Scientific Spirituality Anonymous 2021-05-18 (Tue) 22:47:18 No. 5858
We have some threads on religion and what not, but I think we should have one taking "spirituality" as a developing science. I feel "spiritual science" isn't "anti-materialist" in the same way that quantum physics is not anti-classical physics. I'm also not saying to woo woo quantum physics into some kind of justification of spirituality. All of these things may be true and seemingly separate because of our lack of knowledge between the connections of these various phenomenon at different levels. As for myself. I used to be a hardcore skeptic. I used to laugh at my Chinese friends telling me about Chi power and herbal medicine and whatnot. I remember my brother was interested in Chi-Qong and I brushed it off as at best a primitive understanding of understood biological processes. I had my first experience with Salvia Divinorum and immediately it was like my skepticism and my attachment to crude understandings of accepted science was blown out the window. I remember at the time I first encountered it, my inclination was to try and get some people smarter and more knowledgeable in physics and quantum physics than myself to try and encounter these kind of experiences and see what there interpretation would be. I've had many more experiences off and on various psychedelics since than, Marijauna, Mescaline, and LSD since than, and frankly, in the right state I feel like even completely sober, I could induce altered perceptions in myself and in others, but I feel like certain people who are attached to their learned perspective of reality are internally/sub-consciously afraid of ever opening themselves up to alternate perspectives. I am very hesitant to get myself involved with other people who are into this kind of stuff, because I feel like many of them, especially religious types, are victims of superstitious beliefs and understandings of these experiences and phenomenon. Yogis have talked about the high-probability of falling into superstition when encountering the spiritual unknown. It's really not hard to believe when we consider the history of accepted science. People not to long ago believed that flies spontaneously spawned from rotten food. A fault explanation of a phenomenon, does not negate the underlying phenomenon described. There used to be in The West a high interest in spiritual science in the late 1800s early 1900s(Edgar Cayce, Dione Fortune, etc.) but all of that got kind of pushed to the periphery but still existed with some prominence with The US and Soviet remote viewing programs and suchlike. I think there should still be interest in this area of research and especially with people without such a narrow view as The US MIC. Also with people willing to objectively analyze such phenomenon, neither superstitious cooks nor "rational skeptics" who want to dismiss everything outright because of their own personal hang-ups with their own personal experiences with organized religion. As for myself. I feel like I've experience enough and know enough where I could demonstrate the reality of "psychic phenomenon" on command in a controlled environment to prove it exists. Of course, even if I could prove it exists, it doesn't prove a soul or God, or whatever belief system one would want to extrapolate from it. But personally, I've seen enough to believe that the realm of accepted science can't explain the mechanisms of human life and our interaction with our environment. So this thread is for the premise of investigating "spiritual" and "psychic" phenomenon in an empirical and scientific manner and accepting the possibility that there might be something there beyond "magic tricks," Charlatanism, and wishful thinking.
Anonymous 2021-05-18 (Tue) 22:49:28 No. 5859
With eastern spirituality they do a good job at using material science to explain the material world and metaphysics to explain the meta physical world. Something lost in the westanarcho-capitalism Anarcho-Capitalism
Anonymous 2021-05-18 (Tue) 22:51:01 No. 5860
>As for myself. I feel like I've experience enough and know enough where I could demonstrate the reality of "psychic phenomenon" on command in a controlled environment to prove it exists. then that would need to be provided. the fact that you were "awakened" to all this primarily through drug experiences tells me that i should be suspicious… i myself have experimented with psychedelics, and all i have to say is that it's a great thing to do as long as you don't fall into the trap of believing that what you saw and felt had any relation to reality.
Anonymous 2021-05-18 (Tue) 22:57:14 No. 5861
>>5860 >then that would need to be provided. the fact that you were "awakened" to all this primarily through drug experiences tells me that i should be suspicious… i myself have experimented with psychedelics, and all i have to say is that it's a great thing to do as long as you don't fall into the trap of believing that what you saw and felt had any relation to reality. I'm telling you've I've had experiences sober as well. It's more of a question of getting in a certain mental state to perform a certain action. Someone could perform a brilliant musical performance high or sober, if the person who does it high "needs" the drugs to do it, it doesn't negate the possibility of doing it sober. I think it's very shallow to think intoxication necessarily means "insanity" per se. Maybe another would never need drugs to do the same thing, but one may need drugs in a certain moment to reach the state of mind to perform a task. I mean shit, as long as it was "prescribed" pharmaceuticals, then it doesn't matter? How many people do we accept as rational individuals who can give us insight and work on this subject or that are actually high on prescribed pharmaceuticals?
Anonymous 2021-05-18 (Tue) 23:02:25 No. 5863
>>5861 >I think it's very shallow to think intoxication necessarily means "insanity" per se. that has nothing to do with it. i am someone who has used psychedelic drugs at heroic doses and i can tell you that the things i saw, felt, and thought were illusory. the state of mind i was in, maybe you couldn't call that "insane", but definitely not lucid either. and yeah, it is even possible to have illusory experiences while sober and sane, but that doesn't make the experience less illusory.
Anonymous 2021-05-18 (Tue) 23:09:42 No. 5864
>>5863 >that has nothing to do with it. i am someone who has used psychedelic drugs at heroic doses and i can tell you that the things i saw, felt, and thought were illusory. the state of mind i was in, maybe you couldn't call that "insane", but definitely not lucid either. and yeah, it is even possible to have illusory experiences while sober and sane, but that doesn't make the experience less illusory. Well maybe that was your problem. You only did "heroic doses." I'm telling you've I've experienced things at micro-doses or no doses at all. If you say you can have "illusory" experiences while sober, what's to say that your settled reality while sober is anymore real than your "illusory" experience while sober?
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 05:18:02 No. 5865
>>5858 The Holy Science by Sri Yukteswar is a comfy book. Short but very deep. You have to read it multiple times to truly start to grasp its profundity. I'd even say that it's better to read and re-read this one book over and over and over again (many, many times) than it is to read the entire Vedas and/or Bhagavad Gita, for anybody interested in Hindu philosophy and meta-physics, specifically Kriya Yoga, in my honest opinion.
There's a reason Sri Yukteswar was considered a Jnanavatar (an "Incarnation of Wisdom") by his contemporaries, after all.
Also, I'm requesting mods to move this to
>>>/edu/ please, so it doesn't get bumped off the catalog. It's a very niche topic and, I think, merits the kind of deeper discussion that a slower board provides.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 05:39:49 No. 5866
I have this edition of the book published by the Self Realization Fellowship, the same one founded by Paramahamsa Yogananda (Sri Yukteswar's disciple) a little over one century ago in 1920.
The calm, peaceful serenity of Sri Yukteswar on the cover puts me at ease. And the book is structured in a way that I don't even have to re-read the entire book to gain something valuable from it, some new insight, some deeper understanding, because it's broken down into 4 major sections (the Gospel, the Goal, the Procedure, the Revelation) and each section is broken down into individual passages. It's pretty short and concise of a book anyway, for a philosophical/meta-physical/spiritual text, and since it's broken down. It's almost like he diagrammed it out beforehand to break it down to the most concise, key lessons he hoped to impart and make an impression upon the reader.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Science Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 08:32:31 No. 5868
>>5867 dark future anon, but maybe people can derive meaning even if there is no afterlife
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 08:47:39 No. 5869
>>5868 I mean god, I hope to the high heavens I'm completely wrong. I'm inclined towards materialism but the universe is so fucking weird just as a…..thing that exists (Was there ever a point where nothing existed?) that I'm not entirely sure you CAN be sure of anything.
The evidence so far for any kind of afterlife, higher realms etc. is not good though, and people have been trying for thousands of years now.
https://youtu.be/Ehz89eV5JR4 This guy is a bit woo, I guess but his theories do bring me some comfort so as to keep me from just putting a paper bag over my head and lapsing into deep nihilism. None of this shit may even be "real".
Ultimately though, I am not very smart, so my constant questioning is honestly not good for me, and probably not a good thing for anyone else, either. Let's live our lives.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 09:41:11 No. 5870
>>5858 >I could demonstrate the reality of "psychic phenomenon" on command in a controlled environment to prove it exists. that's the only line that is interesting to me.
Hard rule 1: If a phenomenon exists and you have understood it sufficiently to make scientific claims, you are able to demonstrate it experimentally without making a human part of the setup. So the first step for you is to devise a measuring instrument that takes human bias out of the equation.
Hard rule 2: You have to describe the experimental setup fully, so that anybody can replicate it without your presence or your stuff.
Can you deliver ?
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 10:36:13 No. 5871
>>5870 >Can you deliver ? Indeed. I described this once on here before. I dunno if I should really talk about it. I guess I'm only relating it because I think it's important that more rational people become interested in this area. I probably should never have learned this shit and I shouldn't encourage other people to try it. I described it to my Christian friend in the same kind of methodical way I'm going to describe it now and my rational for investigating this kind of thing, but he was aghast, that's Satan blah blah. Maybe it's because I didn't have proper "spiritual guidance" from a proper master, but I dunno where to find a real one and I'm personally not one to put my trust in individuals especially not in any master/disciple kind of relationship.
Long disclaimer out the way (It's probably evil shit, don't try this at home kids, or don't try it too much, I'm still probably putting knowledge of evil out in the world, ok ok ok):
This is my experiment: I've experimented with (on one occasion ok) spooking horses on command. Maybe about a hundred yards away. All the horses facing the other direction. No eye contact. One moment horses chill, next moment I send out the energy/force/whatever word(whatever the mechanism, I'm not making any claims to be able to accurately describe that part) horses spooked. This phenomenon is widely recognized worldwide, colloquially known as "staring daggers." It's funny you mentioned:
>you are able to demonstrate it experimentally without making a human part of the setup. I mean there's no reason you can't create an objective experiment just involving humans and no instruments and many experiments in regular mainstream science involve only humans and no "instruments" as integral components to the experiment. But yeah, the horse example is my first inclination to relate. I also have some experiences with people. Same kind of shit. Probably way more evil. I shouldn't tell too much except for in the interest of knowledge.
Anyways I'm not really interested in encouraging this shit. Maybe that's why science is some evil business so much of the time. It's much easier to prove a negative than a positive. Easier to destroy than build. For example: to prove you have a successful method to heal someone vs kill someone. I mean taking metaphysics or whatever out of the equation. Healing and life is a long open ended question, killing and death is a short and simple question. To prove my medicine can heal you, that's a long nuanced experiment. To prove my poison can kill you is a short and simple experiment. Maybe it's best the world doesn't know about all this kind of stuff knowing how fucked up they are.
But maybe if people realized life is way deeper than we can write off with our crude understandings maybe it could have the power to elevate society and inspire them to abandon pessimism and nihlism and etc.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 10:45:30 No. 5873
>>5867 > but the fact that science is slowly revealing us to be nothing more than meat robots Bleh
Just empty Anglo thought from the depth of the human spirit that began in the UK and spread outward
Humans are the universe consciously experiencing itself
We are the energy of the Sun given solid form
We are the children of the Earth, who gained the gift (through the dialectical process of biological evolution and societal development) of knowledge of where we came from and how our world and universe came to be
We are as a species a geological force on the face of the planet
We are as individuals both unique but also part of that larger force known as “Humanity” all the same
That humans are only flesh sacks that can do labor is how Capital (whose true name should be Demiurge) understands people
lenin_cap Lenin Cap Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 10:57:49 No. 5874
>>5873 ok Alan Watts
I'm going to hyper ventilate in the parking lot outside of work everyday instead
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 11:20:32 No. 5875
>>5871 > I've experimented with (on one occasion ok) spooking horses on command. Maybe about a hundred yards away. All the horses facing the other direction. No eye contact. One moment horses chill, next moment I send out the energy/force/whatever word(whatever the mechanism How repeatable is this form of communication ? Can you go back to the horses and repeat the same thing like 100 times over ?
Can you send other messages than "run away" ?
>I mean there's no reason you can't create an objective experiment just involving humans and no instruments If you can send information to horses in some novel way, we need to know the method of transmission and that involves building a transmitter and a receiver that uses the same principles.
If I'm allowed to speculate I'm going to assume coincidence that the horses got spooked by something else that occurred in the same instant, or maybe you made a noise they could hear.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 11:22:08 No. 5876
>>5860 i know people with paranormal experiances with zero drugs so you do you
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 11:41:26 No. 5877
>>5875 >How repeatable is this form of communication ? Can you go back to the horses and repeat the same thing like 100 times over ? I'm pretty sure.
>Can you send other messages than "run away" ? Yes. I could describe other phenomenon but you would be even more skeptical and have more alternative explanations I'm sure.
>If you can send information to horses in some novel way, we need to know the method of transmission and that involves building a transmitter and a receiver that uses the same principles. Why? This is stupid. Life is insanely complex. Machines are insanely simple.
>If I'm allowed to speculate I'm going to assume coincidence that the horses got spooked by something else that occurred in the same instant, or maybe you made a noise they could hear.This is the obvious debunk. I'm here on an anonymous message board. I'm not here to put myself forth as "the horse spooker."
>If I'm allowed to speculate I'm going to assume coincidence that the horses got spooked by something else that occurred in the same instant, or maybe you made a noise they could hear.Speculate anything you want. I'm not asking you to just blanket take my word for it. I could be fabricating everything I said. I'm not asking you to experiment with hostile things either. I'm saying my acceptance is 100% based on my experiences. I probably experimented with things I shouldn't have.
Let's say hypothetically. This is real. I can prove it in controlled settings. I can repeat this experiment 100 times. Then what? There's no incentive from me from the selfish angle, from an enlightened perspective I probably should've never gone down that road, should've never drank from that well.
If you're determined not to see something, you can do a good job making sure you never see it.
>>5876 >i know people with paranormal experiances with zero drugs so you do you This. Exactly. People aren't retarded. To write off the body of human experience worldwide as wholly being superstition is retarded. To skeptical people. I don't know how to say it without cliches, but open your mind, don't follow a narrow understanding of reality like it's a religion.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 11:46:50 No. 5878
>>5877 >Why? This is stupid. Life is insanely complex. Machines are insanely simple. Let me elaborate more. Any human can generate cells, tissues, etc. Can any of us make a machine that can generate them? No not at all. Machines aren't the beginning and ending of our existence.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 11:48:50 No. 5879
>>5878 >Let me elaborate more. Any human can generate cells, tissues, etc. Can any of us make a machine that can generate them? No not at all. Machines aren't the beginning and ending of our existence. And not to say maybe hypothetically could be done. That would be speculation. But if you're asking me can I make a machine that can recreate all the phenomenon of the human body or living organisms in general? Hell the fuck no, and nobody yet on Earth can.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:04:18 No. 5880
>>5858 youre buying your own bullshit. thats what happens when you think fucking with your cognitives processes can learn you shit about anything other than yourself and how you think
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:06:20 No. 5881
>>5880 >youre buying your own bullshit. thats what happens when you think fucking with your cognitives processes can learn you shit about anything other than yourself and how you think deep. So you're telling me I'm purely subjective and every one you agree with is purely objective? Do you have anymore to this theory?
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:09:59 No. 5882
>>5871 horses are literally preys who can almost see behind them and who co evolved with humans, thehorse spooking doesnt seem like an objective result, and maybe you do your shit with the wind or smth and misinterpret
sounds like stupid bs you conditioned yourself to believe
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:17:48 No. 5883
check out N rays story and you will understand why scientifics experiment rely on double blind and things like that, contrary to your bs 'experiment'
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:23:32 No. 5884
>>5882 >horses are literally preys who can almost see behind them and who co evolved with humans, thehorse spooking doesnt seem like an objective result, and maybe you do your shit with the wind or smth and misinterpret The wind? Like I control the wind? Anyways. Give me a thought out debunk. Other guy gave way better alternate hypothesises. Maybe I just saw the horses get spooked and falsely concluded I was the one who spooked them. I have other experiences too. It's pointless, like I said I could be fabricating the whole thing. Maybe there were no horses maybe I made up the whole story from beginning to end. That's not the point.
Maybe this thread is a pointless exercise. I hope I inspired some people with the inclination to investigate for themselves further and not just people who are assured of one hypothesis and will construct any explanation to uphold that hypothesis. I'm not saying I understand all of reality and I can impart my omniscient understanding unto you. I'm saying it's foolish to latch on to whatever explanation has previously convinced you and discount everything that contradicts it.
You know I don't really know what the point is. I tried to explain my background, I tried to explain why I used to fall into the same kind of (from my perspective) naivety as you. It is what it is. Reality will always be reality. If I'm right about the truth and nobody believes me, probably on indefinite timeline people will come to the truth. It really don't matter.
>>5883 >check out N rays story and you will understand why scientifics experiment rely on double blind and things like that, contrary to your bs 'experiment' <One thing is bullshit, therefore everything is bullshit. Whoah deep. But thanks I've never heard of that I'll read about it. Thanks anon.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:31:36 No. 5885
>>5883 >check out N rays story and you will understand why scientifics experiment rely on double blind and things like that, contrary to your bs 'experiment' >>5884 >Whoah deep. But thanks I've never heard of that I'll read about it. Thanks anon. You have a good article on this subject? The Wikipedia article doesn't seem to explain anything.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:32:44 No. 5886
There is no scientific spirituality. Science is one thing, and spirituality is another. Your prior skepticism influences your disposition and leads you to believe that your "awakening" must be justified scientifically, which is impossible. This is how quack scientists are made out of prior skeptics.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:36:04 No. 5887
>>5886 >There is no scientific spirituality. Science is one thing, and spirituality is another. Your prior skepticism influences your disposition and leads you to believe that your "awakening" must be justified scientifically, which is impossible. This is how quack scientists are made out of prior skeptics. Deep. Why don't any of you snopes guys have anything smart to say? All you have is semantics? Really? Just clown shit. Convince me.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:37:22 No. 5888
>>5887 And you have nothing except some snark. Shallow. Maybe try to consider that you really are being fucking stupid right now, nothing deep about that, just embarrassing.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:38:57 No. 5889
>>5885 So the wikipedia is talking about supposed "psychic" stuff but then the reference says:
>Blondlot claimed that N-rays exhibit impossible properties and yet are emitted by all substances except green wood and certain treated metals. In 1903, Blondlot claimed he had generated N-rays using a hot wire inside an iron tube. The rays were detected by a calcium sulfide thread that glowed slightly in the dark when the rays were refracted through a 60-degree angle prism of aluminum. According to Blondlot, a narrow stream of N-rays was refracted through the prism and produced a spectrum on a field. The N-rays were reported to be invisible, except when viewed as they hit the treated thread. Blondlot moved the thread across the gap where the N-rays were thought to come through and when the thread was illuminated it was said to be due to N-rays. I don't know what any of that is supposed to mean. How is it related to anything I said except someone said the word "psychic?"
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:40:18 No. 5890
>>5888 >And you have nothing except some snark. Shallow. Maybe try to consider that you really are being fucking stupid right now, nothing deep about that, just embarrassing. Deep. Thanks for enlightening me. Your emotional reasoning sure convinced me Mr. Science. I'm truly embarrassed.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:41:34 No. 5891
>>5890 You didn't even understand what I said. You're projecting your own scientism on to me. I have no problem with letting science and spirituality exist separately.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:47:26 No. 5892
>>5891 >You didn't even understand what I said. You're projecting your own scientism on to me. I have no problem with letting science and spirituality exist separately. Lol ok. Can you elaborate on what that means?
>letting science and spirituality exist separately. I'm an absolute believer that there is one objective reality. I absolutely believe our understandings our subjective and flawed. But please explain what you mean.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:48:55 No. 5893
>>5892 It means you can't justify your personal spiritual experience using scientific means. There is one reality, but there is more than one way of experiencing it. Some things can only be felt, and other things can only be known logically or mathematically.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:52:52 No. 5894
>>5893 >It means you can't justify your personal spiritual experience using scientific means. There is no such thing as spirituality vs material reality, metaphysics vs. physics. There is one objective reality.
>Some things can only be felt, and other things can only be known logically or mathematically. Ok… Wow. So many varied debunks I can't keep up. I really don't know what your point is. What do you mean by felt vs logic? Please explain.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:54:09 No. 5895
>>5894 It's a waste of time talking to you. Enjoy your quack science, Mr. Objective.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:55:46 No. 5896
>>5895 >It's a waste of time talking to you. Enjoy your quack science, Mr. Objective. So you can't explain what logic vs felt means? How do these to things simultaneously exist independent of each other?
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:57:50 No. 5897
>>5896 Please think about where your life went wrong where you don't even know the difference between a feeling and a logical deduction.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:58:46 No. 5898
>>5897 >Please think about where your life went wrong where you don't even know the difference between a feeling and a logical deduction. What produced a feeling vs a logical deduction. Please elaborate your theory. I'm trying to understand.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 12:59:30 No. 5899
>>5872 soo… kautskyhat tukachevsky fanboy confirmed???
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 13:00:34 No. 5900
>>5898 >I'm trying to understand. No you're not. I can feel (not know objectively) when someone is trying to understand and when someone is just going to refuse to be listen to anything and give snarky comments all day.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 13:01:52 No. 5901
>>5900 >No you're not. I can feel (not know objectively) when someone is trying to understand and when someone is just going to refuse to be listen to anything and give snarky comments all day. Damn, are you psychic? Please. E.L.A.B.O.R.A.T.E. why are you here replying if you have nothing to say?
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 13:03:11 No. 5902
>>5877 >I'm pretty sure. make sure by actually repeating the experiment
>Yes. I could describe other phenomenon but you would be even more skeptical and have more alternative explanations I'm sure. if you have more, why keep it from me ? Are you afraid I'm going to explain away the mystery ?
>Why? This is stupid. Life is insanely complex. Machines are insanely simple. No i don't care about these excuses, it has to be replicated with an external setup that others can try out, to make sure it's not just a hallucination.
>Let's say hypothetically. This is real. I can prove it in controlled settings. I can repeat this experiment 100 times. Then what? We have a reason to do further tests, like sticking you into sensitive sensor equipment to look for known physical effects. If it's an unknown effect that is powerful enough to affect the macroscopic world, like your horse communication would suggest we will find clues. Clues lead to new theories that can be tested with experiments, if that leads to success we might find new stuff.
>If you're determined not to see something Lots of people have investigated claims like this and so far, nobody found a spiritual world, don't take it as bad will if you don't get excitement on my part.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 13:03:27 No. 5903
>>5901 >why are you here replying if you have nothing to say? Why indeed? Do you have a scientific explanation for that? Or maybe a spiritual one?
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 13:19:09 No. 5904
>>5903 >Why indeed? Do you have a scientific explanation for that? Or maybe a spiritual one? Is it a logical deduction or a feeling?
>>5902 Anyways thanks for being the only intelligent skeptic here. Pure fucking braindead shit from everyone else.
>make sure by actually repeating the experiment I told you I have in other ways that are even more confirming to myself. It's no point really recounting things because it's no objective proof. I could be fabricating everything from beginning to end. Take it as a thought experiment, if you are interested.
>if you have more, why keep it from me ? Are you afraid I'm going to explain away the mystery ? It's going to sound like more evil shit. I could tell you more abstract shit like people felt better when I was around in some instance and there would be even more hypothetical explanations. I tried to explain the difference between proving benefaction vs destruction. No I'm not afraid. I don't know why I'm here arguing with you people. Notice I didn't really reply to the people who seemingly agreed with me. Maybe that's some flaw within myself. Love for argument. My background in skepticism. I don't think anything is wrong with skepticism. Most people are bullshitters. Skepticism is healthy. Either engage me in the realms of the possibilities of this discussion or don't. Or just offer childish insults. Anyways I applaud you for being the only one to offer intelligent counter-argument.
>No i don't care about these excuses, it has to be replicated with an external setup that others can try out, to make sure it's not just a hallucination. I tried to explain why this isn't an actual counter-argument in my subsequent self-replies. It's not an excuse. If something is purely some kind of biological process, it can't be replicated by anything but biological processes.
>We have a reason to do further tests, like sticking you into sensitive sensor equipment to look for known physical effects. If it's an unknown effect that is powerful enough to affect the macroscopic world, like your horse communication would suggest we will find clues. Clues lead to new theories that can be tested with experiments, if that leads to success we might find new stuff. Fair enough. I can believe this is a possibility if what I'm saying is true. Just because you or I can't devise which instrument can measure this biological process doesn't mean it does not exist. But fair enough. An interesting avenue. I made no claims to have any explanation for my observed phenomenon. Maybe it can't impact a non-organic mechanism. So you're saying this would be the beginning and the end of your own acceptance? What about all the sciences that don't require an instrument like that. Would it be un-scientific to say verbal abuse or something could effect someone psychological and physiologically? Unless I can construct a machine that could be affected by words in the same way a person could that means that phenomenon does not exist?
>Lots of people have investigated claims like this and so far, nobody found a spiritual world, don't take it as bad will if you don't get excitement on my part. I don't I'm not emotionally attached like that. Weird that all the scientific debunkers want to bring emotions into the equation. I'm here to discuss. Anyways thank you again for providing any kind of actual counter-argument. I've still to understand what "logical deductions vs feelings" "anti-scientism" poster is even talking about.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 13:55:55 No. 5905
>>5904 >make sure by actually repeating the experiment Ok so I think I explained why the machine part of your argument was false. Repeating the experiment sure is key. Where do I go to repeat the experiment? How do I go about doing this 100 times to convince people? I know how academic science works. All on credentials. Let's deal with hypotheticals. Let's deal with my argument as a thought experiment. Everything I'm saying is true. I video tape me conducting this experiment 100 times and repeating the same results then what? How do I use my (hypothetical) understanding to add to the greater body of human understanding? I have no credentials. Which credentials should I achieve first before people would be interested in my results vs. dismissing them out of hand? Maybe this is my true thought experiment and purpose of this thread. How do I hypothetically construct the experiment to convince the skeptics. I think I have debunked the machine requirement. Not to say that I don't think, hypothetically a machine could measure this. All I'm saying is, even if hypothetically what I'm saying is true, perhaps, neither you or I could devise the machine that could solve this problem. Then what?
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 15:06:26 No. 5906
>>5905 well this maybe sounds stupid,but you basically have to wait until someone else with credentials decide to do the same thing you did in exactly the same way (and since you did it a 100 times,you probably can make a precise step by step guide on how to reproduce it)
You're actually right on that,we can't really just knock on the door of the nearby laboratory and ask them to witness your experiment (I think ?)
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 15:09:43 No. 5907
>>5859 Define eastern spirituality.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 15:19:20 No. 5908
>>5904 >Take it as a thought experiment, if you are interested. ok
>I could tell you more abstract shit like people felt better when I was around in some instance and there would be even more hypothetical explanations. You can't blame me for thinking this has a boring explanation: people like company.
>If something is purely some kind of biological process, it can't be replicated by anything but biological processes. I have no problem with that, you are allowed to use biological components in a test-rig. Just as long as we get a thingy we can get objective measurements out of. The goal is to make the phenomenon happen without any source of bias.
>So you're saying this would be the beginning and the end of your own acceptance? What about all the sciences that don't require an instrument like that. Would it be un-scientific to say verbal abuse or something could effect someone psychological and physiologically? Unless I can construct a machine that could be affected by words in the same way a person could that means that phenomenon does not exist? There is no mystery how abusive verbal communication is transmitted, we know how sound carries words, we know about vocal cords and ears, and we have external devices that replicate it in an objective way: we call it speaker and microphone. Metaphorically, you told us you could spook horses via an invisible telephone, it would be neat if we could figure out how it works, and build a model that isn't attached to your head, to play around with.
Anonymous 2021-05-30 (Sun) 15:45:16 No. 5909
>>5871 you are delusional. im not saying this only because of what you believe you can do but also your written explanation, it reeks of delusional thinking
Unique IPs: 1