Incunabula
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,861
at burn out
Hi, first off, thanks for your nice answers. In regards to my criticism of your original post, it all comes down to "what you intended to write vs. what I understood you wrote", so there's really no point in discussing it further imo. But I have to say I still read your first post as kind of sanctimoniuos and arrogant. Maybe we can both learn something here. I know I've just realised I don't have the respect for other people beliefs that I thought I had.
Look into yourself, are you sure that I am not at least partly right on what you were thinking when you wrote parts of you original post. You really don't have to answer this. Just think about it.
I don't think I'm missing the point, I think you are
. Did you understand the wiki article about confirmation bias? It's very relevant here, because it pertains to humanitys fickle relationship to reality, and our ability to make our reality conform to how we wish it to be.
On purpose I was trying to not be blunt about it, but In regards to the "Ram Dass saw the LSD melt on the tongue of the guru" part of the story, it's very probable that it's a little white lie on Ram Dass behalf. And he probably even believe the lie himself today - it's how he remembers it. I find that much more likely, than I find it likely that some guy could eat 1200 ug of LSD and not feel it. I was offering a version of the story that lies halfway between you and Ismene, in a way. But I don't think Ismene was missleading or lying, he just speaks his mind, and has his feet firmly planted on the ground.
I'm no claiming it happened or that it didn't happen either, but extraordinaire claims demand extraordinairy evidence. In lack of evidence, the scales tip towards a "it probably didn't happen like that". It's called sceptical thinking (that sounded condescending, but it wasn't meant to be.)
I can't believe the amount of people who uncritically believe in miracles because of an anecdote from their idol.
I too believe that the self fundamentally is an illusion, we agree there, but imo it's not only the ego which is an illusion, but consciousness itself. I think that consiousness came about as a biproduct of intelligence, intelligence came to because of evolution.
I don't believe we have souls either, there's a lot of logic that fails if you ponder an eternal soul imo, but I don't want to get into that here. This is all really off-topic, so I think, that if we want to discuss that, we should take that part of the discussion to S and P. Although I really don't spend my time there. I've been told it's not for discussing science, only philosophy and spirituality - So I stay away.
I disagree. Subjective experience means nothing. We can't trust our senses and we particularly can't trust our minds. If there is a "true" reality, it's beyond our senses. This is kind of my whole point. More on that under the next quote.
Solipsism and relativism are trivial fundamental truth of no importance, that has been debated in philosophy since Descartes.
I say it's trivial, because of cause it's true at some fundamental level. And even Scientifically speaking it is true as well, that each and every one of us perceives our very own subjective version of reality. Because the world we perceive is an image constructed by our brain from the signals sent from our limited senses. But does that mean that there is no objective "true" reality? Not neccesarily. It's very likely it's just beyond our grasp as humans to experience it as it is - for practical reasons. I think it's this "true" reality that science is trying to describe with mathemathics. But science isn't describing reality as it is, it's more like making a painting of a very complex landscape with symbols. I always liked the Niels Bohr quote: "Physics isn't finding out what nature is, but what we can say about nature".
The nice thing about physics experiments is, that they always give the same result, no matter who does it and were they do it. It's not so with subjective experience. Even NDE's vary greatly, though there are some recurring themes. If there really was a spirit realm, wouldn't people be visiting the same place in a NDE?
I say it's of no importance, because if someone came to your house and broke your face, stole your money and your girlfreind – it would hurt, alot. It doesn't matter if you truely are the only person alive, and the rest of us are just parts of your dream. It's going to hurt.
Let's face it, concensus reality is here, and tommorow morning you have to get up and go to work like the rest of us. That is, If you want to earn some money to buy some more stuff of cause, or take some time off so you can go to that meditation retreat, or what ever your thing is.
This is why the scientific method was such a big break through in the 1600-century, because it's a method to discern what is real and what is not. Even the Greek philosophers 400 BC thought that they could "think" their way to the right answers. They made some advances by thinking critically, but most of their ideas were nonsense. Like Aristotles theory about the firmanent for instance, pure fantasy. I'll believe anything there is evidence for, while still being sceptical of it, because any "truth" is rarely the whole picture (Newton vs. Einstein come to mind here) But if scientists at CERN found evidence of a "soul-field" or a "soul-particle", I'll believe it. I actually find quantum mechanics based theories of consciousness enticing.
But I digress, it all actually ties back into why I'm saying, that it's much more likely that Ram Dass might be retelling a story completely different from how it actually happened, but still without consciously lying .
Us humans aren't born with the ability to experience reality as it is, and we are always very biased, even when we think that we aren't. As I've already said once, just ask any experienced policeman, and he will tell you that any witness account always should be taken with a rock sized grain of salt.
Mods, if this is all too off-topic, you should move the off-topic posts to S and P (but not only mine, okay! thanks!) But I doubt I'll be posting anymore in this thread, because I don't have the time. And I expect to be greatly missunderstood anyway, not that constructive criticism isn't wellcome.
Very much on topic:
Hasn't burn out's question been answered? People are different, and psychedelic drugs affect different people differently. There's really only two other options, either some people can't take psychedelics without having a spiritual experience, because they are born more aware of the spiritual nature of reality. Or maybe there is no spiritual nature of reality, and some people are just born more sceptical of nonsense.
I doubt we'll ever get any evidence of either, and it’s kind of pointless to discuss.
Hi, first off, thanks for your nice answers. In regards to my criticism of your original post, it all comes down to "what you intended to write vs. what I understood you wrote", so there's really no point in discussing it further imo. But I have to say I still read your first post as kind of sanctimoniuos and arrogant. Maybe we can both learn something here. I know I've just realised I don't have the respect for other people beliefs that I thought I had.
Look into yourself, are you sure that I am not at least partly right on what you were thinking when you wrote parts of you original post. You really don't have to answer this. Just think about it.
I don't think I'm missing the point, I think you are
. Did you understand the wiki article about confirmation bias? It's very relevant here, because it pertains to humanitys fickle relationship to reality, and our ability to make our reality conform to how we wish it to be.On purpose I was trying to not be blunt about it, but In regards to the "Ram Dass saw the LSD melt on the tongue of the guru" part of the story, it's very probable that it's a little white lie on Ram Dass behalf. And he probably even believe the lie himself today - it's how he remembers it. I find that much more likely, than I find it likely that some guy could eat 1200 ug of LSD and not feel it. I was offering a version of the story that lies halfway between you and Ismene, in a way. But I don't think Ismene was missleading or lying, he just speaks his mind, and has his feet firmly planted on the ground.
I'm no claiming it happened or that it didn't happen either, but extraordinaire claims demand extraordinairy evidence. In lack of evidence, the scales tip towards a "it probably didn't happen like that". It's called sceptical thinking (that sounded condescending, but it wasn't meant to be.)
I can't believe the amount of people who uncritically believe in miracles because of an anecdote from their idol.
I too believe that the self fundamentally is an illusion, we agree there, but imo it's not only the ego which is an illusion, but consciousness itself. I think that consiousness came about as a biproduct of intelligence, intelligence came to because of evolution.
I don't believe we have souls either, there's a lot of logic that fails if you ponder an eternal soul imo, but I don't want to get into that here. This is all really off-topic, so I think, that if we want to discuss that, we should take that part of the discussion to S and P. Although I really don't spend my time there. I've been told it's not for discussing science, only philosophy and spirituality - So I stay away.
I disagree. Subjective experience means nothing. We can't trust our senses and we particularly can't trust our minds. If there is a "true" reality, it's beyond our senses. This is kind of my whole point. More on that under the next quote.
Solipsism and relativism are trivial fundamental truth of no importance, that has been debated in philosophy since Descartes.
I say it's trivial, because of cause it's true at some fundamental level. And even Scientifically speaking it is true as well, that each and every one of us perceives our very own subjective version of reality. Because the world we perceive is an image constructed by our brain from the signals sent from our limited senses. But does that mean that there is no objective "true" reality? Not neccesarily. It's very likely it's just beyond our grasp as humans to experience it as it is - for practical reasons. I think it's this "true" reality that science is trying to describe with mathemathics. But science isn't describing reality as it is, it's more like making a painting of a very complex landscape with symbols. I always liked the Niels Bohr quote: "Physics isn't finding out what nature is, but what we can say about nature".
The nice thing about physics experiments is, that they always give the same result, no matter who does it and were they do it. It's not so with subjective experience. Even NDE's vary greatly, though there are some recurring themes. If there really was a spirit realm, wouldn't people be visiting the same place in a NDE?
I say it's of no importance, because if someone came to your house and broke your face, stole your money and your girlfreind – it would hurt, alot. It doesn't matter if you truely are the only person alive, and the rest of us are just parts of your dream. It's going to hurt.
Let's face it, concensus reality is here, and tommorow morning you have to get up and go to work like the rest of us. That is, If you want to earn some money to buy some more stuff of cause, or take some time off so you can go to that meditation retreat, or what ever your thing is.
This is why the scientific method was such a big break through in the 1600-century, because it's a method to discern what is real and what is not. Even the Greek philosophers 400 BC thought that they could "think" their way to the right answers. They made some advances by thinking critically, but most of their ideas were nonsense. Like Aristotles theory about the firmanent for instance, pure fantasy. I'll believe anything there is evidence for, while still being sceptical of it, because any "truth" is rarely the whole picture (Newton vs. Einstein come to mind here) But if scientists at CERN found evidence of a "soul-field" or a "soul-particle", I'll believe it. I actually find quantum mechanics based theories of consciousness enticing.
But I digress, it all actually ties back into why I'm saying, that it's much more likely that Ram Dass might be retelling a story completely different from how it actually happened, but still without consciously lying .
Us humans aren't born with the ability to experience reality as it is, and we are always very biased, even when we think that we aren't. As I've already said once, just ask any experienced policeman, and he will tell you that any witness account always should be taken with a rock sized grain of salt.
Mods, if this is all too off-topic, you should move the off-topic posts to S and P (but not only mine, okay! thanks!) But I doubt I'll be posting anymore in this thread, because I don't have the time. And I expect to be greatly missunderstood anyway, not that constructive criticism isn't wellcome.
Very much on topic:
Hasn't burn out's question been answered? People are different, and psychedelic drugs affect different people differently. There's really only two other options, either some people can't take psychedelics without having a spiritual experience, because they are born more aware of the spiritual nature of reality. Or maybe there is no spiritual nature of reality, and some people are just born more sceptical of nonsense.
I doubt we'll ever get any evidence of either, and it’s kind of pointless to discuss.
Last edited:
