• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | thegreenhand

  • Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

The Pineal Gland, LSD and Serotonin

There is no matter, there is only form, matter is an illusion, the space between us does not physically exist, we are one, all of us are so, so, so connected but we fail to realise it. We are forms of source material and matter doesn't actually exist.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but as much as I love the idea of mutual love, tolerance, and understanding, this is a random vague statement to me that explains nothing and conveys nothing, oversimplifying those small bits we know (about bonds). It basically rejects imperfection of human perception quite like any other religion, some have gods, yours have form and energy. Coming back to the idea of being kind and not doing harm to others, you don't need a worldview based on forms and source energy to come to that, just some elementary growing up which happens if you happen to have someone in your life to introduce you to it, that's all.

Is it really so hard for people to admit "this I know, but this and that I have no idea about" and keep on living? Do we really need to have an explanation for everything?
 
Last edited:
^ What you say may sound profound but questioning what we know and how limited it is neither invalidates what we have indeed found out (what do you actually know about that science part you are considering irrelevant?) nor does it justify the beliefs you have.

Discussion is probably futile from this point due to the circular reasoning of belief systems and the in my opinion inappropriate conclusions you are drawing from seeing things are relative and uncertain.

For example even if we are living in a simulation manifested from a matrix of pure information, you should ask yourself what that actually changes about the consistency in and of our world? Does finding out about free will justify becoming completely defeatist or dangerously nihilistic? No, these are false conclusions to draw about what the implications are for your own life.

I don't presume that I am enlightened but realize the arrogance of implying that I am not even at your level of existence. Despite my skeptical perspective and my confidence in what things like science, logic and epistemology tell us I do think that it is majorly important for people to realize themselves and actualize themselves, but again without individual immortal souls being part of it. Those are simply valid ideas within psychology, no esoteric spirituality required.
If we are considered to have a soul, I agree in a sense that we are one if we are manifested from a continuous field of energy or completely integrated matrix of information. And consciousness could be a matter of perspective within it.

I think those are important things to [self]realize, to both understand and to have felt intense unity and mystical experiences. Yet I don't think that there is some sort of telepathic or other exchange of information in such mystical states and that even then the unity we experience is of our own minds (And in doing so of pure being in non-duality, without differentiation and therefore lacking localized or precise perspective. The unity in our minds reflects the unity of the fundamental essence of the world)
The unity only seems to reach outside because perception is involved. We think we see the world but we are seeing a model of the world created by our brain, there's a difference.


I see enlightenment not as you waking up from illusory individual reality perspective, but rather the unity perspective waking up from you (you being that individual perspective) and trying to integrate this in order to be less guided by narrowed and egotistical perspectives - yet you must live and function in the world otherwise without integration what you have gained is rendered pointless (IMO).

It's not about having an explanation anymore at this point but more of a cliché 'becoming who you are'. Some people are naturally untroubled by the limitations of one perspective and have much less use for this sort of personal development, which is as much psychological as it is "spiritual" although i must stress that this has nothing to do with things like immortal souls, completely vague new age phrases or things that disagree with science.

What JK believes is apparently what gives him/her fulfillment and makes sense (although if you are so vague in conveying your ideas it highly suggests that they are also vague when telling these ideas to yourself) and I am not going to say that I am an exception to this: my beliefs and ideas agree with me and I guess have made me less restless since I had an existential crisis a decade ago. (Now I feel much more free and hardly think about such things anymore, or if I do rather casually).. but I want those ideas to be well-grounded. And clearly expressible, until I reach the point where I can say fuck-all about it like speculating about what "contains" our universe.

The simulation thing by the way is not what I subscribe to per se, and just an example. However the rest about the information matrix do 'vibe' with me and agree with certain current physical theories, also I find the implications of Bell's theorem enticing.

I have no problem admitting that for a huge part I don't actually know about my theories and beliefs of fundamental existence and a reduced and well-adapted version of what others see as spirituality. But I also have no problem pointing out when other people's ideas suggest that they know even less of what they are talking about just from their being very vague.

A sidenote though: I abhor religion but really encourage personal and non-institutionalized or congregated versions of "spirituality" simply because of what it can do for morals and finding your own meaning of life. It's good that it can have positive effects on your own life. Just don't bother other people with your beliefs unsolicitedly (this does not apply to this thread) and be careful when trying to dogmatically proclaim that you have found the truth and others are blind to it.
 
Last edited:
WSH said:
Nope, a paranoid materialist like Randi (who Rupert Sheldrake can legally call a "liar" without being sued for libel) would never pay the million.

"I lost all the data" yeah right, I also once proved that the earth is flat, but then my data "got lost" ;)
So the earth must be flat, right?

That's extremely scientific, Mr. Randi :p

Click to expand...

Nonsense!..if you were to follow that kind of "logic" then you'll have to actually accept that LOVE doesn't exist (among other "irrational paranoid occurrence of humans experience).. nobody can give you "data" to rationalize it!.. but then again once upon a time I for one was IN LOVE .. in high school.. oh wait! it can't happen! why? because according to that nonsensical "rationalist logic like that one, It doesn't really exist, I cant really measure it or put my finger on it It is not "material" so it is not there!!! I am just "hallucinating!!!! there is no DATA to support the existence of LOVE.. I mean something like.. say: I had 28 nM (28 nanomolar) units of Love for my first girl friend and then half that 14.749nM of love for the second..etc dont you see the problem in those "extremely scientific" nonsense!!
 
Last edited:
Yeah that logic was a bit ill, but the real point was about the ethics and credibility of Randi wasn't it?
Actually what I found flawed in that logic is that the burden of proof seems to be turned around - Randi's JSEF is there to test claims and see if others can prove them so it's off to make it seem like Randi's skepticism is completely invalidated the moment he fails to check claims properly and gets into these lying kerfuffles... That's taking your eye off the ball which is how hard a time people with claimed paranormal abilities have to prove they're for real under conditions of critical testing.
[Might be getting off-topic, or might not..]

Neither is the point that the world is black and white and that you can make blanket statements about paranormal things / fringe phenomena, a good example is that of Sheldrake's dog experiments. It's not the kind of claim that leaves you no other option than to accept that there is a spirit world.
Some claims are about random unexplained phenomena science isn't ready for, others go much further and would validate (long held) superstitious or spiritual beliefs. And like I illustrated before, part of spirituality IMO is just about personal development and psychology while other parts are about things like immortal souls, spirits, entities or unseen energies with intentionality not originating in our own minds.

Be careful not to take a fringe scientific theory which hasn't been properly tested, take it into your belief system of new age spirituality and go to town on it... Doing something routinely leaves people forgetting what about this is known or even knowable and personal experiences are taken as truth regardless.

I have had plenty of transformative experiences and some involved really wild things that boggle the mind, I've hallucinated from meditation too... but it would a mistake IMO to think that by acknowledging all the illusions played on the mind and by the mind you lose all that magic and transformation. As if you have to choose... And the real problem is if you mistakenly think that and then don't even choose! But instead just believe in things that sound profound and inspire you and on those merits call them true and real.

I'm about done ranting, especially if nobody joins the discussion / dialectics and challenges someone's ideas.
 
Last edited:
Solipsis said:
Yeah that logic was a bit ill, but the real point was about the ethics and credibility of Randi wasn't it?
Actually what I found flawed in that logic is that the burden of proof seems to be turned around - Randi's JSEF is there to test claims and see if others can prove them so it's off to make it seem like Randi's skepticism is completely invalidated the moment he fails to check claims properly and gets into these lying kerfuffles... That's taking your eye off the ball which is how hard a time people with claimed paranormal abilities have to prove they're for real under conditions of critical testing.
[Might be getting off-topic, or might not..]

Neither is the point that the world is black and white and that you can make blanket statements about paranormal things / fringe phenomena, a good example is that of Sheldrake's dog experiments. It's not the kind of claim that leaves you no other option than to accept that there is a spirit world.
Some claims are about random unexplained phenomena science isn't ready for, others go much further and would validate (long held) superstitious or spiritual beliefs. And like I illustrated before, part of spirituality IMO is just about personal development and psychology while other parts are about things like immortal souls, spirits, entities or unseen energies with intentionality not originating in our own minds.

Be careful not to take a fringe scientific theory which hasn't been properly tested, take it into your belief system of new age spirituality and go to town on it... Doing something routinely leaves people forgetting what about this is known or even knowable and personal experiences are taken as truth regardless.

I have had plenty of transformative experiences and some involved really wild things that boggle the mind, I've hallucinated from meditation too... but it would a mistake IMO to think that by acknowledging all the illusions played on the mind and by the mind you lose all that magic and transformation. As if you have to choose... And the real problem is if you mistakenly think that and then don't even choose! But instead just believe in things that sound profound and inspire you and on those merits call them true and real.

I'm about done ranting, especially if nobody joins the discussion / dialectics and challenges someone's ideas.
Click to expand...


Not one of us will ever come to any kind of conclusion together whatsoever. We might as well just stop trying to get to one. It was am amazing discussion with other intellectuals which I enjoyed, buy hey, face it, this is going nowhere...
 
That's cool :) yes thought provoking (and maybe a little extra provoking) but as you suggest: agree to disagree buddy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top