[MEGA] God

[Enlitx]

Frankly I think the concepts of Chi/Chakras/Energy fields are pretty cross cultural without cultural contact, ie. from South American Ayahuasca shamans to Yogi's in India, to the dreamtime artwork of Aboriginal Australia, to the Tree of Life in Kabbahlistic Judaism. I personally have witnessed energy nodes within myself and others during certain experiences.

You witnessed an energy node? Kind of sounds like people who "witnessed" biblical miracles back in the old days. Anyways, if they are real, why can they not be detected experimentally?

This experience is undeniably real, if this experience transcends cultures/space/time perhaps it has SOME reality to it, perhaps not in a physical sense, but rather these images are an integral part of human consciousness much as Archetypical beings such as Faeries/Angels/"little people"/Aliens have been seen in shamanistic art throughout the ages. I would find the argument that such things aren't "real" is absolutely false. They ARE real as they are cross culturally emergent without contact, BUT the real question comes down to HOW exactly are these real? What are they? Do they exist external to human consciousness? (I tend to say no) Do they exist inside of human consciousness? (I would say probably so). If these are manifestations of human consciousness than the real question is why exactly are these archetypical and common symbolic figures in our minds, how did they get their, etc etc.

I would tend to agree with you on this part. Mysticism and religion have been a part of human culture for a long time. Evolutionary biologists have studied that phenomenom for a while too. Certain facts make me realize that they are nothing more than a product of our biological wiring. First of all, certain electromagnetic waves have been able to stimulate a precise area of the brain and cause "mystic" experiences or contacts with "gods". Certain drugs, when hitting the right receptors, can do the exact same thing. Finally, there have been so many different ideas who or what god is throughout the ages it is patently clear that humans invent god for their own purposes. It is like when a schizophrenic hallucinates, the experience is real to him, but that doesen't mean what he sees is actually real.

Perception and experience has a grounding in some sort of reality, the real question is what is the nature of this reality from which these experiences emerge, thus the whole argument that they aren't "real" is absurd, limited, and antithetical to true skeptical inquiry. Such attitudes are providing a Black/White, Yes/No answer to a realm in which such attitudes are limiting and short sighted.

The grounding in reality you refer to is simply the product of the brain creating the experience. Like I said, they may be real to the observer, but objectively (before any jumps on my back, I mean as objective as humans can be) they are not real. What is limiting and short sighted is to approach these issues without a method to determine truth.

 

[Enlitx]

I wrote you back before I saw this. Thanks for the PM.
It seems my friend, we just have different criteria for what is "real" and what is not real. Is simply don't see reality the same way you do. To me, the things that happen in my brain ARE reality. Neither of us is right or wrong, we just have very, very different ways of looking at the universe, which is cool. Perhaps your science minded perspective could give me a more rounded out opinion on some of the things I've experienced *(that I mentioned in my pm)* such as kundalini, chi healing/energy work and martial artists who can do insanely badass things just by manipulating energy *and this is something I've experienced in real life*

I wish I knew what kundalini was, I will have to look it up. I will respond in the PM too here in a sec. My initial guess though is that nothing special happened with the martial artists or healing energy. If healing energy was real, doctors would be using it all the time. When the scientific method was first utilized ideas like that were some of the first to go, because people realized it was a scam. If the martial artists was doing anything that might befuddle physicists, they would be quick to research why. Since I haven't seen any recent publications about amazing martial artists, I will assume it is all pretty normal.

Damn, if only I could introduce you to some friends of mine.. they could send you flying across the room using nothing but energetic force. Then you might change your mind. Go spend some time with some serious, high level martial artists and they could show you some things that would definitely make you think twice about us being nothing but blood sacks filled with organs and goo and chemical reactions.

I could send you flying across the room with nothing but energetic force too. Pushing some is transferring kinetic energy, which is an energetic force. Now if you are referring to throwing someone across the room without touching them, that is patently absurd. If it were true, they would be all over TV and magazines.

Quantam physics is a part of my spirituality. Ever seen the movie What the Bleep do we know? I love that movie and it really made me interested in how science and spirit can go hand in hand.

That movie grossly misrepresents a lot of quantam physics. It was made by a cult that wanted to recruit members. One of the professors interviewed was extremely pissed because they edited what he was saying to make it look like he was saying something else. One of the people who they interviewed was a chiropracter, who had no formal education in quantam physics. The lady with the weird accent actually claimed to be a 35,000 year old entity in the body of someone, I think it was her that ran the cult. The water experiement was discredited as soon is it came out. I could go on and on, but basically if you base your knowledge of quantam physics on that movie, you really have a bad picture of how it works.

Hmm. That's a bit unfair. You are not accounting for vast amounts of perspectives which are very spiritual yet do not believe that "we" live on after death. I do not believe that ME, this girl that I currently am, will live on after death. That isn't my spirituality at all. Every single person that has a life is only that person once. Even if you believe in reincarnation, each life is still it's own life and it's own person. SO while there might be some people who believe a soul is born, becomes a person, lives dies and then walks around being that person in ghost form forever, understand that not all of us believe that. I absolutely believe in life after death but I don't see it that way at all.

What exactly is your belief then? What I am saying is that there is no evidence for any life after death. So applying occam's razor, we don't live on after we die. I couldn't even think of a probable mechanism that would allow us to live on after death, in any form. Humans want so badly to believe in this concept, they won't accept the obvious truth staring them in the face.

That is a very limited definition of the word psychic. My own psychic experiences have mostly been pre-cog in nature, as well as being able to pick up on energetic disturbances or "see spirits" you could say. I think being a "mind reader" is a very silly and un-informed definition of psychic, the sort that is perpetuated by people who watch the psychic network commercials and think that is the reality. ALL sorts of people with all sorts of different abilities are considered psychic, from people who channel, to see the future, to read minds, to see into other realms, etc etc. I know, you don't believe in any of that stuff and I get that, I'm just saying, I don't think thats a fair definition of psychic.

OK, I just assumed the classical definition was what we were working with. And you are correct, I don't believe in any of that stuff. Science has discredited telepathy, psychic abilites, etc... for a long time.

Haha! Dude.. it's the ONLY thing that has ever given me correct answers.

I would venture to guess it has given you the answers you wanted, not necessarily the correct ones.

Hmm.. well I disagree strongly with that. A belief is a belief, it's an opinion. It's impossible for an opinion to be "good" or "bad" as that in itself is just another opinion.

OK, so I take it you are cool with having a 12 year old perform brain surgery using his medical "opinions"? After all, every opinion is the same, so the 40 year old Harvard graduate wouldn't have a "better" opinion on how to perform it right?

A spaghetti monster absolutely COULD rule the universe! I agree with you there. ANything is possible. And that's the difference between you and me, lol. I WOULDN'T feel the urge to "disprove" that. If that's the way someone sees the universe, then it's correct. And the way I see the universe is correct as well. There is no one truth.

Lol, I don't think we are ever going to see eye to eye %)

 

[Enlitx]

When you consider that the Chakras are the neural plexuses and the libidinal/emotive energy that flows through and rediate there, what you say dispays that you simply run from one side of your brain, or limiting your knowledge to only what you knowin the way that you have learned to describe it from the right brain!

What? There is no special "emotive" energy, it is all the same action potentials on both hemispheres of the brain. The only difference with emotion is that the action potentials activate different parts of the brain, which results in different behavior. I am not quite sure what that last sentence was supposed to mean, could you be clearer?

You know you can train a donkey to do tricks, but you can't retrain a schience student after they form a pretty rigid view of knowledge about the world viewed from different perspectives. If you jump over to the right side of the brain, the view is so different yet talking about the same things but the view is so much more colourful!!

I am open to all kinds of new ideas. You just can't expect a science student to believe any crackpot theory after he has been formally trained on how to tell good ideas from bad ones. Having a more activity right hemisphere might alter the way I feel about my experience, but it wouldn't change my ability to distinguish junk from science.

 

[Enlitx]

LivingInTheMoment -

Emotional intelligence will not help answer any of the questions here. It won't help you understand how the universe works, it only helps you with your interactions with people. I would hesitate to even call it intelligence, it is more like emotional abilities. You are right, some people are better with emotions than with logic, so these people shouldn't assume their theories about how things work are just as good as any other theory out there. Just like I wouldn't assume I could be the most empathetic person alive. Play with the cards you are dealt.

 

[Psychedelic Gleam]

I do agree with Enlitx about "What the Bleep" that movie is one of the worst thing to happen to the evolution of modern metaphysical thought around. Not only that but the quantum scientist who they quoted throughout was INFURIATED that they had cut and pasted his quotes to make him say that science actually supports the message of the film. And Dr. Emoto is an ABSOLUTE clown, refuses to have ANY of his research peer reviewed, sells 40 dollar bottles of his "magic" water, and i saw him give a lecture where he tried to tell everyone that "water dragon spirits" caused the Tsunami...

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

Yeah, Enlitx, I respect you, you're a nice person but I really can't discuss this anymore. This response about said it all:

Now if you are referring to throwing someone across the room without touching them, that is patently absurd. If it were true, they would be all over TV and magazines.

Hun, there are things in this world that you just don't have a clue about.

OK, I just assumed the classical definition was what we were working with. And you are correct, I don't believe in any of that stuff. Science has discredited telepathy, psychic abilites, etc... for a long time.

Science doesn't know about everyone who's out there living. I've never had a scientist come and study the experiences of me and my friends.

Anyways, thanks for the convo, thats all I have to say on this topic. There really is nothing else I can say to you. You won't believe any of my experiences, and I don't take well to people calling me a liar or implying I have a good imagination. And since my experiences and the experiences of others are what I have to reference, that about stops the possibility of conversing further.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

I do agree with Enlitx about "What the Bleep" that movie is one of the worst thing to happen to the evolution of modern metaphysical thought around. Not only that but the quantum scientist who they quoted throughout was INFURIATED that they had cut and pasted his quotes to make him say that science actually supports the message of the film. And Dr. Emoto is an ABSOLUTE clown, refuses to have ANY of his research peer reviewed, sells 40 dollar bottles of his "magic" water, and i saw him give a lecture where he tried to tell everyone that "water dragon spirits" caused the Tsunami...

P.S. I am aware that EVERYTHING in that movie is not perfectly accurate. It was meant to be food for thought and that's why I mentioned it.

 

[Enlitx]

Hun, there are things in this world that you just don't have a clue about.

Ugh, you sound like Christians who say the same thing about their god. Or Muslims about theirs. Or any other myth. I gurantee you that if some guy could push someone across the room with mental force this message board would not be the only place I have heard about it.

Science doesn't know about everyone who's out there living. I've never had a scientist come and study the experiences of me and my friends.

I gurantee you if they could actually do the things you claim there would be a scientist there in a second. Make a video and post it on you tube of these powers and show everyone you aren't lying. I am guessing that isn't going to happen.

Anyways, thanks for the convo, thats all I have to say on this topic. There really is nothing else I can say to you. You won't believe any of my experiences, and I don't take well to people calling me a liar or implying I have a good imagination. And since my experiences and the experiences of others are what I have to reference, that about stops the possibility of conversing further.

Anecdotal evidence is the worst kind. If a person told you that he was seeing little green people, would you think there was something wrong with him or that you are just not being open minded?

 

[Enlitx]

P.S. I am aware that EVERYTHING in that movie is not perfectly accurate. It was meant to be food for thought and that's why I mentioned it.

If I had to guess I would say you probably saw the movie and automatically incorporated some of the points into your spiritual ideas without any further research. That is what happens when you take the easy way out, you get half cocked theories that are often wrong and then you get upset because other people have the gumption to point out just how far off you are.

 

[hoopyfrood]

personally---- certain types of beings that are "supreme" over certain 3-branes (universes) is possible. doesn't seem to be the case in this particular universe, though

This is sorta my idea, too.

The thing that I have the most 'belief' in is that when it comes down to it, all hypothetical, imaginable, and unimaginable things are, will, and did happen in some universe or another. So in some universe (I don't think in this one), there IS a supreme, conscious being.


Chances are I'm wrong, but that just seems to be the best explanation I can think of.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

(edit-meant for the post above yours)^LOL No. I didn't. I don't even remember the details from the movie, just that I thought it was interesting. I certainly wouldn't base my spirituality around a movie any more than I'd base it around any one book, religion, or set of ideas.

If a person told you that he was seeing little green people, would you think there was something wrong with him or that you are just not being open minded?

I wouldn't think anything either way. My first thought wouldn't be that there was something wrong with him, no. That's clearly what YOUR first thought would be, because little green people most certainly couldn't exist, right? Because science knows everything about the universe, right? Unlike you, my first thought to LISTEN to the person describe his experiences.

show everyone you aren't lying.

You know, I've treated you nicely and accepted your apology after you called me a burnt out hippie. But I am a damned honest person and I don't like being challenged in that way, I don't deserve it, and I certainly should not have to PROVE I'm not lying when I have never told a fucking lie about any of this stuff in my entire life. You know damned well a lot of the stuff I'm talking about can't be proven by some youtube video and thats why you are trying to call me out on it, to make me look stupid so YOU can be right. It's sad.

You don't have a clue the things I've been through in my life, so go ahead and stay on your high horse with your closed off mind and think you know it all. I don't have the energy to keep trying to get you to see someone elses perspective because God knows, in your mind other perspectives clearly don't exist.

The thing that I have the most 'belief' in is that when it comes down to it, all hypothetical, imaginable, and unimaginable things are, will, and did happen in some universe or another.

Yup.

 

[Cheshire Kat]

It is not feel good to demonstrate a physical theory by constant experimental scrutiny. That is much different than a theory about positive energy and gods that was entirely the product of an imagination. Again, you keep trying to throw everything out because we are bound by a subjective experience. That is foolish. We can still get a good idea of how the universe works by employing the scientific method.

I'm not trying to throw anything out. I'm saying that I don't think reality is as simple as you believe. Basing your concepts of reality upon the limitations of space and time and plurality, is fine. But to assume that they must be accurate, that reality must be the way you indeed percieve it? That's just having faith. There's no reason to believe that, other than you "want" to believe it, or you have a hard time believing otherwise. You can't give a solid reason why that has to be the "right" way other than saying that other ways seem foolish to you (that, and your argument about metaphysical utility, which as I mentioned earlier, doesn't seem to hold up as many people don't share your beliefs achieve just as much utility.) I never said that we can't get a good idea of how the universe works by employing the scientific method. I'm saying that whatever is real, whatever it is that we are studying, is something beyond space and time and plurality and color and depth, and that we cannot know its true nature. Reality is inherently unknowable. We can't know reality through measuring and experimentation, as you claimed. That doesn't at all imply that the scientific method is useless or serves no purpose, or that I don't want surgeons to use science when operating on me.

Denying their accuracy based on your reasons leads exactly to willy-nilly hippy talk and anarchy.

To the contrary, some of the greatest minds of human history have rejected their accuracy in the sense we're discussing. You yourself have yet to give a solid reason to put so much faith in them.

If there is no common and reliable method to determine truth, then everything is equally as valid.

Why?

I don't want to attack people here, but it honestly strikes me as laziness when people come up with half-baked theories and then try to say they are equally as valid as anyone else's.

I don't mean to sound sexist, but a woman's place is in the kitchen. Doesn't the previous sentence sound foolish and absurd at best, and downright offensive at worst?

People in this thread, myself included, disagree with you rather strongly. But I have tried be civil and respectful towards your views, and tried to reach some point where we better understand each other, and the issue at hand, through some discussion. But you've made several ad hominem arguments and some good-old-fashioned insults against myself and others. It's can be an easy thing to fall into when you get fired up with someone who you disagree with strongly, but it poisons a thread and its potential for meaningful discourse, and it needs to stop.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

To the contrary, some of the greatest minds of human history have rejected their accuracy in the sense we're discussing. You yourself have yet to give a solid reason to put so much faith in them.

So true. Thanks CK.

 

[L2R]

Enlitx, the definitive proof you are seeking is like trying to measure mass with a cricket bat. This pursuit is both foolish and futile.

Recognise that some things are strongly evident from a different point of view from your own and learn to respect them. Only then would you have any chance to find any evidence.

 

[LivingInTheMoment]

^amen!!!

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

DOUBLE AMEN! lol

 

[LivingInTheMoment]

What? There is no special "emotive" energy, it is all the same action potentials on both hemispheres of the brain. The only difference with emotion is that the action potentials activate different parts of the brain, which results in different behavior. I am not quite sure what that last sentence was supposed to mean, could you be clearer?



I am open to all kinds of new ideas. You just can't expect a science student to believe any crackpot theory after he has been formally trained on how to tell good ideas from bad ones. Having a more activity right hemisphere might alter the way I feel about my experience, but it wouldn't change my ability to distinguish junk from science.

I expect a science student already having booked the throne he is going to seat on, with his godly image of himself! but it does not speak for everyone else, some science people are so well balanced that makes up for the some!

It is pretty obvious that balance is lacking in your hard core single minded low class morality and contempt you have inbred into your system.

Grandiocity can account for that!

 

[Enlitx]

I wouldn't think anything either way. My first thought wouldn't be that there was something wrong with him, no. That's clearly what YOUR first thought would be, because little green people most certainly couldn't exist, right? Because science knows everything about the universe, right? Unlike you, my first thought to LISTEN to the person describe his experiences.

So you have no prejuideces at all? Anything you hear at all is just as equally valid to you?

You know, I've treated you nicely and accepted your apology after you called me a burnt out hippie. But I am a damned honest person and I don't like being challenged in that way, I don't deserve it, and I certainly should not have to PROVE I'm not lying when I have never told a fucking lie about any of this stuff in my entire life. You know damned well a lot of the stuff I'm talking about can't be proven by some youtube video and thats why you are trying to call me out on it, to make me look stupid so YOU can be right. It's sad.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. As expected, you don't actually have anything tangible to back up your claims, so what would you expect a rational person to think?

You don't have a clue the things I've been through in my life, so go ahead and stay on your high horse with your closed off mind and think you know it all. I don't have the energy to keep trying to get you to see someone elses perspective because God knows, in your mind other perspectives clearly don't exist.

Who said I am not seeing your perspective? I am just challenging the validity of some of your claims. Seeing your perspective does not equal agreeing with you.

 

[Enlitx]

I'm not trying to throw anything out. I'm saying that I don't think reality is as simple as you believe. Basing your concepts of reality upon the limitations of space and time and plurality, is fine. But to assume that they must be accurate, that reality must be the way you indeed percieve it? That's just having faith. There's no reason to believe that, other than you "want" to believe it, or you have a hard time believing otherwise. You can't give a solid reason why that has to be the "right" way other than saying that other ways seem foolish to you (that, and your argument about metaphysical utility, which as I mentioned earlier, doesn't seem to hold up as many people don't share your beliefs achieve just as much utility.) I never said that we can't get a good idea of how the universe works by employing the scientific method. I'm saying that whatever is real, whatever it is that we are studying, is something beyond space and time and plurality and color and depth, and that we cannot know its true nature. Reality is inherently unknowable. We can't know reality through measuring and experimentation, as you claimed. That doesn't at all imply that the scientific method is useless or serves no purpose, or that I don't want surgeons to use science when operating on me.

Just as much utility? What exactly has metaphysics done to cure diseases, construct buildings, develop technology? The things I believe in I consider right because there is evidence for them. There used to be a time when there wasn't evidence for anything and mystical claims were everywhere, it was called the Dark Ages. And I have agreed time and time again that we can never know the true nature of the universe or have an objective understanding, where is the argument? What I have constantly stated is that we can't say any idea is just as valid when there is no proof for it.

To the contrary, some of the greatest minds of human history have rejected their accuracy in the sense we're discussing. You yourself have yet to give a solid reason to put so much faith in them.

Questioning the accuracy is one thing, providing an alternative or better method is quite another. I will stick with what has stood up to scrutiny.

Why?

How could you possibly say one idea is better than another without any kind of standard?

I don't mean to sound sexist, but a woman's place is in the kitchen. Doesn't the previous sentence sound foolish and absurd at best, and downright offensive at worst?

People in this thread, myself included, disagree with you rather strongly. But I have tried be civil and respectful towards your views, and tried to reach some point where we better understand each other, and the issue at hand, through some discussion. But you've made several ad hominem arguments and some good-old-fashioned insults against myself and others. It's can be an easy thing to fall into when you get fired up with someone who you disagree with strongly, but it poisons a thread and its potential for meaningful discourse, and it needs to stop.

What am I supposed to think when I am called narrow minded because I don't think that what someone who has dreamed/pieced together ideas through personal anecdotes is on par with someone who has conducted research and published their ideas for peer review? Listen, I understand that there is philosophy that science can't touch, what I have been trying to say all along is that you can't say your far out theory which has absolutely no evidence is just as valid as quantam theory. It might be possible, but the probability of it being true is just not the same. That is all I have been trying to convey.

 

[Enlitx]

Enlitx, the definitive proof you are seeking is like trying to measure mass with a cricket bat. This pursuit is both foolish and futile.

Recognise that some things are strongly evident from a different point of view from your own and learn to respect them. Only then would you have any chance to find any evidence.

Hmmmm, pretty sure I have made it very clear that there will never be a definite proof of anything.

Something being evident means hardly anything, Muslims believe Allah is evident, Greeks believed Zeus was evident, schizophrenics believe all kinds of "evident" stuff you wouldn't accpet.

Anecdotal evidence is the worst kind, it only serves as an indicator for further testing. Doling out equal respect to every theory would be like trusting your keys equally to every person. Sure, you could do it, but it would be stupid.