On misconceptions about Science

Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
On misconceptions about Science

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
 Most of your comments are based around the kind of ideas and 'reasoning' that are themselves reason I so seldom attempt to engage you. You have so many misconceptions about the nature and practice of science, and about the state of current scientific knowledge, and you are so firmly wedded to your perspective, that it would almost certainly take far too long to even attempt to explain where I see you may be wrong, at enough points to have any real impact on your understanding. 

Perhaps this is exactly what I need. Try me, take your time.
Perhaps the problem is, that I try to understand the world from multiple points of view at the same time. For example, quantifying a personality through multiple psychological methods, like MBTI, astrology and esoteric ray structure.  I do the same with physics and just about everything else that I can, as long as these methods may be simultaneously true. If I see a solid experimental evidence for one method, I must keep it open as a possibility, in case the truth is there.
So you may feel that I don't give due credit to the only and true scientific method by forcing it to share the same head with other methods. For me, it is only having multiple instruments in one toolbox. 
All I need to make it click together is my sole article of faith (= not perception or deduction) which is the String theory. When I see documents on String theory interpreted in layman terms, I see it says what esotericism claimed all along. The number of dimensions, the nature of matter, the basis and relationships of natural forces, and so on.

BobSpence1 wrote:
 Even if there is more information you feel I am missing in your 'sources', I see in your accounts so many quite explicit misconceptions that I have little confidence that you really have a coherent world-view behind it all. Your failure to grasp many really simple physical explanations I have tried to present to you over the years, for what you have seen as strange phenomenon, is what also makes it far more plausible to me that your ideas are based on mis-understanding or faulty intuition than on having grasped some principles that someone like me simply cannot or refuses to.

My worldview is coherent, no doubts about that, it's just a bit too extensive to explain through the internet. There are of course many parts of it, which I regard as unverifiable, irrelevant for practice, formalistic, or with various degrees of certainity. But I chose this worldview out of necessity, because nothing else really fits on the world as my physical senses show it to me. A scientific worldview may be neater and provable to anyone, but it doesn't describe at all the daily experience of people like me and our shared experimental observations. I don't reject the scientific worldview, I use it when possible and try to expand it and reconcile with other worldviews by pointing at independent research.

I can grasp simple concepts, but just because there is a simple explanation, it may not be the only answer. Sometimes it is, sometimes my observations provide another explanation and sometimes both explanations are or may be true simultaneously. And it would do no good to explain all that to you.

So, take your time and try to formulate what do you think is wrong with me and my worldview. Fundamental problems of worldview must be resolved through very fundamental discussion, full of exposing the hidden assumptions. I'm looking forward to it, it will be probably very enlightening. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I hope this wasn't meant as

I hope this wasn't meant as a private discussion, if it is just ignore my comment.

You make a very good point regarding coherency in your worldview.  I'm going to say that's hardly relevant, if you misplace common phenomena outside of a commonly understood naturalistic explanation, you will still have an internally coherent perspective.  It is the concluding interpretation that's incoherent.

Let's draw an unrealistic parallel here.  Some 100 years ago, good ole Einstein challenged the traditional and scientifically popular worldview with some off the wall ideas.  He obviously saw a gap in our understanding of gravity and responded with some very creative theories that would have seem quite woo at the time.  The difference is, he could back up his theories with mathematics and logic.  He designed some thought experiments that didn't involve 'that's how I see it so tough that you don't'.  He didn't just 'feel' that there were gaps in our understanding, he could point out the discrepancies of Newtonian predictions.  

I will give you that there are gaps in our understanding currently, but that's where the similarity stops.  You have nothing similar to what Einstein had, because ultimately that's what you're proposing.  You are proposing that we accept a paradigm shift without any evidence, you may as well try to convert us to Christianity, unless you have anything concrete, logically or empirically.  

The thing that puzzles me about you is that you seem otherwise intellectually honest and capable.  Smiling  It's really the honesty aspect that doesn't seem to fit what I perceive as the stereotypical occultist.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well Lumy, from what I have

Well Lumy, from what I have seen, you have a habit of taking something which is on the unconfirmed edge of science or even old discredited science and saying that it is just like your world view. Well, if there is something that we do not have a good understanding of or it has long since been proved to not be a good explanation for the way that the world works, how does that establish that you have scientific backing for the things that you talk about?

 

A couple of years ago, I remember that you were posting somewhat regularly about variations on the Michelson-Morely experiment which were somehow supposed to remove whatever effect had been present in all other runs and produced a null result.

 

Several of us had to point out to you that the M-M experiment is still being done to this day and with much finer resolution which is possible with modern lab equipment. Still no love for the luminiferous aether belief at hand. We also explained the now known correct answer to you many times (the Lorentz transformation) and yet you persisted with that for months.

 

More recently, you have been on about dark matter. A couple of times, I think that you mentioned dark matter as having a material existence in the form of atoms. Well, there is a problem there and kind of a huge one. Whatever dark matter may be, it clearly doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force and thus cannot clump together in the way that other matter must to form the world which we see around us.

 

In the same vein, I would assume that there would be a problem with your newer interest in string theory but you would have to talk more about what your specific misunderstanding of the idea is for anyone to provide any insight on that. Even then, it is such a huge topic that even the people doing the real scientific work don't, for the most part, agree on that it really amounts to you just taking something that I doubt you really understand and using it to your own ends.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I hope this

Ktulu wrote:

I hope this wasn't meant as a private discussion, if it is just ignore my comment.

It was meant for a private discussion, but you're welcome. It may take time until if and when Bob chooses to respond. With my reputation, I learned to cherish every bit of people's attention and never let an argument lay unresponded. 

Ktulu wrote:
 You make a very good point regarding coherency in your worldview.  I'm going to say that's hardly relevant, if you misplace common phenomena outside of a commonly understood naturalistic explanation, you will still have an internally coherent perspective.  It is the concluding interpretation that's incoherent.

Let's draw an unrealistic parallel here.  Some 100 years ago, good ole Einstein challenged the traditional and scientifically popular worldview with some off the wall ideas.  He obviously saw a gap in our understanding of gravity and responded with some very creative theories that would have seem quite woo at the time.  The difference is, he could back up his theories with mathematics and logic.  He designed some thought experiments that didn't involve 'that's how I see it so tough that you don't'.  He didn't just 'feel' that there were gaps in our understanding, he could point out the discrepancies of Newtonian predictions.  

I don't have mathemathics, but I have my senses to make observations and the brain to compare them to what I see. If I see anywhere in the scientific world something similar to my anomalous observations, I will find it and point attention towards it. (pretty much like a magpie instinctively carries shiny objects and burning cigar ends to the nest) The problem is, skeptics are creatures of authority and reputation just as anyone else. I can post links to a serious research and yet skeptics will not click at them and read them. They instead write comments on my person, which they're welcome to do, but they should first look at my sources.

Ktulu wrote:
 I will give you that there are gaps in our understanding currently, but that's where the similarity stops.  You have nothing similar to what Einstein had, because ultimately that's what you're proposing.  You are proposing that we accept a paradigm shift without any evidence, you may as well try to convert us to Christianity, unless you have anything concrete, logically or empirically.  
As the Buddhists say, (and I probably quote incorrectly,) a finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. I don't claim to be the moon, I only point at it, which means that I mention people like James DeMeo, Dr. Philip Benjamin or Harry Oldfield. And trust me, there are crowds of those who subjectively arrived at the same conclusion and heaps of books they wrote about it. The most rare people are the scientists who can express it in mathemathics and construct devices which provide evidence. So I gather those I find, and introduce their research together, because obviously we're all up to the same thing. 
One day I hope to find myself in a position to make use of brain imaging equipment and prove experimentally that human body (mine in particular) is capable of perceiving the ethers around and within, just like you can perceive the wind, rain, grass and sunlight. 

The justification is lengthty, but necessary to outline the logic of my actions.

Ktulu wrote:
 The thing that puzzles me about you is that you seem otherwise intellectually honest and capable.  Smiling  It's really the honesty aspect that doesn't seem to fit what I perceive as the stereotypical occultist.
Well, I am an intellectual. It may not look like that, but I love the truth. I found out, that positive values can be given to people only by the truth. Truth is comfortable, I don't have to remember lies. Lying is very uncomfortable, it's like the worst kind of imprecision. 

There are two ways of conflict with people like Bob. Firstly, I have an abstract mind. Bob has a concrete mind. My mind is satisfied with general ideas. Bob's mind insists on details. My mind ramifies possibilities. Bob's mind cuts down the possibilities. My mind links. Bob's mind separates. My mind qualifies thoughts with degrees of reservation. Bob's mind sees either bullshit or a valid statement. My mind weaves nets of thought to catch as much of truth as possible. Bob's mind is content with harpooning a single piece of truth and leaving the rest to get away until next time. From his point of view, my mind is chaotic. From my point of view, his mind is narrow.

Normally these two types of mind would cooperate just fine, but there is another problem. If you open an occult book, you see an occult stuff in there. The peculiar thing is, I observed this occult stuff on myself long before I even learned to read. I later had both scientific (anatomy, nature, etc) and Biblical books available, but it was obvious that none of them provide any answers. Eventually thanks to my parents hobby I got to occult books and - bingo. Finally some answers. They must be real, how else those people could know what I observe? Eventually I had met some similarly gifted people and on several ocassions I confirmed, that the occult stuff is indeed real and capable of influencing people, who are properly gifted to be sensitive to it. 

So that's it. My conviction stems from permanently observing and working with the occult stuff for about last 20 years. I know senses can be fooled, but I had 20 years to calibrate them as a fine instrument. For example, occult law says that energy follows thought. (which it indeed does) So I take seriously only the observations that come unexpected (a blind test) or that are independently, unexpectedly externally confirmed. 

In my opinion, I do not hallucinate. People's hallucinations are typically a sign of illness, injury or drugs. A hallucination of such a magnitude (including hallucinating the positive objective confirmations I had) would necessarily have a severe negative impact on my health and civil duties, which is not the case. I can scan you my school index Smiling 

You can doubt. I can't, but I can idly play with fluid ethers and I can search for explanation. Perhaps that is the advantage of a wide, abstract mind. Maybe Bob in my place would try to exorcize the woo out of himself by wonders of psychopharmacology. Or he would ignore the ethers for another several decades, until his favorite science journal would give an objective evidence that they indeed exist. I am not so sure he would do the only both rational and progressive thing - study the phenomenon.

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well Lumy, from what I have seen, you have a habit of taking something which is on the unconfirmed edge of science or even old discredited science and saying that it is just like your world view. Well, if there is something that we do not have a good understanding of or it has long since been proved to not be a good explanation for the way that the world works, how does that establish that you have scientific backing for the things that you talk about?

 

A couple of years ago, I remember that you were posting somewhat regularly about variations on the Michelson-Morely experiment which were somehow supposed to remove whatever effect had been present in all other runs and produced a null result.

 

Several of us had to point out to you that the M-M experiment is still being done to this day and with much finer resolution which is possible with modern lab equipment. Still no love for the luminiferous aether belief at hand. We also explained the now known correct answer to you many times (the Lorentz transformation) and yet you persisted with that for months.

Well, my perception says the question of ether is not if, but how. So when I find any sources, I point at them. I admit, many of my earlier sources were no good at all. Hopefully I got more idea about the standards of evidence since then.
The fact is, despite of rejection of any ether-related ideas, the science practically returns to the concept. Surprisingly, I recently found more to defend the ether, orgone, prana, atmospheric dark matter or whatever name people give to it. If you want to look at the new evidence, here it is. 
It includes documentation of a succesful experiment, references to sources and one not very pretty story about Albert Einstein's premature dismissal of orgone.

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
 More recently, you have been on about dark matter. A couple of times, I think that you mentioned dark matter as having a material existence in the form of atoms. Well, there is a problem there and kind of a huge one. Whatever dark matter may be, it clearly doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force and thus cannot clump together in the way that other matter must to form the world which we see around us.

According to my investigation, dark matter forms atoms. But how can I know how's that possible? Maybe their electron orbitals are so large, that they don't "lock" or "repel" with our electron orbitals. After all, one electron spread over too big area of an orbital would give a lesser chance of "hitting" an electron confined to a smaller orbital. A mass of particles is mostly dependent on their size, and dark matter is supposed to be massive, so that would fit. (the WIMP theory) 
But that is really a layman's idle speculation. Maybe it is correct and maybe it isn't, but will inspire an expert to determine the precise truth.

If you want some professional possible explanation, read up on Dr. Philip Benjamin's theory of dark matter atoms being composed of axions. I admit, I'm not sure what axions are or if he does a good job as a physicist or biologist. Frankly, I'd like someone's educated opinion on his work. If you find any flaws on his work (or James DeMeo's work) I promise I will take it into account and subtract some of their score in my mental hi-score table. Just please make the objections justified and comprehensible.

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
 In the same vein, I would assume that there would be a problem with your newer interest in string theory but you would have to talk more about what your specific misunderstanding of the idea is for anyone to provide any insight on that. Even then, it is such a huge topic that even the people doing the real scientific work don't, for the most part, agree on that it really amounts to you just taking something that I doubt you really understand and using it to your own ends.  

I can only say with certainity that string theory has the same number of dimensions as esotericism says there should be. Furthermore, a foremost global esotericist said, that string theory is correct and he should know that. And if the smallest particles are made of strings, then maybe a particle with a greater string amplitude would be larger, therefore more massive, (including more of the mass-giving vacuum) therefore weakly interacting, therefore "dark." 

Again, this is a layman's speculation. You could say that string theory is my article of faith, something that reconciles science and esotericism. Theories like quantum loop gravity don't do that, they're too eager to leave out the extra dimensions, with some of which I might have some experiences too. I don't say I understand string theory, there are the membranes and I'm not sure what they represent in esotericism, which is primarily centered on the development of human consciousness.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
I am tired of studying

I am tired of studying fringe phenomena, occult or mystical anomolies and crackpots because apart from studied of mystical brain states I have found nothing that is of interest.  I have studied most religions translated some from their text been privy to facsimiles of the Dead Sea Scrolls, read them 7 or 8 times.  Studied Gnostic writings, Kundalini, Tantric, apophatic mystical daoism,  Tibetan Buddhism, lived with Druids and worshipped with Baha'is.  The fascination and desire for the transcendent is just that. The only thing that is transcended is reality.  If you think about a conscious moment and scientific knowledge you would concluded that as far as you are concerned all things are the past. You are the only present. For by the time you have experienced anything it will have occurred and traveled either by light or sound wave. The future is simply a filter whereby you can experience other than your self.  Study consciousness if you hope to find anything transcendent it is the only gap a spiritualist has left to look.


I am sorry Luminon but I went through my Theosophical and Annie Besant period back when I was 19 or 20. I have a considerable alchemy collection too ( Francis Bacan  et al  and Vonyich ) but there is nothing that I have found that has evidentiary import like true historical or scientific methodology. I have not had in my posession or seen varified evidence of anything that goes beyond the secular and scientific world view. You can find number correlation between many things other than chemical. It is no different a preposterous claim than Greg Braden  stating there is Hebrew alphabet in the DNA "code".  There was supposed numerical codes in the Hebrew Bible that was popular when I was in Seminary called The Bible Code and whispered its debt to Kabalah.  Show me something that convinces me rather than talk about. I have researched "claimers' for years and found naught. Actually I found a lot of times people taking advantage of other people and delusion but that is a secondary observation to the research.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5862
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lumi,you are the inverse of

Lumi,

you are the inverse of William of Ockham.

If there is some more interesting (to you) way of 'interpreting' the results of an experiment, if there is a way of 'understanding' your feelings and experiences which allows for a much more mysterious account of reality, with many more 'possibilities', you will unerringly go for that, rather than picking the simplest explanation, or more correctly the one that requires the least number of poorly justified assumptions.

I am sure that makes your life more interesting, and is easier than studying the science properly, which I will admit has become progressively harder for the layman or not fully-qualified person to come to grips with.

This a problem which concerns me, that non-scientists must, to a significant extent, take the 'truth' of current science on trust. This is only partly addressed when it gives rise to some fancy new technology that we can actually see in action.

Astrology has thoroughly and repeatedly been 'debunked', both by relatively simple tests, and more in-depth statistical studies.

Any such different system of 'explanation' for real observed phenomena is subject to scientific tests itself, and unless you can show where it has consistently made predictions well above chance, ideally under 'double-blind' conditions, it does not deserve to be taken seriously, no matter how much you and others of a similar mind-set are convinced it 'makes sense'.

 

While I am not strictly a 'scientist', I had formal courses in various scientific areas as part of my Engineering degree, and have been following the progress of science in magazines, broadcasting, and now podcasting and the internet, with an emphasis on stuff from sources like Nature, Scientific American, and Science publications and podcasts, for close to half-a-century.

A have a couple of long-time friends who are or have been interested in 'fringe' stuff, so I am aware of quite a bit of it, and have read the occasional book or article on it, but I always ultimately found them far less convincing than a good science article, and typically ignoring or denying some very well-proven theories.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Lumi,you

BobSpence1 wrote:

Lumi,

you are the inverse of William of Ockham.

If there is some more interesting (to you) way of 'interpreting' the results of an experiment, if there is a way of 'understanding' your feelings and experiences which allows for a much more mysterious account of reality, with many more 'possibilities', you will unerringly go for that, rather than picking the simplest explanation, or more correctly the one that requires the least number of poorly justified assumptions.

To be precise, those who predict the anomalous things I observe also predict lots of wild possibilities and implications. They earn my trust and if they are right once about such an elusive subject, then they may be right about their other predictions. These sources of mine are then subjected to police method, I examine them if they're original, consistent internally and with each other and from their testimonies then I can synthesize what they all claim most consistently. Then I know what to look for.
This is important, because these sources often deal with using subjective instruments and practices. I actually have a better chance exchanging handshake with a ghost, than with a director of CERN. I can do this subjective research, unlike many other people. The only problem is getting this objectively confirmed, which recently seemed to come true. But it's up to the skeptics to say for sure, if it's for real. That's where being an outspoken rational authority gets you, you might be asked to examine evidence unofficially for others.

Furthermore, by allowing the many possibilities, I make sure I will be able to test them, should the opportunity come up. The problem with using subjective instruments (like my etheric perception) is wishful thinking or negative prejudice. The etheric substance literally moves and shapes itself according to my thoughts. So I must remain open-minded but impartial, to make sure I don't create a fake signal or ignore a genuine one, thinking that I did it. The best way to do this is just to mind my own business and be alert. 

BobSpence1 wrote:
 I am sure that makes your life more interesting, and is easier than studying the science properly, which I will admit has become progressively harder for the layman or not fully-qualified person to come to grips with.

This a problem which concerns me, that non-scientists must, to a significant extent, take the 'truth' of current science on trust. This is only partly addressed when it gives rise to some fancy new technology that we can actually see in action.

You're right, but I trust the science about what it already discovered. I just disagree with popular predictions of future development.

BobSpence1 wrote:
 Astrology has thoroughly and repeatedly been 'debunked', both by relatively simple tests, and more in-depth statistical studies.

Any such different system of 'explanation' for real observed phenomena is subject to scientific tests itself, and unless you can show where it has consistently made predictions well above chance, ideally under 'double-blind' conditions, it does not deserve to be taken seriously, no matter how much you and others of a similar mind-set are convinced it 'makes sense'.

It might sound strange to you, but astrology is developing and so is the understanding of astrology itself. Most notably, not even astrology is excused from common sense.
By testing astrology, you actually test people. The tests of traditional astrology are based on faulty premises, which even astrologers themselves believe. It says, that a given constellation will have a standard effect on any person. The problem is, there are not that many standard people, not even biological twins. If you replace a constellation - like Uranus square natal Uranus (about 21 years) with a mundane equivalent, a dilemma of a young person getting out of home, it is common sense that people will react to this differently, according to their personal qualities, like self-confidence, integrity, courtesy, resourcefulness and so on.
The reason why traditional astrologers do not allow much free will is, that they do not recognize reincarnation and that some people are more advanced souls than others and may react entirely differently to the same constellation. A weak person will be swept away by a life trial, a stronger person will take it as a challenge with possible victory and a strong person will use the opportunity to work harder and achieve much. 
This is why some astrologers like Dane Rudhyar divide people into four levels, based on their personal qualities, achievements, social status and other factors, like age. Each of these levels needs a different style of astrologic interpretation. An astrologer himself must be of equal or higher level than the client, otherwise he can not do the job.
Furthermore, the job of astrology is not to predict events. It is to predict some circumstances, so that the client may prepare and shape the actual events according to his will or at least avoid the worst scenario. That's all of course less testable on global basis, but will actually bring better individual predictions for each client. 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
 While I am not strictly a 'scientist', I had formal courses in various scientific areas as part of my Engineering degree, and have been following the progress of science in magazines, broadcasting, and now podcasting and the internet, with an emphasis on stuff from sources like Nature, Scientific American, and Science publications and podcasts, for close to half-a-century.

A have a couple of long-time friends who are or have been interested in 'fringe' stuff, so I am aware of quite a bit of it, and have read the occasional book or article on it, but I always ultimately found them far less convincing than a good science article, and typically ignoring or denying some very well-proven theories.

Yeah, and maybe your friends ask you for advice, if this and this claimant has his methodology proper or not. So let's say I'm one of them and I have this very peculiar experiment. It's the same thing that Albert Einstein succesfully replicated back in the old times, but as the claimant says, he then refused it and did not give it a fair re-examination. So here is the experiment, re-designed to refute Albert's hasty judgement and made even more precise with modern technology. Would you please look under the history's bed, if there is a boogey down there?

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: I am sorry

TGBaker wrote:

 

I am sorry Luminon but I went through my Theosophical and Annie Besant period back when I was 19 or 20. I have a considerable alchemy collection too ( Francis Bacan  et al  and Vonyich ) but there is nothing that I have found that has evidentiary import like true historical or scientific methodology. I have not had in my posession or seen varified evidence of anything that goes beyond the secular and scientific world view. You can find number correlation between many things other than chemical. It is no different a preposterous claim than Greg Braden  stating there is Hebrew alphabet in the DNA "code".  There was supposed numerical codes in the Hebrew Bible that was popular when I was in Seminary called The Bible Code and whispered its debt to Kabalah.  Show me something that convinces me rather than talk about. I have researched "claimers' for years and found naught. Actually I found a lot of times people taking advantage of other people and delusion but that is a secondary observation to the research.

All right, so did you try any of the practices, to see if they work or not? The problem with esotericism is, that you are responsible for obtaining your evidence and checking its legitimacy. You are supposed to perform the subjective investigation according to the initial instructions and watch out for results. If you can do it, fine, go as deep into the teaching, as your evidence allows. If not, you're welcome to not accept the teaching.

So what did you actually do? So far it seems you had just read, lived with the practitioners and worshipped with them something. And you searched for an objective methodology, didn't find it there so you rejected it. 
From what you say it doesn't look like you tried some actual practices, like Lucis Trust's Arcane School or Ben Creme's Transmission meditation. I specially recommend the latter. 
Hell, even trying to mix some molten lead and mercury to create gold would be more active approach than you describe. In your place I'd try anything, no matter how crazy it sounds, as long as it doesn't mess up with my head, like Christian "repentance and acceptance of Jesus" does it.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:TGBaker

Luminon wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

 

I am sorry Luminon but I went through my Theosophical and Annie Besant period back when I was 19 or 20. I have a considerable alchemy collection too ( Francis Bacan  et al  and Vonyich ) but there is nothing that I have found that has evidentiary import like true historical or scientific methodology. I have not had in my posession or seen varified evidence of anything that goes beyond the secular and scientific world view. You can find number correlation between many things other than chemical. It is no different a preposterous claim than Greg Braden  stating there is Hebrew alphabet in the DNA "code".  There was supposed numerical codes in the Hebrew Bible that was popular when I was in Seminary called The Bible Code and whispered its debt to Kabalah.  Show me something that convinces me rather than talk about. I have researched "claimers' for years and found naught. Actually I found a lot of times people taking advantage of other people and delusion but that is a secondary observation to the research.

All right, so did you try any of the practices, to see if they work or not? The problem with esotericism is, that you are responsible for obtaining your evidence and checking its legitimacy. You are supposed to perform the subjective investigation according to the initial instructions and watch out for results. If you can do it, fine, go as deep into the teaching, as your evidence allows. If not, you're welcome to not accept the teaching.

So what did you actually do? So far it seems you had just read, lived with the practitioners and worshipped with them something. And you searched for an objective methodology, didn't find it there so you rejected it. 
From what you say it doesn't look like you tried some actual practices, like Lucis Trust's Arcane School or Ben Creme's Transmission meditation. I specially recommend the latter. 
Hell, even trying to mix some molten lead and mercury to create gold would be more active approach than you describe. In your place I'd try anything, no matter how crazy it sounds, as long as it doesn't mess up with my head, like Christian "repentance and acceptance of Jesus" does it.

Certainly I have. Ekankar, Kundalini, Tantric, Raja Yoga, Certain Druid practices obviously I lived with practitioners to practice with practitioners.  What do you suggest I experiment with??


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: Certainly I

TGBaker wrote:
 Certainly I have. Ekankar, Kundalini, Tantric, Raja Yoga, Certain Druid practices obviously I lived with practitioners to practice with practitioners.  What do you suggest I experiment with??
I think your best chance to observe anything interesting is Transmission Meditation. 

Esoterically said, there are three kinds of meditations. Mystical and occult meditations and the third kind, which is a meditation designed for the needs of the time we live in. For various esoteric reasons which I won't bother you with, Transmission is a form of group service and also Laya Yoga. The meditating people are mere receivers, they do not direct the energies, which allows the Laya Yoga to be experienced on master level by a mere beginner.

So, TM is basically about receiving energies and transforming them. TM is therefore a unique opportunity to feel (and perhaps see and hear) for yourself the existence of these energies. Sooner, later or even immediately, it makes the practitioner sensitive to them. TM needs a group, so we had many types of people, some didn't feel the energy for years, some felt them immediately from the start and most soon after that. There are way too many factors to tell in advance. 

I might describe you typical feelings of the processed energy, but I rather shouldn't, to keep your observing skills unbiased. The feelings may be sometimes pleasant, sometimes almost excruciating, but usually it feels just like a common energetic activity in appropriate centers and pathways, which you for some strange reason probably didn't yet experience, despite of your meditations. As I said, TM is your best chance.

The problem with TM is, that it is a group activity. The more people, the stronger it is. The potency of meditation rises much more than linearly with each new member of a group, minimum being 3. So I recommend you to google up a group in your area or invite two friends, rather than try your luck alone. Sometimes you might even see other group members after meditation describing the same sensations or visions you had. 

Fortunately, it is very simple. All you need to do is to memorize the invocation (plus visualizations if you feel like it) and then in group pronounce it aloud in unison. (I know it may feel awkward in the beginning, but it's a technical necessity) Then meditate for about 1-3 hours, with your attention focused in the ajna chakra, with as few thoughts as possible.
In the book you will find all information you need plus more details than you ever wanted. 
Just keep in mind, the meditation is basically a work, which requires you to concentrate on the ajna chakra for hours. If you're bored, you better try to concentrate on a deeper meditation state, which knows no emotions, including boredom. 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:TGBaker

Luminon wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
 Certainly I have. Ekankar, Kundalini, Tantric, Raja Yoga, Certain Druid practices obviously I lived with practitioners to practice with practitioners.  What do you suggest I experiment with??
I think your best chance to observe anything interesting is Transmission Meditation. 

Esoterically said, there are three kinds of meditations. Mystical and occult meditations and the third kind, which is a meditation designed for the needs of the time we live in. For various esoteric reasons which I won't bother you with, Transmission is a form of group service and also Laya Yoga. The meditating people are mere receivers, they do not direct the energies, which allows the Laya Yoga to be experienced on master level by a mere beginner.

So, TM is basically about receiving energies and transforming them. TM is therefore a unique opportunity to feel (and perhaps see and hear) for yourself the existence of these energies. Sooner, later or even immediately, it makes the practitioner sensitive to them. TM needs a group, so we had many types of people, some didn't feel the energy for years, some felt them immediately from the start and most soon after that. There are way too many factors to tell in advance. 

I might describe you typical feelings of the processed energy, but I rather shouldn't, to keep your observing skills unbiased. The feelings may be sometimes pleasant, sometimes almost excruciating, but usually it feels just like a common energetic activity in appropriate centers and pathways, which you for some strange reason probably didn't yet experience, despite of your meditations. As I said, TM is your best chance.

The problem with TM is, that it is a group activity. The more people, the stronger it is. The potency of meditation rises much more than linearly with each new member of a group, minimum being 3. So I recommend you to google up a group in your area or invite two friends, rather than try your luck alone. Sometimes you might even see other group members after meditation describing the same sensations or visions you had. 

Fortunately, it is very simple. All you need to do is to memorize the invocation (plus visualizations if you feel like it) and then in group pronounce it aloud in unison. (I know it may feel awkward in the beginning, but it's a technical necessity) Then meditate for about 1-3 hours, with your attention focused in the ajna chakra, with as few thoughts as possible.
In the book you will find all information you need plus more details than you ever wanted. 
Just keep in mind, the meditation is basically a work, which requires you to concentrate on the ajna chakra for hours. If you're bored, you better try to concentrate on a deeper meditation state, which knows no emotions, including boredom. 

 

Again what you describe is subjective without a means of verification apart from fmri's or something of that nature. As to practices I have for 41 years practiced various methodologies of meditation predominately Eastern. I am practiced in Reiki  and have a friend who is a master.   As to occult practices I have exchanged methodologies of Eastern mysticism with the Druids for their methodologies circa 1977-1978, I practiced Ekankar ( astral projection [ out of body exoperiences]).  These experiences which are mental are in my opinion physical phenomena generated by neural connections that exceed typical (normal) levels. When they do so (just as when I was experiencing reactions in the hospital with Vfend [an anti-fungal] or with LSD) part of specialized areas of the brain create visual, sensual and auditory experience directly to centers of processing in the brain. I could for three days visualize anything I could think of vividly, three dimensionally, contextually and temporally. Were these "real" places or events. Only in the sense that they were produced as qualia in my brain.  They had no "external" including extra-dimensional quality about them. I use the term qualia for mental symbolism or events. 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Again what you

TGBaker wrote:

Again what you describe is subjective without a means of verification apart from fmri's or something of that nature. As to practices I have for 41 years practiced various methodologies of meditation predominately Eastern. I am practiced in Reiki  and have a friend who is a master.   As to occult practices I have exchanged methodologies of Eastern mysticism with the Druids for their methodologies circa 1977-1978, I practiced Ekankar ( astral projection [ out of body exoperiences]).  These experiences which are mental are in my opinion physical phenomena generated by neural connections that exceed typical (normal) levels. When they do so (just as when I was experiencing reactions in the hospital with Vfend [an anti-fungal] or with LSD) part of specialized areas of the brain create visual, sensual and auditory experience directly to centers of processing in the brain. I could for three days visualize anything I could think of vividly, three dimensionally, contextually and temporally. Were these "real" places or events. Only in the sense that they were produced as qualia in my brain.  They had no "external" including extra-dimensional quality about them. I use the term qualia for mental symbolism or events. 

Well, sure. The well-known property of drugs or anything 'astral' is creation of less or more illusory thoughtforms according to what you want or what you fear. New Age fools love everything astral, but the serious esotericists stay away from such things. Didn't Theosophic literature warn you? People like Alice Bailey consider the astral realm a source of all evil and foolishness. They make a big point out of a disciple's task of controlling his astral nature and illusions. 

This is why I stick with the good old etheric perception. Once you have it, it can be verified quite simply. If I numb my hand, the etheric sensations there cease. This would not happen if my brain makes things up. Of course, you'd need FMRI to verify that, or another equally gifted or skilled person. 

I think the purpose of these various exercises and experience-gathering techniques is to convince you personally that there is something to study. When you're sufficiently convinced, you should be willing to start the serious work and search for some objective proof. Life is not that fair to give you instantly an objective, repeatable proof of something so exotic. Unless of you use instruments and evidence already developed by James DeMeo and others

So I have a couple of questions for you. Hopefully they aren't too personal.

Why did you devote these 41 years to these practices? What was your motivation? Did you expect to find something you can use right away and win a Nobel prize?

Why isn't anything of what you experienced a conclusive evidence for you? Did you ever refuse any potentially valid (objective) evidence for reasons like it couldn't be repeated? If yes, how many times, approximately?

After such a long time, do you consider yourself unable or unwilling to review any new or previously unknown discoveries in "the field"?

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:TGBaker

Luminon wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Again what you describe is subjective without a means of verification apart from fmri's or something of that nature. As to practices I have for 41 years practiced various methodologies of meditation predominately Eastern. I am practiced in Reiki  and have a friend who is a master.   As to occult practices I have exchanged methodologies of Eastern mysticism with the Druids for their methodologies circa 1977-1978, I practiced Ekankar ( astral projection [ out of body exoperiences]).  These experiences which are mental are in my opinion physical phenomena generated by neural connections that exceed typical (normal) levels. When they do so (just as when I was experiencing reactions in the hospital with Vfend [an anti-fungal] or with LSD) part of specialized areas of the brain create visual, sensual and auditory experience directly to centers of processing in the brain. I could for three days visualize anything I could think of vividly, three dimensionally, contextually and temporally. Were these "real" places or events. Only in the sense that they were produced as qualia in my brain.  They had no "external" including extra-dimensional quality about them. I use the term qualia for mental symbolism or events. 

Well, sure. The well-known property of drugs or anything 'astral' is creation of less or more illusory thoughtforms according to what you want or what you fear. New Age fools love everything astral, but the serious esotericists stay away from such things. Didn't Theosophic literature warn you? People like Alice Bailey consider the astral realm a source of all evil and foolishness. They make a big point out of a disciple's task of controlling his astral nature and illusions. 

This is why I stick with the good old etheric perception. Once you have it, it can be verified quite simply. If I numb my hand, the etheric sensations there cease. This would not happen if my brain makes things up. Of course, you'd need FMRI to verify that, or another equally gifted or skilled person. 

I think the purpose of these various exercises and experience-gathering techniques is to convince you personally that there is something to study. When you're sufficiently convinced, you should be willing to start the serious work and search for some objective proof. Life is not that fair to give you instantly an objective, repeatable proof of something so exotic. Unless of you use instruments and evidence already developed by James DeMeo and others

So I have a couple of questions for you. Hopefully they aren't too personal.

Why did you devote these 41 years to these practices? What was your motivation? Did you expect to find something you can use right away and win a Nobel prize?

Why isn't anything of what you experienced a conclusive evidence for you? Did you ever refuse any potentially valid (objective) evidence for reasons like it couldn't be repeated? If yes, how many times, approximately?

After such a long time, do you consider yourself unable or unwilling to review any new or previously unknown discoveries in "the field"?

Easy answer my friend. The same as you. I see there are some amazing thing. But as a monist there simply is no dichotomy of spiritual and physical . It is all one. I come closest to an atheistic apophatic mystical daoism. Certainty has  a particular practiclal level for me which is met empirically and reproducibly.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Easy answer my

TGBaker wrote:

Easy answer my friend. The same as you. I see there are some amazing thing. But as a monist there simply is no dichotomy of spiritual and physical . It is all one. I come closest to an atheistic apophatic mystical daoism. Certainty has  a particular practiclal level for me which is met empirically and reproducibly.

But this has nothing to do with mysticism. Just because weak nuclear force and electromagnetic are under some circumstances equal, are they the same thing? 
Spiritual and physical may be under some circumstances the same thing, but these circumstances are far away from here. As far as we are concerned, there is a wide spectrum of energy that is consciousness, with dense matter on the opposite end. And we are on the wrong end to see that. 

You can reproduce only that, which you control. Obviously, there are many things beyond our control. We are then left to mercy of coincidence. We may have a perfectly convincing and objectively confirmed empirical observation, without the power of repeating it at our will. So you say, that such an observation is not enough to be considered real, therefore worthy of further investigation? 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:TGBaker

Luminon wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Easy answer my friend. The same as you. I see there are some amazing thing. But as a monist there simply is no dichotomy of spiritual and physical . It is all one. I come closest to an atheistic apophatic mystical daoism. Certainty has  a particular practiclal level for me which is met empirically and reproducibly.

But this has nothing to do with mysticism. Just because weak nuclear force and electromagnetic are under some circumstances equal, are they the same thing? 
Spiritual and physical may be under some circumstances the same thing, but these circumstances are far away from here. As far as we are concerned, there is a wide spectrum of energy that is consciousness, with dense matter on the opposite end. And we are on the wrong end to see that. 

You can reproduce only that, which you control. Obviously, there are many things beyond our control. We are then left to mercy of coincidence. We may have a perfectly convincing and objectively confirmed empirical observation, without the power of repeating it at our will. So you say, that such an observation is not enough to be considered real, therefore worthy of further investigation? 

 

Well lets assume consciousness is Being. Or that all things are a manifestation of a boundless consciousness. Existent things as particulara (matter) are simply relativized interactions of the boundless and so still one substance.

Another way to put it is that the Logos as a singularity is the boundary condition or objectification of the boundless such that the boundless has location but remains boundless. The boundless is Being. Being is potentiality while existence is actualization of the potentiality and therefore actuality. Being is real and actuality exists.  Being carries as an epistemic " I am all there is is/Apart from me(the boundless) there is Nothing) The singularity has no internality and is non-durative so ceases as it began as an individuation. It is the dialectic of epistemic Apart from Being is Nothing. The singularity would be the big bang, an inifinite point of singularity that in relation to the boundless potentiality of Being inflates instantly into existence.  The self reference of the boundless or Being as the singularity is a dialectic  I am all there is/ apart from me there is nothing becomes something as Logos. All things are created through it. The objectification as singularity is such that its internality is actually the boundless external state since a singularity is itself vacuous. The relationship of the one( singularity) to the boundless is two and then an infinite regression as the logos expands as creation into the boundless.  So the boundless would only be bounded by its self reference which is Logos and the subsequent creation. The Being is Nothing qs potentiality and becomes something as logos. But that is only one theory.

 

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Well lets

TGBaker wrote:

Well lets assume consciousness is Being. Or that all things are a manifestation of a boundless consciousness. Existent things as particulara (matter) are simply relativized interactions of the boundless and so still one substance.

Another way to put it is that the Logos as a singularity is the boundary condition or objectification of the boundless such that the boundless has location but remains boundless. The boundless is Being. Being is potentiality while existence is actualization of the potentiality and therefore actuality. Being is real and actuality exists.  Being carries as an epistemic " I am all there is is/Apart from me(the boundless) there is Nothing) The singularity has no internality and is non-durative so ceases as it began as an individuation. It is the dialectic of epistemic Apart from Being is Nothing. The singularity would be the big bang, an inifinite point of singularity that in relation to the boundless potentiality of Being inflates instantly into existence.  The self reference of the boundless or Being as the singularity is a dialectic  I am all there is/ apart from me there is nothing becomes something as Logos. All things are created through it. The objectification as singularity is such that its internality is actually the boundless external state since a singularity is itself vacuous. The relationship of the one( singularity) to the boundless is two and then an infinite regression as the logos expands as creation into the boundless.  So the boundless would only be bounded by its self reference which is Logos and the subsequent creation. The Being is Nothing qs potentiality and becomes something as logos. But that is only one theory.

All right. I understand the text, but I do not have much encouraging things to say to this. You've done what you could. Just please don't be surprised if things turn out to be much more complex than you expected. 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:TGBaker

Luminon wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Well lets assume consciousness is Being. Or that all things are a manifestation of a boundless consciousness. Existent things as particulara (matter) are simply relativized interactions of the boundless and so still one substance.

Another way to put it is that the Logos as a singularity is the boundary condition or objectification of the boundless such that the boundless has location but remains boundless. The boundless is Being. Being is potentiality while existence is actualization of the potentiality and therefore actuality. Being is real and actuality exists.  Being carries as an epistemic " I am all there is is/Apart from me(the boundless) there is Nothing) The singularity has no internality and is non-durative so ceases as it began as an individuation. It is the dialectic of epistemic Apart from Being is Nothing. The singularity would be the big bang, an inifinite point of singularity that in relation to the boundless potentiality of Being inflates instantly into existence.  The self reference of the boundless or Being as the singularity is a dialectic  I am all there is/ apart from me there is nothing becomes something as Logos. All things are created through it. The objectification as singularity is such that its internality is actually the boundless external state since a singularity is itself vacuous. The relationship of the one( singularity) to the boundless is two and then an infinite regression as the logos expands as creation into the boundless.  So the boundless would only be bounded by its self reference which is Logos and the subsequent creation. The Being is Nothing qs potentiality and becomes something as logos. But that is only one theory.

All right. I understand the text, but I do not have much encouraging things to say to this. You've done what you could. Just please don't be surprised if things turn out to be much more complex than you expected. 

 

I am simply saying that it is a lot simplier than that. It is simple atheism. There is nothing beyond what is and we as creates evolved in the WHATIS experience and process it.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: I am simply

TGBaker wrote:

 I am simply saying that it is a lot simplier than that. It is simple atheism. There is nothing beyond what is and we as creates evolved in the WHATIS experience and process it. 

Very well, but what is that which is, beyond which is nothing? 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:TGBaker

Luminon wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

 I am simply saying that it is a lot simplier than that. It is simple atheism. There is nothing beyond what is and we as creates evolved in the WHATIS experience and process it. 

Very well, but what is that which is, beyond which is nothing? 

Well I guess you could be a pantheist or a panentheist an idealist or materialist.  Some of it is just words.....


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism