's defense of an ideology, not of a explanatory model.


Lol then why so passionately engage me if you think I am wrong? You still have never answered that question. What is your motivation for these wild goose chases besides self benefit? Do you feel like a guardian of truth and engage those that dont make sense according to you thus feeling like you are saving people from being fooled? What is your motivation?

And my arguments do apply to all the examples you have provided. I would add a few of my own spiritual aspects to Sheldrakes theory, I have always knew a form of interconnectedness existed, Sheldrake was just the first scientist that tried to explain this spiritual aspect of the world, but like I said that would be too far fetched for you and its really not worth mentioning. 

This is the song that never ends....


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Lets just hope it's a while before Chief discovers Dean Radin or Daryl J. Bem.


Holy shit, a smiley face! This is the second time I have ever seen you show emotion. I knew you were a real boy


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> You have just shot your entire thesis in the foot. You've been maintaining all along that there can be a science of the spirit. If these things cannot be detected in the world our sensory organs inhabit, then there can be no study of them. Every last single interaction of a person wit the supernatural has been mediated by the meat of our sensation, perception and cognition. We describe dreams, visions, visitations in sensory terms. I would replace the word "materialism", which describes a philosophy and premise (and so sneaks that _persona non grata_, meaning, in through a back door) with "the material", which describes a condition, a property of our sensory and cognitive equipment, both organic and artificial.
> 
> But you've just laid out in plainest language that what you seek, you cannot get, entirely using premises you've provided.
> 
> The remainder of the post is a dizzying sleighride down the contradiction thus created into triple-distilled woo. You really are not listening at all. *One cannot selectively keep or discard pretty/inconvenient bits of the edifice*. Remember Huxley: _there is nothing so tragic as a beautiful theory slain by one inconvenient fact._ Any system of "learning" or "knowledge" that seeks to ignore that basic principle fails from wilful abandonment of rigor. cn


So what material aspect would you assign to 'god', souls, and the spirit world? Is the spirit world made out of Earthly material? Would that world have to abide my Earthly science? Yes, we can experience such things through dreams, visions, hallucinations, but you are certain that those are material things? How certain are you that we only experience those things in our heads? What eyes are you seeing with in a dream? What ears are you listening with? Is it possible to objectively prove these things without the aid of science?


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 3, 2012)

i thought the theory of evolution doesn't give credit to sociological variables in evolutions like language and sharing of knowledge to further advance communities around the world through trade

idk maybe its a stretch but i seem to remember a women who preached this concept and was starting to get recognition


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> So what material aspect would you assign to 'god', souls, and the spirit world?


That is the great mystery, no? But I cannot "assign" a material aspect, unless I also admit that I'm assigning (making up) the nature of the spiritual agency. I would want to "observe" that material aspect rather than "assign" it.


> Is the spirit world made out of Earthly material?


What do youuu think?


> Would that world have to abide my Earthly science?


It would need to be consistent with it. that's worlds apart from your well-poisoning term "abide".


> Yes, we can experience such things through dreams, visions, hallucinations, but you are certain that those are material things? How certain are you that we only experience those things in our heads? What eyes are you seeing with in a dream? What ears are you listening with? Is it possible to objectively prove these things without the aid of science?


This would mire us in a pondering of objectivity ... but without scientific method there can be no assurance of objectivity. 
I think that the unifying character of dreams, visions, contact experiences ... is that (assuming they were not generated internally, i.e. hallucinations) they all impinge on our material sensory/cognitive apparatus. Our sense of sight has two components, not counting the wiring: the sensor (eye) and the processor (visual cortex). In our dreams, the processor is active, and it is receiving real physical detectable signals from our other neurons. Thus it seems reasonable to me that if there really is an external agent providing the visionary content, traditional/conventional neurophysiology is the way into studying that. 

And that is a problem for a science of the spirit. It must be fully consistent with the ways of science ... and with the ways of spirit, whatever those turn out to be. That provides two independent sources for that inconvenient theory-ruining fact. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 3, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> i thought the theory of evolution doesn't give credit to sociological variables in evolutions like language and sharing of knowledge to further advance communities around the world through trade
> 
> idk maybe its a stretch but i seem to remember a women who preached this concept and was starting to get recognition


It might be a matter of timescale. Effects of Darwinian evolution on populations take millennia to manifest, absent an extraordinary selector (like man breeding domestic animals). Sociological studies have been around for less than 150 years. 
At the same time, some really sketchy concepts are being bruited about by sociologists and especially cultural anthropologists, who have an unfortunate tencdency to get off the reservation f scientific protocol in the pursuit of a dogma. cn


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> you got spunk, i like your thoughts . . . . but if you have to throw away a good methodology in order to believe another that is unproven in any way other then in your head, then i see no logic in that
> 
> to invalidate science in order to give weight to your beliefs, is a fallacy . . .
> 
> ...


Yes, friends. I also like the way you think. If only others were just as humble.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 3, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> It might be a matter of timescale. Effects of Darwinian evolution on populations take millennia to manifest, absent an extraordinary selector (like man breeding domestic animals). Sociological studies have been around for less than 150 years.
> At the same time, some really sketchy concepts are being bruited about by sociologists and especially cultural anthropologists, who have an unfortunate tencdency to get off the reservation f scientific protocol in the pursuit of a dogma. cn


no species on the planet is evolving at suck a pace as how far we have come in 50,000 years . .. . if theory of evolution holds true, many species in the past should have evolved to a similar degree as far as we know there is none,so i beg to differ, our sociological effects have stimulated our evolution in a way darwins theory doesn't explain . . . but . . i should say it has been a long time since i read darwins complete theory or any accessory theories that lend credit to its principles


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> That is the great mystery, no? But I cannot "assign" a material aspect, unless I also admit that I'm assigning (making up) the nature of the spiritual agency. I would want to "observe" that material aspect rather than "assign" it.
> What do youuu think?
> It would need to be consistent with it. that's worlds apart from your well-poisoning term "abide".
> 
> ...


Why must the spirit world be consistent with science? So when you die and go to the spirit world, you gunna be like "Wtf god? That guy just turned into a tiger with wings, and my surroundings appear to be made out of light and I appear to be apart of everything. What kinda shit show are you running here?"


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 3, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> no species on the planet is evolving at suck a pace as how far we have come in 50,000 years . .. . if theory of evolution holds true, many species in the past should have evolved to a similar degree as far as we know there is none,so i beg to differ, our sociological effects have stimulated our evolution in a way darwins theory doesn't explain . . . but . . i should say it has been a long time since i read darwins complete theory or any accessory theories that lend credit to its principles


You seem to be conflating sociological evolution with biological. There has been no exceptionally rapid changes to our genome in the manner in which you describe.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Why must the spirit world be consistent with science?


I never said that. The rest of your post is a consequence of your taking your misunderstanding of what I wrote and running with it like a football. You might want to check the team logo in the end zone, however. cn


> So when you die and go to the spirit world, you gunna be like "Wtf god? That guy just turned into a tiger with wings, and my surroundings appear to be made out of light and I appear to be apart of everything. What kinda shit show are you running here?"


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 3, 2012)

This conversation reminds me of this Louis CK bit about arguing with a 3 year old.

[video=youtube;s120QJv6Ikg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s120QJv6Ikg[/video]


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I never said that. the rest of your post is a consequence of your taking your misunderstanding and running with it like a football. You might want to check the team logo in the end zone, however. cn


You did say that. You said the spirit world would have to be consistent with Earthly science.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> You did say that. You said the spirit world would have to be consistent with Earthly science.


No. I said the science of spirit yadaa yadaa. That is distinct, as the map is not the territory. If you disagree, please quote he paragraph in question. cn


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> This conversation reminds me of this Louis CK bit about arguing with a 3 year old.
> 
> [video=youtube;s120QJv6Ikg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s120QJv6Ikg[/video]


So Heis should know better than to discuss with me? Or three year olds like to argue with other three year olds?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 3, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> No. I said the science of spirit yadaa yadaa. That is distinct, as the map is not the territory. If you disagree, please quote he paragraph in question. cn


So science would be useless and obsolete in spiritual reality? Scientists must be beyond disappointed when they die lol.


----------



## Doer (Sep 3, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> ok my definition of a theory was flawed, but theorys have to be disproven or proved, or they are just theorys(edit ideas), but they are always becoming more complex so i get what you mean
> 
> also there is totally another theory to evolution that holds water, the theory of genetic drift and variation to by chance produce a better more adapted version of the original genetic code . . . . i think current idea on evolution fall short in a few areas like taking into account for random mutations that end up being dominate and expressive traits to help those who express them to get ahead


Did I say flawed? Oh, no. It is just that the lingo of Science is neither good, bad, or indifferent. It is what it is. And my theory of theory is much like yours. It's all context or there is no meaning.

And BRAVO!!. Seriously, I don't know if you meant to re-state the Theory of Evolution in practical terms, but you just did. You may think this idea is in conflict, but it is not.

It is in conflict of the Popular View of Evolution, perhaps. Evolution is not zigging the Saber Cat and then telling the wife during sex to pass on the genes. It is precisely the natural changing in the genes, the random mutations, the drift and variations, that caused the fast enough zig reaction in the first place, as well as the lighting fast decision not to zag like your hunting partner did. Same thing, right?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 3, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> So science would be useless and obsolete in spiritual reality? Scientists must be beyond disappointed when they die lol.


I interpret your not quoting the paragraph in question as a retraction of your complaint. And yet you're not correcting your stance accordingly. You're chasing your very own straw man. cn


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 3, 2012)

Doer said:


> Did I say flawed? Oh, no. It is just that the lingo of Science is neither good, bad, or indifferent. It is what it is. And my theory of theory is much like yours. It's all context or there is no meaning.
> 
> And BRAVO!!. Seriously, I don't know if you meant to re-state the Theory of Evolution in practical terms, but you just did. You may think this idea is in conflict, but it is not.
> 
> It is in conflict of the Popular View of Evolution, perhaps. Evolution is not zigging the Saber Cat and then telling the wife during sex to pass on the genes. It is precisely the natural changing in the genes, the random mutations, the drift and variations, that caused the fast enough zig reaction in the first place, as well as the lighting fast decision not to zag like your hunting partner did. Same thing, right?


i guess its the same, i seem to be recalling something about the development and mutation that evolved our voice box and how being able to communicate like that further advanced out evolution differently then other species because of something about the way we socialize, which is not a genetic evolution as you said but sociological, commuity based . . i dont know now ill have to go back and look it up, some old lady on a ted talks episode . . .it was intriguing at the time but i have forgotten some of its key concepts


----------



## Doer (Sep 3, 2012)

Samwell Seed Well said:


> i guess its the same, i seem to be recalling something about the development and mutation that evolved our voice box and how being able to communicate like that further advanced out evolution differently then other species because of something about the way we socialize, which is not a genetic evolution as you said but sociological, commuity based . . i dont know now ill have to go back and look it up, some old lady on a ted talks episode . . .it was intriguing at the time but i have forgotten some of its key concepts


Oh, I understand you. Human Evolution, a special case, was almost over, 75K yeas ago. In fact, technically, our entire species seems to have been, more or less, wiped out. 

So, in a very real way, we are just the last family, if the DNA trail is being interpreted correctly. And it is certainly plausible an adaptation in the voice box was key to survival. I imagine men, silent on the hunt, with sign language. But, the women are chattering away in the berry bushes to keep track of each of other and danger.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 3, 2012)

Doer said:


> Oh, I understand you. Human Evolution, a special case, was almost over, 75K yeas ago. In fact, technically, our entire species seems to have been, more or less, wiped out.
> 
> So, in a very real way, we are just the last family, if the DNA trail is being interpreted correctly. And it is certainly plausible an adaptation in the voice box was key to survival. I imagine men, silent on the hunt, with sign language. But, the women are chattering away in the berry bushes to keep track of each of other and danger.


Men very probably used their voices as much during their two key activities: the hunt and the raid. Especially in poor light or close terrain, auditory cues and messages must have been valuable. Why not exploit a tactical resource? cn


----------



## Doer (Sep 3, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Men very probably used their voices as much during their two key activities: the hunt and the raid. Especially in poor light or close terrain, auditory cues and messages must have been valuable. Why not exploit a tactical resource? cn


Oh yeah, and guys need something from the earliest for being startled..WHAT the F**K!!!


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 3, 2012)

Doer said:


> Oh, I understand you. Human Evolution, a special case, was almost over, 75K yeas ago. In fact, technically, our entire species seems to have been, more or less, wiped out.
> 
> So, in a very real way, we are just the last family, if the DNA trail is being interpreted correctly. And it is certainly plausible an adaptation in the voice box was key to survival. I imagine men, silent on the hunt, with sign language. But, *the women are chattering away in the berry bushes to keep track of each of other and danger.*


Reminds me of the world's shortest joke: Two women sat together quietly...


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Lol then why so passionately engage me if you think I am wrong? You still have never answered that question. What is your motivation for these wild goose chases besides self benefit? Do you feel like a guardian of truth and engage those that dont make sense according to you thus feeling like you are saving people from being fooled? What is your motivation?
> 
> And my arguments do apply to all the examples you have provided. I would add a few of my own spiritual aspects to Sheldrakes theory, I have always knew a form of interconnectedness existed, Sheldrake was just the first scientist that tried to explain this spiritual aspect of the world, but like I said that would be too far fetched for you and its really not worth mentioning.
> 
> This is the song that never ends....


I'm touched that you find my posts passionate, considering I am a robot. I am under no obligation to explain my motivation, but I have tried before. You decided not to bother reading it. I am simply treating you as an adult and taking your words seriously. The only time I tend to write someone off is when they are outright belligerent, hopelessly racist, ect. You have your moments, but for the most part you are just naive and stubborn, one of which is not a bad quality, and I have seen you grow already. I do not care if I change your mind about specific ideas, but already your level of conversation has improved over when you got here. You are asking questions, attempting to explain yourself, and giving more than one line 'lol' style replies. Changing your beliefs would be a poor goal for me, but you are becoming more intellectually sophisticated and better able to communicate regardless. I don't pretend every post I make is geared towards that, the forums and everyone who genuinely engages you deserves credit, but it's an atmosphere I like to foster, to encourage all around. I like to treat people with dignity, and that sometimes means calling them on bullshit, more so here than any other place. I could decide you are a three year old and dismiss you. I could decide you are demented and humor you. I could decide you are stupid and abuse you. Instead I choose to treat your words as if they are worthy of an honest response.

I could go on but I would be in danger of getting my post skipped.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> So Heis should know better than to discuss with me? Or three year olds like to argue with other three year olds?


It's not that she's wrong, she's three... she's entitled to be wrong. It's the fucking arrogance...of this kid! No humility, no decent sense of self-doubt.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 4, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I'm touched that you find my posts passionate, considering I am a robot. I am under no obligation to explain my motivation, but I have tried before. You decided not to bother reading it. I am simply treating you as an adult and taking your words seriously. The only time I tend to write someone off is when they are outright belligerent, hopelessly racist, ect. You have your moments, but for the most part you are just naive and stubborn, one of which is not a bad quality, and I have seen you grow already. I do not care if I change your mind about specific ideas, but already your level of conversation has improved over when you got here. You are asking questions, attempting to explain yourself, and giving more than one line 'lol' style replies. Changing your beliefs would be a poor goal for me, but you are becoming more intellectually sophisticated and better able to communicate regardless. I don't pretend every post I make is geared towards that, the forums and everyone who genuinely engages you deserves credit, but it's an atmosphere I like to foster, to encourage all around. I like to treat people with dignity, and that sometimes means calling them on bullshit, more so here than any other place. I could decide you are a three year old and dismiss you. I could decide you are demented and humor you. I could decide you are stupid and abuse you. Instead I choose to treat your words as if they are worthy of an honest response.
> 
> I could go on but I would be in danger of getting my post skipped.


Very well said. My responses have become more structured as a result of being here. I have started to care a lot less of the opinion of skeptics and respond more calmly. I was used to conversing with like minded people before I got here and didnt realize such passionate nay-sayers existed so I was out of my element. The fact that most of the like minded people I like conversing with are aggressively opposed into silence didnt sit well with me as well, so I acted out. I thought the scientific, atheist, skeptical dictation of spiritual topics was pigheaded, especially in a forum that starts with Spirituality. Not playing the hurt card, just explaining.

You may treat my like an adult but you do not take my words seriously, imo. Do you think anything that I presented in this forum has any chance of being true? You take calling bullshit seriously, not my words. Its also hard to think that you are taking me seriously when MP thinks you are arguing with a three year old. So the only seriousness I see is you calling bullshit and your intentions for calling bullshit are to prevent others from believing the so called bullshit because the bullshit doesnt sit well with your atheist, scientific world view, a worldview that you think should be adopted by more people, which is biased, imo.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Very well said. My responses have become more structured as a result of being here. I have started to care a lot less of the opinion of skeptics and respond more calmly. I was used to conversing with like minded people before I got here and didnt realize such passionate nay-sayers existed so I was out of my element. The fact that most of the like minded people I like conversing with are aggressively opposed into silence didnt sit well with me as well, so I acted out. I thought the scientific, atheist, skeptical dictation of spiritual topics was pigheaded, especially in a forum that starts with Spirituality. Not playing the hurt card, just explaining..


First I would like to say welcome again, as it does appear that you have tempered your discussions somewhat, making it more likely that people will engage you in intelligent conversation rather than dismiss you as I had to do. You have acted like the 3 year old many, many times here and not the least of which is your continued charges of skeptics and non-believers spending time in a spiritual forum. No matter how many times I and others pointed out that this forum is not only for spiritual conversation, but philosophical as well you merely ignored such comments and continued your attacks. You ignored the posts that explained how Cartesian doubt is the basis for much modern philosophical thought and skepticism. You also never appropriately responded directly to criticisms that I specifically brought up and dismissed them with a hand wave. That type of behavior will certainly get anyone written off as one that is incapable or unwilling to defend their position and therefore not worthy of discussion on any serious level. 
I do see some growth in your responses but I can't help but believe you have not performed any self-examination of your credulousness, yet continue discussions with an air of arrogance with those that have spent more time contemplating these things than you have been alive.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Very well said. My responses have become more structured as a result of being here. I have started to care a lot less of the opinion of skeptics and respond more calmly. I was used to conversing with like minded people before I got here and didnt realize such passionate nay-sayers existed so I was out of my element. The fact that most of the like minded people I like conversing with are aggressively opposed into silence didnt sit well with me as well, so I acted out. I thought the scientific, atheist, skeptical dictation of spiritual topics was pigheaded, especially in a forum that starts with Spirituality. Not playing the hurt card, just explaining.
> 
> You may treat my like an adult but you do not take my words seriously, imo. Do you think anything that I presented in this forum has any chance of being true? You take calling bullshit seriously, not my words. Its also hard to think that you are taking me seriously when MP thinks you are arguing with a three year old. So the only seriousness I see is you calling bullshit and your intentions for calling bullshit are to prevent others from believing the so called bullshit because the bullshit doesnt sit well with your atheist, scientific world view, a worldview that you think should be adopted by more people, which is biased, imo.


Chief, I would welcome a defense of spiritual effects in daily life. However you and I have very different standards of proof. When science is the subject, I insist on the scientific method as the mediator/vehicle of such proof. When nonscientific things are discussed, I don't view scientific method as appropriate. That is why you'll never catch me trying to "disprove God" or any such intellectual hamsterwheeling.

However I'd like to say that asking if something is plausible isn't very interesting, since Russell's teapot can't be disproven, but its proof or disproof doesn't advance anyone's argument in any case.
Imo calling bullshit is a very healthy activity: it requires the claimant to firm up his argument, and it obligates the challenger to articulate what is bullshit ... the how and why of the challenge. It's a sort of sparring: no risk of harm as in actual combat, but skills are learned (and deficiencies revealed) in pursuing the dark arts of defense. 
I would be fascinated and impressed by an example of undeniable spirit effect on the material substrate. However I hope you can understand that I would be very very picky about what constitutes undeniability. What keeps me gunshy is the extreme difficulty in correcting for human "psychomania", our startlingly promiscuous tendency to see spirit-action in unlikely material happenings. In my case, that is the target and challenge ... I would need to be convinced that I am not being led into one of the myriad _culs-de-sac_ of apophenia, theism or simple revelatory declaration, "it's thus because I say so". cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 4, 2012)

...a cool thing happened one night. I was driving someone to a friend's house and mulling over some idea or other. It came to mind an article I read on the subject of affecting electricity. Anyway, I got through the usual bs about sliders and all that. I got into some much better material on the subject later on...

...at any rate, on the way home I had to stop for gas. About a block away I laughed and thought 'wouldn't it be messed up if the lights above the gas station were to go out'. As I round the curb to drive in, the lights above the gas station fckd up bad and went out.

...I didn't tell this story to make any point whatsoever. Just relaying an experience.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Very well said. My responses have become more structured as a result of being here. I have started to care a lot less of the opinion of skeptics and respond more calmly. I was used to conversing with like minded people before I got here and didnt realize such passionate nay-sayers existed so I was out of my element. The fact that most of the like minded people I like conversing with are aggressively opposed into silence didnt sit well with me as well, so I acted out. I thought the scientific, atheist, skeptical dictation of spiritual topics was pigheaded, especially in a forum that starts with Spirituality. Not playing the hurt card, just explaining.


Yes Chief, you are outnumbered, that is clear. Yet you still continue to participate, and the more you do so, the more meaningful your participation becomes, to yourself as well as others. You could have bugged out after the first month or so when your one liners played themselves out, but you stuck with it. You obviously find some value in being challenged, and that is the first step towards any progress. Appreciation for challenge is in fact the only way we can agree to disagree. Challenge is something I value, so I admire you when you do not shy away from it, and it encourages me to keep reading what you say.



> You may treat my like an adult but you do not take my words seriously, imo. Do you think anything that I presented in this forum has any chance of being true? You take calling bullshit seriously, not my words. Its also hard to think that you are taking me seriously when MP thinks you are arguing with a three year old.


I don't think most of your ideas have merit, and to be fair most of them aren't yours. That doesn't mean I don't take you seriously. I believe you are genuine, not lying or playing me for a fool. You mean what you say. I have complimented you a time or two, even endorsed a few of your ideas, you apparently do not pay attention. When you say something in this forum, you are saying it to me as much as anybody. When you say something to me, I respond as honestly as I can. When you respond to what I say like a child, I call you on that as well. 

And BTW you can't guess my motivation based on something MP said. He was not commenting on my motivation. you are not a three year old, and his point was that it's humorous that a conversation with you is practically the same thing, the main similarity being your arrogance and lack of self assessment.



> ]So the only seriousness I see is you calling bullshit and your intentions for calling bullshit are to prevent others from believing the so called bullshit because the bullshit doesnt sit well with your atheist, scientific world view, a worldview that you think should be adopted by more people, which is biased, imo.


I do call bullshit a lot, and you present bullshit a lot. Your description is not inaccurate until you get to the why. You are making an assumption, although it may be a reasonable one. But ask yourself, If I was really worried about other's beliefs not sitting right with me, wouldn't I talk only on skeptic forums. I enjoy discourse, challenge, it always teaches me something. I have never complained about you expressing your beliefs or defending them, just the way in which you do it and the arguments you use. I support your right to express and defend your worldview, just as I support my right to do so as well. Expression, words, are never force. Nobody has been forced to leave or cease participation in these forums because of what they believe, they simply find more value in other places when they find challenge here.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 4, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> First I would like to say welcome again, as it does appear that you have tempered your discussions somewhat, making it more likely that people will engage you in intelligent conversation rather than dismiss you as I had to do. You have acted like the 3 year old many, many times here and not the least of which is your continued charges of skeptics and non-believers spending time in a spiritual forum. No matter how many times I and others pointed out that this forum is not only for spiritual conversation, but philosophical as well you merely ignored such comments and continued your attacks. You ignored the posts that explained how Cartesian doubt is the basis for much modern philosophical thought and skepticism. You also never appropriately responded directly to criticisms that I specifically brought up and dismissed them with a hand wave. That type of behavior will certainly get anyone written off as one that is incapable or unwilling to defend their position and therefore not worthy of discussion on any serious level.
> I do see some growth in your responses but I can't help but believe you have not performed any self-examination of your credulousness, yet continue discussions with an air of arrogance with those that have spent more time contemplating these things than you have been alive.


I understand what you have to say on the supposedly necessary criticism and skepticism of spiritual topics. I just dont see the point behind it other than to convince the other that their way of thinking is illogical according to a certain paradigm. Spirituality and science are thought to be polar opposites of each other, do you agree? One cannot test the other, and looks down upon those that try, so it says its illogical to believe in it. The other one says it doesnt need the other because it only applies to physical reality and is useless in true reality. What agreement is there to be had when both sides think the other is unreasonable and being deluded? It ends up being dictated by the aggressors by saying "science says this, so you're thinking illogically, my friends agree with me". Your "credulousness" comment is proving my point, there can be no agreement, just the self proclaimed superior worldview ridiculing the other. I really see no point to it other then to shut the supposedly illogical thinkers up. 

I dont think I need the self examination. I know who I am, I've experienced a lot in my 21 years and I have learned a great deal from these experiences, the "supernatural" ones being consistent. Im sure the veteran contemplaters could learn a thing or two from certain experiences, but they havent had such experiences, so they continue to question and ridicule them. I just need to go out on the deck and look up on a clear night in order to get a refreshing dose of reality. If only people looked up! Im not just talking about you guys, everyone needs to look up. Most of the western world is just a bunch of shallow zombies that forgot what beauty is, discovery as well . I guess me saying this isnt changing anyones mind though, just thought I'd try to be genuine. 

I am finally starting to like singing along with the song that never ends.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 4, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...a cool thing happened one night. I was driving someone to a friend's house and mulling over some idea or other. It came to mind an article I read on the subject of affecting electricity. Anyway, I got through the usual bs about sliders and all that. I got into some much better material on the subject later on...
> 
> ...at any rate, on the way home I had to stop for gas. About a block away I laughed and thought 'wouldn't it be messed up if the lights above the gas station were to go out'. As I round the curb to drive in, the lights above the gas station fckd up bad and went out.
> 
> ...I didn't tell this story to make any point whatsoever. Just relaying an experience.


Thats cool. My friend and I experience something similar. So many times we would drive past this certain street light and it would go out, never seen it go out for people far ahead or for people far behind, we always look at that light now lol. Does your experience have something to do with the electricity topic you were talking about?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I understand what you have to say on the supposedly necessary criticism and skepticism of spiritual topics. I just dont see the point behind it other than to convince the other that their way of thinking is illogical according to a certain paradigm. *Spirituality and science are thought to be polar opposites of each other, do you agree? One cannot test the other, and looks down upon those that try, so it says its illogical to believe in it.*


No. That holds true of scientism, the movement that elevates science to a religion. But science shouldn't be confused with the ideology of scientism, and does not compel or condone the ideology. Science is not so hostile.
I do not consider science and spirit to be polar opposites. i believe the opposition to be manufactured. They are "nonoverlapping magisteria", to borrow the grand old phrase from Gould. 


> The other one says it doesnt need the other because it only applies to physical reality and is useless in true reality. What agreement is there to be had when both sides think the other is unreasonable and being deluded? It ends up being dictated by the aggressors by saying "science says this, so you're thinking illogically, my friends agree with me". Your "credulousness" comment is proving my point, there can be no agreement, just the self proclaimed superior worldview ridiculing the other. I really see no point to it other then to shut the supposedly illogical thinkers up.


I only complain when you try to misuse the name of science for unscientific doings. The world of science is eminently reasonable, if you respect its limitations. The world of scientism, like that of any ambitious, jealous religion, is not. Please resist tarring one with the other's brush.


> I dont think I need the self examination. I know who I am, I've experienced a lot in my 21 years and I have learned a great deal from these experiences, the "supernatural" ones being consistent. Im sure the veteran contemplaters could learn a thing or two from certain experiences, but they havent had such experiences, so they continue to question and ridicule them. I just need to go out on the deck and look up on a clear night in order to get a refreshing dose of reality. If only people looked up! Im not just talking about you guys, everyone needs to look up. Most of the western world is just a bunch of shallow zombies that forgot what beauty is, discovery as well . I guess me saying this isnt changing anyones mind though, just thought I'd try to be genuine.
> 
> I am finally starting to like singing along with the song that never ends.


I look up long and often. I take tremendous pleasure in watching the deep sky. I have all sorts of astro hardware. It's quite emotional to know that the light from that smudge in the eyepiece has been under way since before there was life on land here. cn


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 4, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Chief, I would welcome a defense of spiritual effects in daily life. However you and I have very different standards of proof. When science is the subject, I insist on the scientific method as the mediator/vehicle of such proof. When nonscientific things are discussed, I don't view scientific method as appropriate. That is why you'll never catch me trying to "disprove God" or any such intellectual hamsterwheeling.
> 
> However I'd like to say that asking if something is plausible isn't very interesting, since Russell's teapot can't be disproven, but its proof or disproof doesn't advance anyone's argument in any case.
> Imo calling bullshit is a very healthy activity: it requires the claimant to firm up his argument, and it obligates the challenger to articulate what is bullshit ... the how and why of the challenge. It's a sort of sparring: no risk of harm as in actual combat, but skills are learned (and deficiencies revealed) in pursuing the dark arts of defense.
> I would be fascinated and impressed by an example of undeniable spirit effect on the material substrate. However I hope you can understand that I would be very very picky about what constitutes undeniability. What keeps me gunshy is the extreme difficulty in correcting for human "psychomania", our startlingly promiscuous tendency to see spirit-action in unlikely material happenings. In my case, that is the target and challenge ... I would need to be convinced that I am not being led into one of the myriad _culs-de-sac_ of apophenia, theism or simple revelatory declaration, "it's thus because I say so". cn


Well the best example I can give you is with the telepathy I, and many others, have experienced with my spiritual friend. The consistency of these experiences and how the same result occurs no matter what the situation or circumstance and with how many people experiencing the exact same thing with him. But I guess you cant take my word for it since it is subjective to a certain group of friends that have experienced it. I guess the argument can be made on your end that the telepathy is just a non-spiritual quality of the brain as well.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Well the best example I can give you is with the telepathy I, and many others, have experienced with my spiritual friend. The consistency of these experiences and how the same result occurs no matter what the situation or circumstance and with how many people experiencing the exact same thing with him. But I guess you cant take my word for it since it is subjective to a certain group of friends that have experienced it. I guess the argument can be made on your end that the telepathy is just a non-spiritual quality of the brain as well.


Yes; the argument could be made to the edification and delight of neither of us. I just do so wish that your consistent results were also _portable _... to others, like myself. Then they could be studied, perhaps not scientifically but still with integrity and respect. cn


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Spirituality and science are thought to be polar opposites of each other, do you agree? One cannot test the other, and looks down upon those that try, so it says its illogical to believe in it. The other one says it doesnt need the other because* it only applies to physical reality and is useless in true reality.*


*



*So, there's physical reality and true reality? Physical reality (the one which we can see, hear, smell, touch and taste, the one in which we experience everything and the only one with empirical evidence) is the illusion, and your 'true reality' (that people imagine differently across time and cultures and we can't detect with our senses or any instruments), is real? I think you may be onto something here, Chief...


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 4, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> [/B]So, there's physical reality and true reality? Physical reality (the one which we can see, hear, smell, touch and taste, the one in which we experience everything and the only one with empirical evidence) is the illusion, and your 'true reality' (that people imagine differently across time and cultures and we can't detect with our senses or any instruments), is real? I think you may be onto something here, Chief...


Not my fight, but the ambulatory one was putting that up as one of the extremes.
Also, Hindus and Buddhists believe that the physical world is an illusion and obstruction from studying true reality. It is an interesting idea, one hard to expunge when it takes hold. It has memetic power. I want some cookies. cn


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 4, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Not my fight, but the ambulatory one was putting that up as one of the extremes.
> Also, Hindus and Buddhists believe that the physical world is an illusion and obstruction from studying true reality. It is an interesting idea, one hard to expunge when it takes hold. It has memetic power. I want some cookies. cn


I don't get the appeal. Great, now _I_ want cookies. Glad they're in the physical world


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 4, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I look up long and often. I take tremendous pleasure in watching the deep sky. I have all sorts of astro hardware. It's quite emotional to know that the light from that smudge in the eyepiece has been under way since before there was life on land here. cn


And you never find anything out of the ordinary? Hmm, this puzzles me... I see something amazing almost every night. Be it a orb of light blink in and out of existence instantly, or a fixed object thought to be a star all of the sudden starts moving until it is out of site or blasts off into hyperspace. My sister sees these things, my friends see these things, I've talked to two guys on this site that see these things. I'm not even surprised anymore when I see it happen. What puzzles me is that you havent seen anything unusual during your star gazing. Is there a certain mindset you need have that doesnt involve mental trickery in order to see these things? Are the creators of these things selective to who gets to see them? Do these things only happen in certain parts of the world? If its just our imagination, why are people from different parts of the world describing the same thing? Tonight I will look up and ask for answers, maybe they'll listen lol.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 4, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I understand what you have to say on the supposedly necessary criticism and skepticism of spiritual topics.


I'm skeptical about all topics. You merely take my skepticism on things you believe more personally, which then colors your view of me.


> I just dont see the point behind it other than to convince the other that their way of thinking is illogical according to a certain paradigm.


If thinking is illogical, it is illogical, regardless of paradigm. Logic is like mathematics. there are right and wrong answers. You may want to believe 2+2=22, but everyone that understands math knows the answer is 4. 


> Spirituality and science are thought to be polar opposites of each other, do you agree?


I disagree 100%. Science is a methodology to explore the material world. I already explained why it is necessarily materialistic in its methodology, but that does not mean that I am a philosophical materialist. This is the one of the reasons you aggravate me, you often are careless in your reading of other people's posts and gloss over some very important points. Many of the things you accuse me and Heis of have been answered, numerous times, in the negative, yet you continue to point the finger and make the same strawman claims over and over. If you are this careless in your approach to what other people say, I am not convinced your recollection of supposed events you claim to have experienced are accurate. This is merely one reason that I don't accept personal experiences as valid evidence. 


> One cannot test the other,


AFAIK, spirituality does no testing whatsoever. 


> and looks down upon those that try, so it says its illogical to believe in it.


 No one is saying it's _illogical _to believe something exists outside nature. We can only ask the question, what good REASONS do you have to believe that x exists? If your reasons are illogical, then the argument is merely that...your reasoning is flawed. However, we have said from day one, we cannot discount YOUR personal experiences whole cloth, only that they are not persuasive to someone else, and then we give reasons why. 


> The other one says it doesnt need the other because it only applies to physical reality and is useless in true reality.


I live under the assumption there is only one true reality. It is MY EXPERIENCE that there is only the material world and so far no one has demonstrated anything convincing beyond that. One thing you seem to disregard is the experience of myself and others like me that in spite of looking very hard, have never found anyone able to demonstrate anything outside of nature. Out of all of the claims, all over the world, none of them stand up to rigorous scrutiny. You may be unique in finding someone that can read minds but I doubt it for good reasons. Yet even mind reading is a phenomena that if occurs, is likely natural, bound by the laws of nature. Mind reading by itself, does not demonstrate anything spiritual IMO. 


> What agreement is there to be had when both sides think the other is unreasonable and being deluded? It ends up being dictated by the aggressors by saying "science says this, so you're thinking illogically,


Until you can grasp the nuance of the actual argument, you will continue to be corrected. This is more of the same strawman as before. No one says that you're thinking is illogical because science disagrees, illogical thinking is self-evident. Science is merely a tool that uses logic and reason to arrive at conclusions. Science doesn't 'say' one thing or another. However, avoiding the scientific method is likely to open yourself up to errors and fallacious thinking. No one is saying that a fallacious belief cannot be right, just that your arrived at it by a circumspect method. If your method is prone to errors, then your conclusions are likely to contain errors as well. Science, as a method, looks first to invalidate what we are trying to demonstrate. If our hypothesis is invalidated early on, we get to propose another hypothesis. When an individual ignores things that invalidate and only looks to confirmation, it only reinforces the idea that their idea/hypothesis is valid, even though they are missing all of the reasons it isn't valid. This pseudoscientific process is common and leads to delusions of correctness. It is very difficult to claim someone strictly abiding by the scientific method is deluding himself as the method itself safeguards against that.


> my friends agree with me". Your "credulousness" comment is proving my point,


Do you doubt you're own credulousness? It's not an accusation as much as an observation. However, you seem to take these things personally rather than look at it objectively to see if there is any merit.


> there can be no agreement, just the self proclaimed superior worldview ridiculing the other. I really see no point to it other then to shut the supposedly illogical thinkers up.


There are plenty of areas that we should be able to agree upon if you were actually honest about it. I do agree that I see science as a superior way of gaining knowledge, but I don't see it as a worldview. I don't want to shut up illogical thinkers but teach them to think logically instead. Sloppy thinking gains no one anything, let alone knowledge. 


> I dont think I need the self examination. I know who I am, I've experienced a lot in my 21 years and I have learned a great deal from these experiences,


Someone that doesn't think self-assessment is valuable is certainly arrogant and probably wrong about many things. One of the strengths of science is that it requires constant re-assessment.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 5, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> I'm skeptical about all topics. You merely take my skepticism on things you believe more personally, which then colors your view of me. If thinking is illogical, it is illogical, regardless of paradigm. Logic is like mathematics. there are right and wrong answers. You may want to believe 2+2=22, but everyone that understands math knows the answer is 4.
> I disagree 100%. Science is a methodology to explore the material world. I already explained why it is necessarily materialistic in its methodology, but that does not mean that I am a philosophical materialist. This is the one of the reasons you aggravate me, you often are careless in your reading of other people's posts and gloss over some very important points. Many of the things you accuse me and Heis of have been answered, numerous times, in the negative, yet you continue to point the finger and make the same strawman claims over and over. If you are this careless in your approach to what other people say, I am not convinced your recollection of supposed events you claim to have experienced are accurate. This is merely one reason that I don't accept personal experiences as valid evidence.
> AFAIK, spirituality does no testing whatsoever.
> No one is saying it's _illogical _to believe something exists outside nature. We can only ask the question, what good REASONS do you have to believe that x exists? If your reasons are illogical, then the argument is merely that...your reasoning is flawed. However, we have said from day one, we cannot discount YOUR personal experiences whole cloth, only that they are not persuasive to someone else, and then we give reasons why.
> ...


And I'm skeptical on sciences ability to discover reality. I think DMT is a better tool than science to discover reality, imo. Which supposedly is illogical, I know. 

I understand the skeptical views on personal experiences and am not trying to convince anyone. Though I did get aggressively challenged by those that thought telepathy was ridiculous as if they wanted me to prove it true even though they knew reported experiences are not evidence at all. 

You know nothing of spirituality. Though I think its about testing yourself and see how much you can develop and how you can positively influence those around you. 

If it exists, it is not outside nature, it is a part of nature. The reasons to believe these types of things are usually experiences, and I know that says nothing objectively. 

Yes, telepathy would be natural, and is natural, because it happens in nature. Though saying it is likely not spiritual is a false assumption because you know nothing of telepathy. Saying "everything else has been proven to be non spiritual" is a poor excuse imo. Also, the definition of telepathy is a transmission of information from one person to another without using any of the sensory channels or physical interaction. 

So if a spiritual belief were to be completely true, no credit should be lent to the method that found out this spiritual truth? Sorry if I misunderstood. 

Yes, I doubt what you have labelled credulous, as I still believe in everything that I did before I joined this site. 

How many illogical thinkers have you got to think logically? Your goal to logically enlighten people seems illogical since very few take your words into consideration. 

You are twisting things around and putting words in my mouth. I never said I dont need self-assessment, I just dont need it in the way you think I need it. I am very aware of my actions and how I interact and influence people in the real world. It is a part of spirituality to evaluate yourself to see where you need improvements. Gotta know myself to know god.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 5, 2012)

Right, you got it all down. I know nothing, you are clued into the true reality. You don't misunderstand me, I twist things around. You are infallible, I'm clueless about spirituality. 

I guess I was wrong, you haven't changed one iota. You fail to address any actual content of my post and cherry-picked the things you disagree with, merely to point out how wrong I am.


----------



## Samwell Seed Well (Sep 5, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Right, you got it all down. I know nothing, you are clued into the true reality. You don't misunderstand me, I twist things around. You are infallible, I'm clueless about spirituality.  I guess I was wrong, you haven't changed one iota. You fail to address any actual content of my post and cherry-picked the things you disagree with, merely to point out how wrong I am.


 its been done[video=youtube_share;8rwPovyR9HY]http://youtu.be/8rwPovyR9HY[/video] cant argue with someone who's life is subject to change only through experience and perception


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 5, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Right, you got it all down. I know nothing, you are clued into the true reality. You don't misunderstand me, I twist things around. You are infallible, I'm clueless about spirituality.
> 
> I guess I was wrong, you haven't changed one iota. You fail to address any actual content of my post and cherry-picked the things you disagree with, merely to point out how wrong I am.


No, I acknowledged everything you said, as they have been said many times over. I just wanted to take the topic into a new direction instead of discussing the same old same old. I genuinely wanted to know your side of the things I brought up. It seems I have to agree with the judgements you placed upon me though in order for you to respect anything I say... I am so arrogant...


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 5, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> *I dont think I need the self examination*. I know who I am, I've experienced a lot in my 21 years...





Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I never said I dont need self-assessment, I just dont need it in the way you think I need it...


Forget and move the goalposts much? Ah, you're 21! I get it now, I was a similar arrogant ass when I was that age: knew nothing but thought I knew everything, and everyone but me could see it. If your experience is anything like mine was, your life will fall apart at some point soon and your immature beliefs along with it. Afterward, I hope you start building from a solid foundation of reason, logic and may as well throw in a dash of humility...


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 5, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> And I'm skeptical on sciences ability to discover reality. I think DMT is a better tool than science to discover reality, imo. Which supposedly is illogical, I know.


You are not skeptical, you are doubtful. Skepticism is structured doubt, systematic. There is no system to your doubt, it operates on bias. Skeptisism seeks to identify bias. What you have is unreasonable distrust.



> I understand the skeptical views on personal experiences and am not trying to convince anyone. Though I did get aggressively challenged by those that thought telepathy was ridiculous as if they wanted me to prove it true even though they knew reported experiences are not evidence at all.


You expected to be widely accepted with no questions? You made an agressive report, of course we are curious and doubtful. Do you want to live in a world where we just accept everything said?



> You know nothing of spirituality. Though I think its about testing yourself and see how much you can develop and how you can positively influence those around you.


We know nothing? Obviously we know a lot and are able to much more specific and consicise than you are when we talk about it. You misuse words, confuse meanings, contradict yourself and double speak. You have all the earmarks of a confused and disorganized mind grasping for the straws of spirituality.




> Yes, I doubt what you have labelled credulous, as I still believe in everything that I did before I joined this site.


Again you see this as an attack on you, when it is an attack on ideas you posit. We do not keep tallies on the number of beliefs we have destroyed, or even care. A person can only change their own beliefs. You are so convinced that we are doing this to be loyal to the 'atheistic scientist' stance that you have not considered any other reasons, which is a perfect example of how you handle all topics. Go with the first notion that appeals, find confirmation and ignore discomfirmation.



> How many illogical thinkers have you got to think logically? Your goal to logically enlighten people seems illogical since very few take your words into consideration.


Who are you speaking for? Most of us take your words seriously and genuinely engage you, you are the one who treats posts to you like volleyballs and hit them back as quickly as possible hoping we will drop it. You consider a post for as long as it takes you to construct a comeback, but never once do you examine that comeback and see if it is constructive or if it even makes sense. You simply scan words to see where you can attack, because if you attack, you don't have to defend.

Unless of course you decide the post isn't worth reading. How confident can we be on your ideas when you are willing to skip any information that is too hard to read. Is being lazy part of the spiritual paradigm?




> You are twisting things around and putting words in my mouth. I never said I dont need self-assessment, I just dont need it in the way you think I need it.


Dude, he quoted you and then commented. How can he twist your words around if they came from you? The fault would be yours for not making yourself clear. 

So you are saying you need self assessment, but only in the ways which confirm what you think. You know Cheif, we are talking about critical self assessment. Not self-awareness. We are not talking about patting yourself on the back, we are talking about showing your work to yourself and grading it objectionably. Good luck in life if you think you get everything right the first time through. That makes you immune to correction, even self-correction.



> I am very aware of my actions and how I interact and influence people in the real world. It is a part of spirituality to evaluate yourself to see where you need improvements. Gotta know myself to know god.


So how has spirituality improved you? You just said that you have no changed your beliefs, and your slight change in conduct is a result of us challenging you. You have been here for many months now, what has spirituality shown you in that time? You mind is stagnant going over the same ideas without fully seeing what they are. There may be bloating, but no real growth.

Do you really think you have discovered something special? You come to us and say, hey guys I know science has controls which make it careful and ESP is as of yet unconfirmed, but guess what, if we take out the carefulness we can confirm ESP! Well no shit. If we forget about being careful we can demonstrate 2+2=22. We can prove just about any mind-over-matter ability with those standards, included the idea that listening to 'old' music makes your body physically younger. By your standard we can prove ALL claims of spirituality, not to mention gremlins, witches, voodoo, faith healing, astrology, dousing, homeopathy, Feng Shui, and the evil eye. Unless every single on of those is true and eluding the eyes of science, then your methodology leads to bad answers.

You hide behind the spiritual dichotomy for ESP, but you show the exact same attitude and reasoning when it comes to free energy. You scoff at the laws of thermodynamics because they are part of science, yet they have nothing to do with spirituality. 

Please explain how holding to the concept of null hypothesis is materialistic. How is parsimony grounded in physical reality? Why is paying attention to things like confirmation bias against spirituality? You claim that to know the spirit you must forget the materialistic paradigm of science, but the things you change about science have nothing to do with materialism, not as the word is defined.

You tell us we need to look past our materialistic bias and when we ask how, you tell us we need to be biased, just in your way instead of ours.

Your ideas do not agree with materialism, dualism or idealism, which are the only three possible schools of thought on consciousness. You can either believe consciousness is a result of the brain (materialist) that is has nothing to do with the brain (idealist) or that is it a combination of the two (dualism). When your claims go against materialism you want to side with idealism or dualism, but when they go against dualism you want to use materialism to reconcile. You are in a category by yourself because your beliefs do not make sense or even hold an internal consistency, there is no discipline, just what feels right to you at any given time.


----------



## Doer (Sep 5, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Not my fight, but the ambulatory one was putting that up as one of the extremes.
> Also, Hindus and Buddhists believe that the physical world is an illusion and obstruction from studying true reality. It is an interesting idea, one hard to expunge when it takes hold. It has memetic power. I want some cookies. cn


In the world of duality, up/down, left/right, good/evil..in a world of paired opposites, we see the illusion only. There is only one Reality. Our perceptions of it is the unique snowflake of Consciousness. Our ability to see and experience this Objective, generally agreed upon side, is part of Consciousness, not necessarily all of Consciousness.

Buddhist and Hindu....no more confused than any other religion, to me. As you say, it is very compelling to dismiss it all as Illusion and not worth considering.

Karma, Luck, and Fate are all fatalist approaches. It creates Cast systems. No one is responsible. Everyone feels guilty for past lives. Illusion, also, I say.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 5, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> And you never find anything out of the ordinary? Hmm, this puzzles me... I see something amazing almost every night. Be it a orb of light blink in and out of existence instantly, or a fixed object thought to be a star all of the sudden starts moving until it is out of site or blasts off into hyperspace. My sister sees these things, my friends see these things, I've talked to two guys on this site that see these things. I'm not even surprised anymore when I see it happen. What puzzles me is that you havent seen anything unusual during your star gazing. *Is there a certain mindset you need have that doesnt involve mental trickery in order to see these things?* Are the creators of these things selective to who gets to see them? Do these things only happen in certain parts of the world? If its just our imagination, why are people from different parts of the world describing the same thing? Tonight I will look up and ask for answers, maybe they'll listen lol.


I have never seen anything truly unnatural. The only time I've seen stars start up and accelerate, drugs were involved. I haven't seen, and don't see, what you describe. I routinely see flashes and twinkles but not orbs. The flashes and twinkles have all been consistent with satellite flares: momentary reflections of sunlight from a flat polished surface, typically a solar panel. 
Wanna have some fun? Go to heavens-above.com, enter your observer's coordinates, and look up Iridium flares. The first one you see with a combination of binos, a good watch, and the provided time/sky coordinates ... is great fun. i find satellite passes at heavens-above to be a superior training aid for becoming familiar with the constellations. The sky is home to dozens of my own private asterisms, star arrangements I've named.

But about the bolded, my instinct is to reverse it, to suggest that the mental trickery might explain seeing those things as opposed to not. As I am not seeing them, but I'm seeing all the normal stuff, my impression that we live in a world of nature is undisturbed. 
So my former complaint about _portability _applies here. You see those things but I do not. Which is real, and which is illusion? I don't have an answer that is more than subjective and provisional, of course. But for me to agree on a phenomenon, we'd both need to see it, right? 
It's a shame that if (as you assert) so many people are seeing so many things, there is so little photo/video documentation. While such doc. is naturally fraught ... if there were thirty million vids instead of thirty ... that would have a certain sort of weight. It would at least lift above the noise floor of the weird things some people say they experience. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 5, 2012)

"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." - James Randi

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. " -Voltaire


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 5, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> "Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." - James Randi
> 
> "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. " -Voltaire


Thanks for the new siggy...


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 5, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You are not skeptical, you are doubtful. Skepticism is structured doubt, systematic. There is no system to your doubt, it operates on bias. Skeptisism seeks to identify bias. What you have is unreasonable distrust.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah I guess doubt is a better word than skeptical. Skeptical would mean that I might consider it a better tool for discovering reality if someone made the right argument, but I see that as illogical considering the experiences I "hide" behind. 

I dont expect it to be widely accepted, I was just talking about an experience. According to you guys, most of those experiences are bullshit and shouldnt be taken seriously when hearing about such an experience, and you knew that I could say nothing that would change your opinion of my experience. So it just ended up being pointless bickering. 

Really? You know a lot about something that you dont practice and consider it illogical to practice it? You THINK you know that spirituality is probably useless because spirit, god, and the spirit world have yet to be scientifically proven to exist, so you repeatedly compare them to things like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as if those things prove a point. 

I didnt see it as an attack. I answered MP's question if I doubt my own credulousness. 

I have been defending, but defending leads to nothing with you guys, when it comes to these topics at least. Its always "heres my accusations, and heres why you are wrong and illogical. Your move" no matter what I say because you are in complete disagreement with what I say, yet instead of agreeing to disagree you continue singing "The song that never ends". So I figured I'd just start asking questions as well, since explaining and defending is so useless when up against the logic police. 

Lol, you said "dude", that surprised the shit out of me... Anyways, I guess he did quote me, and I wasn't making myself clear. Everyone needs self assessment. I dont think I should be assessed only according to me, thats destructive. I look how I treat my friends, acquaintances, and other people in my life. If I'm affecting people in a negative way then I look at the situation to see who is at fault. Weed is a great tool for self reflection. I consider myself a good judge of character and facial expressions, I am very observant with things like that. I often know where situations are going before anyone else does. I like bringing the bad news before hand like when someones girlfriend is about to give him shit lol. I just dont think I need the self assessment in the way you guys think I do. When being pointlessly and aggressively engaged by the logic police about my beliefs, this is who I am. I take the people around me seriously but not so much here. We both have negative opinions about each other but apparently only my opinion is biased and unreasonable. 

Spirituality has shown me a few things, none of which you will take seriously because you consider it all woo lol. I have more vivid, amazing dreams and can become lucid (before waking up) a few times a month. I have learned to see my aura and a few other peoples aura, I studied mine the most though. Most of the time it is just a faint light, sometimes it is a 1 inch tall flame of indigo around my whole body, beautiful to look at. I have finally started to meditate and am improving pretty quickly, I see a bunch of pretty colors that dance now, I am hoping this leads me to astral projection soon. And I studied what I think to be truths and you think to be delusions, thats about it. I am looking forward to the spiritual journey that awaits me. 

Lol I can tell you are responding more emotionally for some reason. Your example is false, I never asked anyone to believe me, I just reported an experience, which didnt sit to well with you guys for some reason. You aggressively asked questions so I answered, even though you knew what ever I said wouldnt change anyones mind. I can only say that I was careful with how I came up with my decision that this was not trickery. I can only say that me and a group of people experienced telepathy countless times in many different situations and circumstances. I know you cannot take my word for it though. Im sure if scientifically tested by a respected institution of knowledge the results would come out positive every single time but I dont think my humble spiritual friend will like being a lab rat for quite a while. Especially if he thinks that science is obsessed and lost in a illusion of physical reality. They would not accept such spiritual answers from him. I dont think those that are in power would appreciate it if he tells some amazing truths about the world that would actually help humanity look past shallow consumer culture. The worlds realization of beautiful reality will destroy the power of the corrupted leaders... Thought I'd end with some crazy talk lol.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 5, 2012)

You know, Chief, I understand why you cannot prove the telepathy thing as that would require your friend's consent, but you stated that you often see stars move in crazy ways. How easy it would be to record what you're seeing, you could then show the world your amazing discovery. What would you conclude if you saw one thing and recorded another, would you think your mind, or the objective recording, was wrong?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 5, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> You know, Chief, I understand why you cannot prove the telepathy thing as that would require your friend's consent, but you stated that you often see stars move in crazy ways. How easy it would be to record what you're seeing, you could then show the world your amazing discovery. What would you conclude if you saw one thing and recorded another, would you think your mind, or the objective recording, was wrong?


Well that would be odd if I seen one thing and recorded another. I dont think it is an illusion though. My sister is not spiritual and she kinda thinks Im a little crazy, same with my best friend, yet they see everything that I see and they have completely different mindsets. Same with a few of my friends and two people I talked to on here. Same exact sightings. I find it hard to believe that we are all just making these images form in our imagination and convincing ourselves that they're real because everyone is seeing the exact same thing. Thats why it puzzles me so much that Neer doesnt see anything out of the ordinary. My guess is that consciousness effects reality and when he looks up hes convinced hes only going to see what he thinks is natural and the heavens show him just that. Its up in the air though. I dont know what to think about stars now that I seen what I thought to be stars fly around the sky and blast off at impossible speeds. I want to lean towards aliens but these ships take the form of fixated stars then they move around. The idea that some stars arent what we think they are amazes me. Aliens dont really get my imagination going.

Would be a good experiment though, I dont know someone with a good cam corder so I'll probably just by my own, could put it to some good use.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 5, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Well that would be odd if I seen one thing and recorded another. I dont think it is an illusion though. My sister is not spiritual and she kinda thinks Im a little crazy, same with my best friend, yet they see everything that I see and they have completely different mindsets. Same with a few of my friends and two people I talked to on here. Same exact sightings. I find it hard to believe that we are all just making these images form in our imagination and convincing ourselves that they're real because everyone is seeing the exact same thing. Thats why it puzzles me so much that Neer doesnt see anything out of the ordinary.* My guess is that consciousness effects reality and when he looks up hes convinced hes only going to see what he thinks is natural and the heavens show him just that.* Its up in the air though. I dont know what to think about stars now that I seen what I thought to be stars fly around the sky and blast off at impossible speeds. I want to lean towards aliens but these ships take the form of fixated stars then they move around. The idea that some stars arent what we think they are amazes me. Aliens dont really get my imagination going.
> 
> Would be a good experiment though, I dont know someone with a good cam corder so I'll probably just by my own, could put it to some good use.


I sure hope not. I'd rather be an ordinary person in a mundane world ... than be a blind man in a spirit-bright world. That would feel personal. 

It doesn't prove or disprove either ... this is an unadorned delivery of my feelings about that idea. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 5, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> You know, Chief, I understand why you cannot prove the telepathy thing as that would require your friend's consent, but you stated that you often see stars move in crazy ways. How easy it would be to record what you're seeing, you could then show the world your amazing discovery. What would you conclude if you saw one thing and recorded another, would you think your mind, or the objective recording, was wrong?


It's why I submit the low number of Youtube videos as a highly circumstantial fragment of evidence "against". Unless, of course, machines and polar bears cannot sense them. cn


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 5, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I sure hope not. I'd rather be an ordinary person in a mundane world ... than be a blind man in a spirit-bright world. That would feel personal.
> 
> It doesn't prove or disprove either ... this is an unadorned delivery of my feelings about that idea. cn


I dont think it would mean you are blind. Just that the universe reflects whats in you and it does that to every individual person, to an extent. Its all just an idea though. Maybe trying to focus on finding the "supernatural" when star gazing will bring you some eye opening results, who knows.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 5, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I dont think it would mean you are blind. Just that the universe reflects whats in you and it does that to every individual person, to an extent. Its all just an idea though. Maybe trying to focus on finding the "supernatural" when star gazing will bring you some eye opening results, who knows.


The odd thing is that my xgf says I have that rare quality among us Western moderns: the Wide-open Eye. I see things in nature that many others miss. My inner and outer eyes are wide-open when I'm under starry skies; my sense of awe is in full play then. I like to keep myself open to whatever I can experience. If I am indeed filtering, unconsciously blinding myself, my aware portion of me is definitely not in on it or good with it. So really, the two main choices here are either that you're seeing things I can't, or that I'm not seeing things that you really aren't either. I am not so wedded to my prejudices that I'll absolutely choose from those two. cn


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 5, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Well that would be odd if I seen one thing and recorded another. I dont think it is an illusion though. My sister is not spiritual and she kinda thinks Im a little crazy, same with my best friend, yet they see everything that I see and they have completely different mindsets. Same with a few of my friends and two people I talked to on here. Same exact sightings. I find it hard to believe that we are all just making these images form in our imagination and convincing ourselves that they're real because everyone is seeing the exact same thing. Thats why it puzzles me so much that Neer doesnt see anything out of the ordinary.


It's not only Neer that doesn't see anything out of the ordinary, but thousand of amateur and professional astronomers with million dollar equipment don't either...



> My guess is that consciousness effects reality and when he looks up hes convinced hes only going to see what he thinks is natural and the heavens show him just that.


How many realities are there? If Neer's perception is that nothing extraordinary is there and that his perception changed reality, wouldn't we all be in that reality and see the same thing? Unless you're meaning that there's no objective reality, only billions of subjective realities, which would mean we're all correct about everything we experience...



> Its up in the air though. I dont know what to think about stars now that I seen what I thought to be stars fly around the sky and blast off at impossible speeds. I want to lean towards aliens but these ships take the form of fixated stars then they move around. The idea that some stars arent what we think they are amazes me. Aliens dont really get my imagination going.
> 
> Would be a good experiment though, I dont know someone with a good cam corder so I'll probably just by my own, could put it to some good use.


If you're correct, that footage could win you fame and fortune. Get on it!


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 6, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Does your experience have something to do with the electricity topic you were talking about?


...most everything about that stuff is related to magnetism / resonance. I'm not a huge fan of the idea that people affect things like this. However, it is plain to see when it happens between two people. Now, _that's_ crazy


----------



## Doer (Sep 6, 2012)

There is one other, now the essential part of the Method, if not the only one that matters. Double Bind testing.

All spiritual mumbo, fails in DBT. Explain that one, objectively.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 6, 2012)

Doer said:


> There is one other, now the essential part of the Method, if not the only one that matters. Double Bind testing.
> 
> All spiritual mumbo, fails in DBT. Explain that one, objectively.


Loaded premise. Double-blind is designed to remove the subjective. If we've established nothing else in this thread, it's that we don't have an objective handle on studying spirit-action. You're trying to reintroduce "science of spirit" but through the other back door imo ... 

...basically supporting my premise that science and spirit present "nonoverlapping magisteria". Just as using science to study spirit fails on the incompatibility of method, so does using spirit to do science, as "unrevealed" by prophetic works that never exceed the sci-tech grammar of their day. cn


----------



## Doer (Sep 6, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Loaded premise. Double-blind is designed to remove the subjective. If we've established nothing else in this thread, it's that we don't have an objective handle on studying spirit-action. You're trying to reintroduce "science of spirit" but through the other back door imo ...
> 
> ...basically supporting my premise that science and spirit present "nonoverlapping magisteria". Just as using science to study spirit fails on the incompatibility of method, so does using spirit to do science, as "unrevealed" by prophetic works that never exceed the sci-tech grammar of their day. cn


Whaaaa? Who is presupposing "spirit", in the first place? So, to say that it's non-overlapping, is error. It's a null set. 1+0=1. 
Double Blind testing has consistently established the Zero in the equation.

I'm not giving science of spirit any credence. Nor will I grant the conjecture there is some other "something" that can be studied to get "objective handle on studying spirit-action." What woo is this my, forum mate? "Spirit action" assumed or proposed, but no method to study, for now? No incompatibility of methods, surely.

That takes two methods, but even more, takes two things to apply methods to.

Can't do DBT, to rule out Subjective, because the woo to study, is subjective? Then there is no spirit action at all, to study, right? Just wooish conjecture. There's the back door. Am I reading you correctly? Loaded, I am, put you may have missed my point. 

It's been established in this thread, there is "spirit action" to study, we just don't know how? Wild thread, indeed. Not established with me, iac.

How could I have been so un-clear? Pah...back door, indeed.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 6, 2012)

Doer said:


> Whaaaa? Who is presupposing "spirit", in the first place? So, to say that it's non-overlapping, is error. It's a null set. 1+0=1.
> 
> I'm not giving science of spirit any credence. Nor will I grant the conjecture there is some other "something" that can be studied to get "objective handle on studying spirit-action." What woo is this my, forum mate? "Spirit action" assumed or proposed, but no method to study, for now? No incompatiblity
> 
> ...


Don't do yourself an injury! I am simply saying that there's been no success in using the methods of science on questions of spirit. I am also giving any science of spirit no credence until it can build some. But as you are not (giving any credence, that is), asking for double-blind studies seems less like a way forward and more like a lawyer's word trap. I do not know how to legitimately study matters of spirit without science, but I'm not saying that there can be none. 
What I do notice from what literature there is ... is that spirit-action, assuming it is real, seems to have a wilful element to it that would pre-empt double blind or any such objectivizing measures. Have you read Michael Crichton's autobiographical "Travels"? In it, he describes a spirit-world experience that is at once compelling and hugely frustrating. If there are little imps, lights etc., they seem to make a game out of being inconsistent ... out of dancing around the places where they could be subject to test. 
Double-blind is a suitable protocol for testing effects on aware subjects (people) by material causes. But it may be quite unsuitable for a phenomenon that has a CoyoueRavenTrickster element built in up front.
~shrug~ I'm wheeling a bit freely, and my blood sugar is scraping asphalt. Time to nutrify. cn


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 6, 2012)

Doer said:


> Whaaaa? Who is presupposing "spirit", in the first place? So, to say that it's non-overlapping, is error. It's a null set. 1+0=1.
> Double Blind testing has consistently established the Zero in the equation.
> 
> I'm not giving science of spirit any credence. Nor will I grant the conjecture there is some other "something" that can be studied to get "objective handle on studying spirit-action." What woo is this my, forum mate? "Spirit action" assumed or proposed, but no method to study, for now? No incompatibility of methods, surely.
> ...


Great post. +rep...


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 6, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> It's not only Neer that doesn't see anything out of the ordinary, but thousand of amateur and professional astronomers with million dollar equipment don't either...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well I was going to say reality mirrors every individual subjectively, we are subjectively experiencing ourselves/reality, that kinda deal. Because really the only perception you have is your own. If you are happy and humble and comfortable about your world views then you cant be wrong about reality, because reality is only reflecting what you put into it, and those that think theres a magical aspect to existence see that magic when they look up at night or when they do other things,Imo. I knew of this subject but never really put much thought into it till now since finding out theres millions of people not seeing these things that a handful of people can see... I am not interested in fame and fortune though. Might get cancer or corrupt my mind or something because of not earning any of my gluttonous happiness of money and recognition lol. I dont think a video will get that much attention though since theres already a bunch of videos where people see the same thing and they dont get taken seriously, I would just become one of them.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 6, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...most everything about that stuff is related to magnetism / resonance. I'm not a huge fan of the idea that people affect things like this. However, it is plain to see when it happens between two people. Now, _that's_ crazy


A lot of things have to do with magnetism/resonance. The "crazy" unlimited technology device I talk about has to do with magnetism, and can be adjusted so that it defies gravity. That movie I posted called "Astral City" comes from a medium who tells the story of a Spanish spirit. A humble authority figure was explaining a few things to this spirit when he was still confused about this new reality and he mentioned that humanity should be discovering the wonders of magnetism soon. This story takes place around the time Tesla was alive. 

Is there an article you can link me to about people effecting electricity? First time I have heard of this. My crazy senses are tingling lol


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 6, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> Well I was going to say reality mirrors every individual subjectively, we are subjectively experiencing ourselves/reality, that kinda deal. Because really the only perception you have is your own. If you are happy and humble and comfortable about your world views* then you can't be wrong about reality, because reality is only reflecting what you put into it*, and those that think theres a magical aspect to existence see that magic when they look up at night or when they do other things,Imo. I knew of this subject but never really put much thought into it till now since finding out theres millions of people not seeing these things that a handful of people can see... I am not interested in fame and fortune though. Might get cancer or corrupt my mind or something because of not earning any of my gluttonous happiness of money and recognition lol. I dont think a video will get that much attention though since theres already a bunch of videos where people see the same thing and they dont get taken seriously, I would just become one of them.


This is a basic divergence with the scientific mindset. A scientist studying material/sensory reality needs to count on reality being invariant, with seemingly noncompliant phenomena like the quantum observer effect occurring in very defined conditions of the very very small and fast. 
Without this invariance, this almost complete independence from the observer, no meaningful edifice of science could be built.

So if indeed magical perception is a constant negotiation with/ effect of the observer as well as the observed, i see no hope for there being a science of the spirit, because the two pursuits work from incompatible, contradictory premises. 

I am not saying one is right and the other, wrong. Just that each cannot be tested or proven using the tools of the other. Of course, i see science as being spectacularly successful, useful and right within its domain. It provides the gold standard for consequent intellectual inquiry. There are other, nonscientific but still eminently rational avenues of human study, such as philosophy. These however are not limited to the sensory (although they are well-advised to not plainly contradict it) and may be more speculative in their nature, even as they seek to limit subjective premises/processes as far as possible. 
At the far pole from objectivity, but still solidly engaging the human mind and heart, is art in all its varied glories and agonies. Art is definitively subjective. But its universal appeal strongly supports its validity as a human endeavor. 
Art is also the springboard from the objective through the natural into the transcendent. The great problem I have encountered and witnessed is the impossibility of defining and communicating the building blocks of art using express forms (language). (Just try describing a psychedelic experience. One is reduced to naked evocation.) But art is entirely about humanity, while spirit study ... is not.
So where am I going with this?
(To the fridge. For cold pizza and colder beer.)
I am suggesting that while science carries within it the tools of its own definition. Art does not, and yet people can readily tell good art from bad. Interestingly, some of the most refined art is accessibly only to the most experienced, engaged, trained observers. Like with science, philosophy or any other human study or craft, there is a learning curve. Is there one for spirit as well?
The trouble is that in science and engineering, a syllabus can be framed by which an intelligent but dirt-ignorant beginner can go from zero to full practitioner. In art, inclination/talent needs to be added to the mix. In spirit studues, i can imagine that #### (indefinible) has to be present as well. But perhaps, from the material perspective, #### subjectivizes things irredeemably. How I wish there were a consequent way to navigate these shoals at the edge of the map of human experience! 

My basic affinity for beauty and symmetry wants for there to be a way to close the circle, to return to Science from Art via the Transcendent. But I must admit to myself and you that I see no such way, and I express an essential agnosticism: I have the strong suspicion that no such way _can _exist without doing grievous harm to the things it would marry. cn


----------



## Doer (Sep 6, 2012)

*... spirit-action, assuming it is real, seems to have a willful element to it that would per-empt double blind or any such objectivizing measures.*

Of course, Mr. White Bear! Who would see anything weird if one person had not first assumed and conjectured it was possible to have extra-ordinary? Ghosts, spirits, whatever. It is impossible to get to first cause on this. 

To _assume something is real_ is worse that fiction. To natter about it for millennia, is good fiction, and profit. To buy the idea, that it is possible, is one thing. Lots of folks like to believe. To conjure an imagination of getting a handle on spirit action is religion, isn't it? I thought that was our common sub-forum agreement.

But, I didn't ask for any proof, iac, remember. In fact I scoff at the very idea. I mentioned that those who call for science to address "this?" have brought forth time and time again, these experiments. Proof for science. Please consider THIS, they beg. The rigors of Method are brought to bear, to reveal the truth for the good of mankind. None can withstand the Method. 

And as I say there is only one Reality and our varied Perception, there is only one Method, and our various Understanding.

The Method exists because of spirit action conjecture. That's how I see it. No big deal.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 6, 2012)

Doer said:


> *... spirit-action, assuming it is real, seems to have a willful element to it that would per-empt double blind or any such objectivizing measures.*
> 
> Of course, Mr. White Bear! Who would see anything weird if one person had not first assumed and conjectured some it was possible? Ghosts, spirits, whatever. It is impossible to get to first cause on this. To _assume something is real_ is worse that fiction. To natter about it for millennial, is good fiction, and profit. To buy the idea, that it is possible, is one thing. Lots of folks like to believe. To conjure an imagination of getting a handle on spirit is
> religion, isn't it? I thought that was our common agreement./
> ...



"allowing that it might be real" would have been a better phrase. I was trying to say "not reflexively dismissing it", not ... what it sounded like. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 6, 2012)

Doer said:


> It is impossible to get to first cause on this.


...akash [...] to hydrogen...then on to all known variations?


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 6, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> This is a basic divergence with the scientific mindset. A scientist studying material/sensory reality needs to count on reality being invariant, with seemingly noncompliant phenomena like the quantum observer effect occurring in very defined conditions of the very very small and fast.
> Without this invariance, this almost complete independence from the observer, no meaningful edifice of science could be built.
> 
> So if indeed magical perception is a constant negotiation with/ effect of the observer as well as the observed, i see no hope for there being a science of the spirit, because the two pursuits work from incompatible, contradictory premises.
> ...


I disagree, I think humanity is all about spirituality, even if you dont believe in it. Life is one big learning experience and you take what you've learned with you when you die. There may be certain things that higher beings of consciousness prefer you to learn (or not because of the concept of destiny/partial destiny) but no matter what you learn it isnt wrong or bad. A junky that died from a overdose would think "Wow, that life sure fucking sucked! I'm glad I went through it though, I experienced much conflict that I can only evolve from". If we reincarnate countless times then Hitler could be in 'heaven' because he wasnt bad, he was only experiencing. The collective consciousness of his countless past lives would kick in and he would realize how horrible he was yet he would be humbled by the experience, just like his victims would be humbled by the experience because they can only learn and evolve from it. Just an example, Hitler could be in 'Hell' also. 

If we are still talking about everyone experiencing the universe subjectively in a spiritual sense then yes, science would be a useless tool for studying that concept. I think things like telepathy, astral projection, hypnotism, and the possible magic of psychedelics can be studied though. A hypnotist can make someone convinced that someone else has disappeared yet that person will be right in front of them, they somehow see right through the person like he/she isnt there. Telepathy has been found in DNA and people may have mild telepathic powers that they are oblivious to. Im sure you've had experiences where someone said "you read my mind" and you've said the same on occasion, not saying it seriously though. I feel I have a connection with a couple of my family members and my best friend, especially my best friend. Its always me thinking about something and someone else bringing it up right after I think about it, its hardly ever me receiving information. Many people think that lucid dreaming is just another form of astral projection instead of the other way around. Most of these astral projectors tell stories of finding things they would of never found or visiting people and later telling them what they were doing and they would be correct. You think Strassmans experiment where two people experience the same DMT trip and communicate with the same angelic being means nothing because it only happened once under scientific observation, but have you not heard many stories of people sharing the exact same hallucination? Even if it is just some fake fantasy world they are in, its still a form of telepathy because they are connected through thought/spirit. These are all just experiences though, and i realize no matter how consistent and similar the story, it is only a story to others that are skeptical. 

A spiritual learning curve can be when someone gets rid of their organized religion, which atheists already have done, or at least realize that a lot of organized religion is wrong while still having some faith in it. I guess spiritual learning curves are subjective after that. I didnt know what to do after I found out that christianity was almost completely wrong and ridiculous, I didnt care either, because I didnt care much for christianity when I was a christian up to age 11. I just thought that theres a good chance that theres no god and that view has changed as I matured and became aware of beauty, complexity, contemplation on how the universe began, contemplation on existence in general. All cliche reasons to be a believer, I know. Then Joe Rogan got me interested in so many things like spirituality and science, though more to do with certain scientific experiments (like the observer effect, first heard about that from him) than the scientific method. Then I met my spiritual friend who I thought was crazy for the longest time then he blew my mind wide open. Still think my spiritual journey started with Joe Rogan though, loved his insights. 

I dont think someone should stick to just one spiritual path though, they should take what they can from religions with scattered truths and from what spiritual teachers have to say. But just like the spiritual journey of life, the study of spirituality is subjective because there shouldnt be any rules or limitations for something thats free and limitless (eternal life = limitless possibilities)


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 7, 2012)

Chief Walkin Eagle said:


> I disagree, I think humanity is all about spirituality, even if you dont believe in it. Life is one big learning experience and you take what you've learned with you when you die. There may be certain things that higher beings of consciousness prefer you to learn (or not because of the concept of destiny/partial destiny) but no matter what you learn it isnt wrong or bad. A junky that died from a overdose would think "Wow, that life sure fucking sucked! I'm glad I went through it though, I experienced much conflict that I can only evolve from". If we reincarnate countless times then Hitler could be in 'heaven' because he wasnt bad, he was only experiencing. The collective consciousness of his countless past lives would kick in and he would realize how horrible he was yet he would be humbled by the experience, just like his victims would be humbled by the experience because they can only learn and evolve from it. Just an example, Hitler could be in 'Hell' also.


Much to debate about the above, but it'll be the usual "how do you know it's that way", so I'll pass.


> If we are still talking about everyone experiencing the universe subjectively in a spiritual sense then yes, science would be a useless tool for studying that concept. I think things like telepathy, astral projection, hypnotism, and the possible magic of psychedelics can be studied though. A hypnotist can make someone convinced that someone else has disappeared yet that person will be right in front of them, they somehow see right through the person like he/she isnt there. Telepathy has been found in DNA and people may have mild telepathic powers that they are oblivious to.


My complaints about repeatability and portability go to the core of this. I've not encountered any literature about "telepathy being found in DNA" (not a precise phrase; what does it mean?) and would not know how to design the experiment to test this concept, one with real material mundane consequences. The business with the hypnotist - has this been done in front of one of the wardens of scientific method, such as The Amazing Randi? Do not scoff; folks like him are instrumental in separating any actual positives from examples of that other great human talent ... showmanship. 
Also, hypnotism deals with that awesome wellspring of chaos, the human unconscious. We barely have a science of the baseline unconscious and would need to develop it more before taking on the added variable of hypnosis ... and then the added one of unnatural doings during it. Some of the things you suggest are not simple.


> Im sure you've had experiences where someone said "you read my mind" and you've said the same on occasion, not saying it seriously though. I feel I have a connection with a couple of my family members and my best friend, especially my best friend.


 I do not tend to have moments like that. i have always had a rather literal mind with a built-in metaphor filter. I would not label an experience of coincidence possible telepathy unless startlingly unlikely info was exchanged. That as never happened to me. I thought I had a premonition once: at the edge of sleep, in a different language, I had a voice rise above the internal noise and say "[world celebrity] has died". Next day in the news ... it was not so.


> Its always me thinking about something and someone else bringing it up right after I think about it, its hardly ever me receiving information. Many people think that lucid dreaming is just another form of astral projection instead of the other way around. Most of these astral projectors tell stories of finding things they would of never found or visiting people and later telling them what they were doing and they would be correct. You think Strassman's experiment where two people experience the same DMT trip and communicate with the same angelic being means nothing because it only happened once under scientific observation, but have you not heard many stories of people sharing the exact same hallucination? Even if it is just some fake fantasy world they are in, its still a form of telepathy because they are connected through thought/spirit.


 Dude, did I just read you saying "even if it's all a fake, it's still real"? I am unconvinced that what they had was telepathy, either with each other or with an immaterial presence. But if Strassmann has taken this pair to other universities, with other audiences allowed to examine ... that would help. But outside researchers need to have access so that they can test the veracity of the claim. That is fundamental to science: the capacity to survive hostile review. What science strives to do is to reduce story to pattern, and that requires a consistent result.


> These are all just experiences though, and i realize no matter how consistent and similar the story, it is only a story to others that are skeptical.
> 
> A spiritual learning curve can be when someone gets rid of their organized religion, which atheists already have done, or at least realize that a lot of organized religion is wrong while still having some faith in it. I guess spiritual learning curves are subjective after that. I didnt know what to do after I found out that christianity was almost completely wrong and ridiculous, I didnt care either, because I didnt care much for christianity when I was a christian up to age 11. I just thought that theres a good chance that theres no god and that view has changed as I matured and became aware of beauty, complexity, contemplation on how the universe began, contemplation on existence in general. All cliche reasons to be a believer, I know. Then Joe Rogan got me interested in so many things like spirituality and science, though more to do with certain scientific experiments (like the observer effect, first heard about that from him) than the scientific method. Then I met my spiritual friend who I thought was crazy for the longest time then he blew my mind wide open. Still think my spiritual journey started with Joe Rogan though, loved his insights.
> 
> I dont think someone should stick to just one spiritual path though, they should take what they can from religions with scattered truths and from what spiritual teachers have to say. But just like the spiritual journey of life, the study of spirituality is subjective because there shouldnt be any rules or limitations for something thats free and limitless (eternal life = limitless possibilities)


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 7, 2012)

"Great sweeping generalizations, particularly those purporting to know the thoughts and feelings of other people, are almost always wrong. It doesn't really matter whether you're a skeptic or a believer, black or white, gay or straight, Eastern or Western: when you catch yourself thinking you know the minds of others &#8212; and most especially when you assign them some sort of sub-human, amoral, or thoughtless traits &#8212; it's almost certainly you who is in the wrong." - Brian Dunning

"The whole reason researchers exist is to learn new stuff. Nobody funds research that's intended to not learn anything. Every working scientist's career is defined by his new discoveries; there is no work to be done, and no salary to be found, in accepting irrefutable truths and doing nothing. I've never met an archaeologist or anthropologist who wouldn't love to discover evidence of a superior early civilization. The reason we don't think there were any is not that we have an inflated sense of ourselves, it's that there's no evidence or record of it." - Brian Dunning


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 10, 2012)

Dr. Michael Persinger has done extensive research into sharing information between humans, over long distances. It's quite intriguing and very provoking.

If you watch the entire lecture (I know it's long), he gets quite detailed into some of the experiments they performed and the different outcomes. 

It's called "No more secrets", and the basic premise is that the earth's magnetic field can act as a form of data storage for memories. He explains it better than I!

[video=youtube_share;9l6VPpDublg]http://youtu.be/9l6VPpDublg[/video]


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2012)

Hey, BB! I know you're a skeptic, and I wanted to get your take on the other scientist's apparent failure to reproduce Persinger's results. I'd invest the hour in the video if I was assured I wouldn't be wasting time on woo...

[h=3]Research in neurotheology[/h] Main article: God helmet

During the 1980s he stimulated people's temporal lobes artificially with a weak magnetic field to see if he could induce a religious state (see God helmet). He claimed that the field could produce the sensation of "an ethereal presence in the room". This research has received wide coverage in the media, with high profile visitors to Persinger's lab Susan Blackmore and Richard Dawkins reporting positive[SUP][13][/SUP] and negative[SUP][14][/SUP] results respectively.

The only published attempt to replicate these effects failed to do so and concluded that subjects' reports correlated with their personality characteristics and suggestibility. They also criticised Persinger for insufficient double-blinding and argued that there was no physiologically plausible mechanism by which his device could affect the brain.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] Persinger responded that the researchers had an incorrect computer setup[SUP][15][/SUP] and that many of his previous experiments were indeed carried out double-blind.[SUP][16][/SUP] Both claims are disputed.[SUP][2][/SUP]
The evidence base on which Persinger's theory rests has been criticised[SUP][6][/SUP] and commercial versions of Persinger's devices sold by his research associate Todd Murphy have proved unable to produce the effects that Murphy claims under experimental conditions.[SUP][17][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]


----------



## dslantic (Sep 12, 2012)

> The Science of Interconnectedness.


I've never really been into it.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 12, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Hey, BB! I know you're a skeptic, and I wanted to get your take on the other scientist's apparent failure to reproduce Persinger's results. I'd invest the hour in the video if I was assured I wouldn't be wasting time on woo...
> 
> *Research in neurotheology*
> 
> ...


...hi, Tyler - what normally triggers the religious state? Outside of being able to trigger it mechanically, why are our bodies equipped with the fleshy-tech to have those experiences? What is 'out there' or 'in here' to even need the receptors in the first place? (there's no load on this question, just a real question that I am pondering)


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...hi, Tyler - what normally triggers the religious state? Outside of being able to trigger it mechanically, why are our bodies equipped with the fleshy-tech to have those experiences? What is 'out there' or 'in here' to even need the receptors in the first place? (there's no load on this question, just a real question that I am pondering)



Hey, Eye! That is a great question. My favorite hypothesis comes from Richard Dawkins: In his book The God Delusion, he speaks about how moths' behavior seems to be suicidal; they circle a flame closer and closer until they eventually fly right into it burning themselves up. Of course, this is not what is actually happening. For millions of years, moths navigated Earth by the moon (the brightest object in the night sky) and when humans started to develop and learned how to make fires at will, moths mistook the fires for moonlight and flew to their death. Their flying into flame is a misfiring for an otherwise fantastic navigation system. This is an analogy of what the religious state is in humans, a misfiring of some otherwise very useful cognitive system...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 12, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Hey, BB! I know you're a skeptic, and I wanted to get your take on the other scientist's apparent failure to reproduce Persinger's results. I'd invest the hour in the video if I was assured I wouldn't be wasting time on woo...
> 
> *Research in neurotheology*
> 
> ...


Thanks for the response TD!

I'm a skeptic indeed! 


Based on the fact that there have been only two attempts at this experiment, one from Persinger and one replication, I'm not sure we can definitively say one way or the other.

I certainly wouldn't say Dr. Persinger falls into the category of 'woo', Laurentian University isn't known for hiring 'quacks'. All I can say is watch the video and decide for yourself. There's a ton of viable information that's presented in a concise, easy to understand, way. Brains are conductive, and we're all stuck sitting in the same powerful, magnetic field. There's enough energy in the earth's magnetic field to store the memories of every human that will ever live....


Should I mention Dr. Persinger won 'Lecturer of the year' in 2007?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 12, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> Thanks for the response TD!
> 
> I'm a skeptic indeed!
> 
> ...


I've seen the video, and the results were remarkable. But I was startled and disappointed to read Tyler's accounts of failure to reproduce his results. I have to be ready to label this "pathological science" if there's no reproducing it. Remember the "cold fusion" debacle? Also accredited scientists ultimately led astray by systematic error in their apparatus. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2012)

Persinger is no pseudoscientist. He is not trying to subvert or defy the scientific method, and he is not arrogantly saying his theory is beyond science. I agree that the lecture is provoking and I think Persinger is one to keep an eye on. He is however outside of his field when he talks about quantum mechanics and some say he is taking some liberty with his application of quantum entanglement. I also question his gullibility, he claims Sean Harribance told the US military where to find Saddam as if it is accepted fact. When reading about the experiments with Sean Harribance and Ingo Swann, they sound very much like parlor tricks. Persinger wouldn't be the first scientist to be fooled by accomplished hoaxers, project alpha comes to mind. This is why we need replication.

In any case all we can say at this point is just what BB said, it's intriguing.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 12, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Hey, Eye! That is a great question. My favorite hypothesis comes from Richard Dawkins: In his book The God Delusion, he speaks about how moths' behavior seems to be suicidal; they circle a flame closer and closer until they eventually fly right into it burning themselves up. Of course, this is not what is actually happening. For millions of years, moths navigated Earth by the moon (the brightest object in the night sky) and when humans started to develop and learned how to make fires at will, moths mistook the fires for moonlight and flew to their death. Their flying into flame is a misfiring for an otherwise fantastic navigation system. This is an analogy of what the religious state is in humans, a misfiring of some otherwise very useful cognitive system...(that only _seems_ suicidal?)


...thanks for the great reply, Tyler. And, awesome clincher  (not of the 'fleshy-tech' variety, that is  )


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 12, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Persinger is no pseudoscientist. He is not trying to subvert or defy the scientific method, and he is not arrogantly saying his theory is beyond science. I agree that the lecture is provoking and I think Persinger is one to keep an eye on. He is however outside of his field when he talks about quantum mechanics and some say he is taking some liberty with his application of quantum entanglement. I also question his gullibility, he claims Sean Harribance told the US military where to find Saddam as if it is accepted fact. When reading about the experiments with Sean Harribance and Ingo Swann, they sound very much like parlor tricks. Persinger wouldn't be the first scientist to be fooled by accomplished hoaxers, project alpha comes to mind. This is why we need replication.
> 
> In any case all we can say at this point is just what BB said, it's intriguing.


Pons and Fleischmann were also "real" scientists. This is neither praising them or disparaging Persinger. But if he cannot describe his method well enough that others can replicate results like his, then there is something amiss there. If he can but won't, that is imo an affront to scientific ethics. If he wants to but isn't succeeding, it is a lacuna in the scientific method. What I described to CWE as the portability of the result applies here. I'd like to see his results, or results that point in the same direction, independently reproduced in another lab from purely written protocols. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 13, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Pons and Fleischmann were also "real" scientists. This is neither praising them or disparaging Persinger. But if he cannot describe his method well enough that others can replicate results like his, then there is something amiss there. If he can but won't, that is imo an affront to scientific ethics. If he wants to but isn't succeeding, it is a lacuna in the scientific method. What I described to CWE as the portability of the result applies here. I'd like to see his results, or results that point in the same direction, independently reproduced in another lab from purely written protocols. cn


I was not speaking to the validity of the claims. I was comparing Persinger with Sheldrake. One honors the scientific method, the other scoffs at it. Persinger may well turn out to be a fool, but he is not a pseudoscientist. I do not think these experiments have attempted to be reproduced just yet, as this is a different video from the God helmet. I also don't think anyone is complaining that Persinger is withholding data or resisting peer review. The main criticism seems to be that he is outside of his field when speaking on QM, and works under the assumption that people are psychic going into his experiments. The medical community seems to regard highly his research on anticonvulsants and epilepsy, so he is apparently capable of doing good work. I think the first thing to look at is if Persinger is falling victim to scam, which can easily happen to a scientist.

So when deciding which claims to dedicate time to I say we favor science over pseudoscience, keeping in mind that one mans/teams science has every chance of being flawed. Until reproduction, his findings can not be said to be anything more than intriguing.

And again, Persinger is basically saying "I am convinced this is right, have a look for flaws", where Sheldrake is saying "I know this is right and the flaws are there because science doesn't know how to look".


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 13, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I was not speaking to the validity of the claims. I was comparing Persinger with Sheldrake. One honors the scientific method, the other scoffs at it. Persinger may well turn out to be a fool, but he is not a pseudoscientist. I do not think these experiments have attempted to be reproduced just yet, as this is a different video from the God helmet. I also don't think anyone is complaining that Persinger is withholding data or resisting peer review. The main criticism seems to be that he is outside of his field when speaking on QM, and works under the assumption that people are psychic going into his experiments. The medical community seems to regard highly his research on anticonvulsants and epilepsy, so he is apparently capable of doing good work. I think the first thing to look at is if Persinger is falling victim to scam, which can easily happen to a scientist.
> 
> So when deciding which claims to dedicate time to I say we favor science over pseudoscience, keeping in mind that one mans/teams science has every chance of being flawed. Until reproduction, his findings can not be said to be anything more than intriguing.
> 
> And again, Persinger is basically saying "I am convinced this is right, have a look for flaws", where Sheldrake is saying "I know this is right and the flaws are there because science doesn't know how to look".


It's why I chose the term "pathological science", to distinguish it from pseudoscience. cn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 15, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> It's why I chose the term "pathological science", to distinguish it from pseudoscience. cn
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science


Sometimes, even when subjected to scientific scrutiny, somethings are still a mystery. 

Maybe Persinger just *doesn't have the full explanation* and is doing his best to describe his results in a way that is as consistent as possible with the scientific method.

Any explanation we offer is simply speculation at this point. If the double blind testing that he describes in the video actually happened, and there's no parlour tricks involved, these findings could shake the very foundations of the way we perceive memories. It would explain so many cases of seemingly unexplained 'telepathy'. It could also explain why twins can seem to have their own secret language without using words.

This _*could*_ impact so many fields of science, I wish more professionals took the time to study this subject.


----------



## Doer (Sep 15, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> It's why I chose the term "pathological science", to distinguish it from pseudoscience. cn
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science


Polly Water Doodle all the Day.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 15, 2012)

Zaehet Strife said:


> If you cannot prove your beliefs to be true beyond reasonable doubt, they are not true... you merely think they are.


Not true. Your argument is; if there's evidence, then it's true, but it's not bi-directional. Just because it's true doesn't mean there's evidence.

If A, then B.
A;
therefore B. 
This logically follows.

But;
If A then B,
B;
therefore A.
Doesn't logically follow.

If it's raining it's wet. But if it's wet, it's not necessarily raining.

So; just because something is true, doesn't mean if requires evidence to be true. But if something has (enough) evidence it is necessarily true.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> Sometimes, even when subjected to scientific scrutiny, somethings are still a mystery.
> 
> Maybe Persinger just *doesn't have the full explanation* and is doing his best to describe his results in a way that is as consistent as possible with the scientific method.
> 
> ...


That is true. In Pons and Fleischmann's case, the falsity of the result was eventually established. In Persinger's case, we have a result neither confirmed nor falsified. 
I don't remember any more, but i hope I raised pathological science as a possibility, not a diagnosis. I agree that further studies along these lines, to either confirm or falsify the effect, and just as importantly to refine and distribute a complete set of instructions/schematics, would be a thing worth funding. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 19, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> It's why I chose the term "pathological science", to distinguish it from pseudoscience. cn
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science


Ahh I see the distinction and I suspect that sort of thing is what will be found when recreating Persinger's experiments. I suspect this because, as BB said, this discovery would lead to multiple paradigm shifts. Normally when we see results indicating such change, they end up not holding up to scrutiny.

I am surprised that so far I have not seen any of the skeptical para-researchers comment on these claims. This seems like something Richard Wiseman would be very interested in. Seeing as how some skeptics often champion Persinger for his work on the God helmet, it would be interesting to see how they digest these claims.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 19, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I don't remember any more, but i hope I raised pathological science as a possibility, not a diagnosis.


I agree, certainly a possibility! I'm bias in this topic, I want Persinger to be correct; so my input should be taken with a grain of salt!


----------

