|
g00ru
lit pants tit licker



Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: Poid] 1
#14173252 - 03/23/11 10:54 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said: GURUU
Quote:
Quote:
However, just because I can observe these things doesn't mean scientific machinery can. These are machine of a material nature trying to measure something that is of a much subtler material. When I say subtle, I mean it in the truest sense of the word. It's a subtle thing to observe, just like little parts of a Radiohead song or something. That's why a clear mind is of great importance.
Who said anything about "machinery"? Once again it seems people are equivocating. We spoke about things able to be scientifically detected. You now premise your argument on what "machinery" can detect yet provide no justification for this apparently arbitrary qualification.
Simply: what machinery can or cannot do has no clear relevance whatsoever to the question of what is scientifically demonstrable/detectable.
Okay wutever, my point is that these energies are internal to our consciousness, they don't reside in the external physical world as conceived of in modern science. I can observe them. That's clear as day to me. I can tell you what to do and if you listen you will see what I'm talking about. Will you do that? Probably not, you'll just stay (not so) comfortably up in your head. Science can't observe them because the current paradigm doesn't involve mind in any real way. It just looks at the physical world and the minds analyze it. But there is much, much more depth of analysis possible if you learn how to reside as the observer of the mind.
Quote:
Quote:
So go ahead and tear this apart, ask me for evidence about the astral plane, say I'm full of shit, I don't care because I know this is all true and it's been helping me tremendously towards living a happy life. Any artist or person of true noble achievement is spiritually advanced and self realized, even if they wouldn't use that language.

cut the crap
Dude....ugh why do i bother. Please, do this for yourself, abide as the witness of your thoughts for as long as you can and see what happens. Keep quiet in your head. Thoughts will still come but just keep quiet about them, don't add anything on. Do you know what I mean when I say this? Im not trying to win an argument, my purpose here is actually to try and help people understand self inquiry and spirituality, because there are changes happening in our world right now and I think it will be a time of great opportunity for anybody who delves inwardly.
Everybody in this forum reminds me of my philosophy professor...talking about "fuzzy headed dualists." It's all ego. What can't you see that. It's all about some perception you have of yourself. You don't wanna be some namby-pamby spiritual dingbat, so you cling to some notion of science or logic. Have the courage to let that all go. Seriously, just drop it, let those thoughts go. If you let your mind go, it comes back better
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
guruu said: the heart is the seat of emotions...
No, that would be the brain.
The chemicals are all processed in the brain, but experientially emotions tend to be found in the heart center, located in the middle of your chest. When you get nervous, don't you feel tight in your chest? When you fall in love with a girl, don't you feel all warm right in your chest? That's your heart bro. Not the physical heart, the spiritual/energetic heart. It's what they're singing about in all those songs you like. Come on, get out of this total mental outlook and start listening to the universe a little bit, it's got the wisdom.
-------------------- check out my music! drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss
|
UnstoppableNewt
Stranger
Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 6
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: g00ru] 1
#14173423 - 03/23/11 11:36 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The thing that frustrates me the most about these kinds of debates is this idea that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive. They go hand in hand if you combine shit that you read about with direct experience. For instance, read about astrophysics and your intellect will be fascinated. Then, go on top of a mountain and gaze at the night sky, and if you've got a shred of humanity in you, you'll be mystified.
Since when is being mystified a bad thing? The true innovative minds in science were the ones romanticized by the mystery and majesty of the universe. Science provides a model for discovery, but in the absence of imagination, it's dead. If not for the human capacity to imagine, we wouldn't even have been able to conceive the wheel, much less physics or philosophy.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,857
Last seen: 54 minutes, 7 seconds
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: g00ru] 1
#14173893 - 03/24/11 02:00 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
guruu said:
Okay wutever, my point is that these energies are internal to our consciousness,
I think I get what you are saying, if you consider the audience in this forum, or any audience, or anyone you might ever talk to in your life, you've got to consider their perspective if you wish to communicate.
I think you are using the word 'energies' as a metaphor for the qualia of consciousness, just as you used the word 'heart' as a metaphor for the qualia of certain emotions. What ever the case is, these words clearly will alienate most of your audience.
Now in the spirituality forum you could use these words on the same exact people, but because they would be guests of that forum and in the minority, the group would join your side and you'd gain a bit in the social hierarchy there, so it might serve some purpose. But here it just causes confusion and lowers your standing in the hierarchy.
|
UnstoppableNewt
Stranger
Registered: 03/23/11
Posts: 6
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: Freedom]
#14174548 - 03/24/11 08:07 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Why is there a hierarchy?
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,857
Last seen: 54 minutes, 7 seconds
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: UnstoppableNewt]
#14176183 - 03/24/11 02:31 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: Freedom]
#14176414 - 03/24/11 03:08 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 11 hours
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#14178588 - 03/24/11 09:00 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
2. Actual impingement on the physical senses.
If it is possibility #2, then the immaterial is actually material and would leave traces. It would definitely be testable and detectable and would have to follow physical laws.
I don't think that it follows that everything that impinges on the physical senses, is testable.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: falcon]
#14178861 - 03/24/11 09:47 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Is an impinged sense not a test? I think it very much follows that an impinged physical sense is testable. Each of the 5 senses has a fairly well understood mechanisms behind it, which we routinely test. What sense(s) are you referencing here and how could why can we not test that which impinges it?
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 11 hours
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: DieCommie]
#14178901 - 03/24/11 09:53 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
In that you experience something through the senses you're correct and what is experienced, can be described. Can all that which is sensed be reproduced?
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: falcon]
#14178924 - 03/24/11 09:56 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Can all that which is sensed be reproduced?
Sure, I dont see why not.
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 11 hours
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: DieCommie]
#14178977 - 03/24/11 10:06 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Each little bit of sensory data can be reproduced, and series that make up patterns of sensory data can, up to the point where that which is sensing is inseparable from that which it is sensed.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: g00ru]
#14180415 - 03/25/11 04:43 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
guruu said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Who said anything about "machinery"? Once again it seems people are equivocating. We spoke about things able to be scientifically detected. You now premise your argument on what "machinery" can detect yet provide no justification for this apparently arbitrary qualification.
Simply: what machinery can or cannot do has no clear relevance whatsoever to the question of what is scientifically demonstrable/detectable.
Okay wutever, my point is that these energies are internal to our consciousness, they don't reside in the external physical world as conceived of in modern science. I can observe them. That's clear as day to me. I can tell you what to do and if you listen you will see what I'm talking about. Will you do that? Probably not, you'll just stay (not so) comfortably up in your head. Science can't observe them because the current paradigm doesn't involve mind in any real way. It just looks at the physical world and the minds analyze it. But there is much, much more depth of analysis possible if you learn how to reside as the observer of the mind.
I understand that you've said these energies are internal to our conciousness and don't reside in the external physical world, but what I don't understand is what that has to do with anything. The point made was that anything detectable is available for scientific testing.
I really don't see how you've responded to the point.
You replied claiming machines can't detect something, without evidence, but I rejected that as an equivocation as their is no necessity for machinery to detect anything for soemthing to be observable or scientifically testable (and you've not even made an argument to the contrary). Now you've said the energies are internal (presumably to the body) and do not reside in the physical world that is external. While you've not explained what this means, I still don't see the relevance. Simply put: so what? You claim they are detectable but don't explain how they aren't scientifically available for evaluation.
You've simply not addressed the claims made and have not even produced a contrary argument: just asserted the existance of this internal energy. Please respond to the point and explain how it isn't scientifically discoverable, testable, whatever you claim.
Quote:
Science can't observe them because the current paradigm doesn't involve mind in any real way. It just looks at the physical world and the minds analyze it. But there is much, much more depth of analysis possible if you learn how to reside as the observer of the mind
I don't know what "paradigm" you refer to that doesn't involve the mind, or what this "real way" qualification attached to the mind's involvement is supposed to mean. Particularly strange is that you've simply declared it and provided no evidence of it at all.
How does the claimed lack of involvement with the mind, in whatever way, have anything to do with whether a phenomena is available for scientific determination, testing? You've ignored the central point: if its observable its testable as however it is observed may be used to procure data on it.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So go ahead and tear this apart, ask me for evidence about the astral plane, say I'm full of shit, I don't care because I know this is all true and it's been helping me tremendously towards living a happy life. Any artist or person of true noble achievement is spiritually advanced and self realized, even if they wouldn't use that language.

cut the crap
Dude....ugh why do i bother.
How is your frustration justified? You just go off on this tangent, making straw man arguments and responding to them, and attributing them to me in a fanciful way. You don't even explain how they are a consequence of my argument.
The consternation you express here really seems inappropriate to me.
Quote:
Please, do this for yourself, abide as the witness of your thoughts for as long as you can and see what happens. Keep quiet in your head. Thoughts will still come but just keep quiet about them, don't add anything on. Do you know what I mean when I say this?
Yes, but I don't know what your point is. What does this have to do with anything?
>Im not trying to win an argument, my purpose here is ...
Okay, fine, but I don't really see how it matters. I don't believe I've asserted any argument as to your purpose, and am happy to concede arguendo any particular purpose that satisfies you. What's the relevance?
Quote:
Everybody in this forum reminds me of my philosophy professor...talking about "fuzzy headed dualists." It's all ego. What can't you see that. It's all about some perception you have of yourself. You don't wanna be some namby-pamby spiritual dingbat, so you cling to some notion of science or logic. Have the courage to let that all go. Seriously, just drop it, let those thoughts go. If you let your mind go, it comes back better 
I regard myself as very much like a cartesian dualist in my outlook, so I'm somewhat surprised you'd attribute this criticism to me. How do you justify criticising me on these grounds which seem completely diametrically opposed to my true views? I note that you are the one who's making ad hominem arguments and projecting charecter traits on your opponents, yet you claim I have the ego problem. Doesn't this seem a bit backwards?
Further, why do you suggest I have some difficulty accepting whatever your view of the ego is in motivation of my views, others', and so forth? I fail to see how this is particularly applicable to any given philosophy or my views, and it really seems to be an ad hominem with no connection to the topic.
Please address the topic. This crap comes up all the time, it'd be nice to have an on point discussion about why science can't detect/test something that exists. We can talk about your philosophy professor or the forum participants' similarity to him later.
Quote:
Quote:
Poid said:
Quote:
guruu said: the heart is the seat of emotions...
No, that would be the brain.
The chemicals are all processed in the brain, but experientially emotions tend to be found in the heart center, located in the middle of your chest. When you get nervous, don't you feel tight in your chest? When you fall in love with a girl, don't you feel all warm right in your chest? That's your heart bro. Not the physical heart, the spiritual/energetic heart. It's what they're singing about in all those songs you like. Come on, get out of this total mental outlook and start listening to the universe a little bit, it's got the wisdom.
Feels more like the pulmonary veins to me, bilatteral and about that height (ignoring abdominal feelings). Emotions that increase stress, love/heartbreak/anger/et cet all increase heart rate and it would seem the constriction of the pulmonary vessels due to stimulation and extra force from stronger right ventricle contraction would be a better fit for the feeling I ave than some heart-brain.
|
g00ru
lit pants tit licker



Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: Freedom]
#14182142 - 03/25/11 01:27 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Okay the thing is, I don't know exactly why science hasn't come to all these conclusions but I know these phenomena exist so it's really, really hard for me to answer your questions. It's like, I'm saying "these energies are really subtle and no modern scientific machinery can detect them by their very nature" and you're saying "it has nothing to do with machinery you still haven't explained why in principle their aren't scientifically detectable." Well, I would respond that they are scientifically detectable, but as they are by definition based in mental processes rather than physical, the discoveries of them can only be mad on an individual basis. Sorry, this just isn't something that can be shared after one person discovers it in the same way as material science. Sharing of these things requires trust and openness.
What that means is that to really get into this stuff, you have to abandon any ideas you might have about yourself as being "strong minded" or pragmatic or skeptical, because all that really means is you're clinging to some idea you have about what constitutes legitimate knowledge. It's not all about logical proofs in this world. We always want to intellectualize everything and have it spelled out, but that's just not how reality works, this is just an unfolding moment, and you're not going to see that until you can put aside your thoughts and just be here now. Then fun thing is, once you have gotten more and more into it, your mind can have at it and intellectualize, if you want, and that's where all this talk about energy and subtle bodies comes from. But, at that point, it seems that most people aren't to fond of just taking you at your word, and you end up sounding like every other crazy new age person. Doesn't stop me from doing my best though  Quote:
Freedom said:
Quote:
guruu said:
Okay wutever, my point is that these energies are internal to our consciousness,
I think I get what you are saying, if you consider the audience in this forum, or any audience, or anyone you might ever talk to in your life, you've got to consider their perspective if you wish to communicate.
I think you are using the word 'energies' as a metaphor for the qualia of consciousness, just as you used the word 'heart' as a metaphor for the qualia of certain emotions. What ever the case is, these words clearly will alienate most of your audience.
Now in the spirituality forum you could use these words on the same exact people, but because they would be guests of that forum and in the minority, the group would join your side and you'd gain a bit in the social hierarchy there, so it might serve some purpose. But here it just causes confusion and lowers your standing in the hierarchy.
No, the language I'm using isn't metaphoric. When I say "energy" I mean change, movement. It's similar to the physical concept of energy as Joules, of the capacity to change or move something in the physical environment. Except it's more than just that, it's just the capacity for change in general, it's the change itself. I can't describe thoughts as anything other than energy. The are just changing manifestations of consciousness. Music is the manipulation and changing of vibrating air molecules. It's basically pure energy.
The heart center, in addition to being the experienced physical seat of the emotions, is also correlated with your being, the sense "I Am" which is your most central and fundamental thought and is therefor said to be the heart. And when you get into this heart, bodily energies seem to congregate at the physical heart center, so that's why the name persists, there is a very strong correlation.
-------------------- check out my music! drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: g00ru] 1
#14182381 - 03/25/11 02:10 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Internal energies  Trust and openness 
We have gone over this a zillion times. There are 10,000+ religions and countless cults because of this trusting in another and/or accepting one's inner landscapes as representative of any sort of deeper reality.
These silly ideas never aided the progress of mankind in the slightest; whereas the examining of the external world has yielded wonders never previously dreamed of.
--------------------
|
R2-D2
horseradish


Registered: 12/14/10
Posts: 945
Last seen: 4 years, 29 days
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#14182481 - 03/25/11 02:28 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Internal energies  Trust and openness 
We have gone over this a zillion times. There are 10,000+ religions and countless cults because of this trusting in another and/or accepting one's inner landscapes as representative of any sort of deeper reality.
These silly ideas never aided the progress of mankind in the slightest; whereas the examining of the external world has yielded wonders never previously dreamed of.
kekekekekekekeke lol ya you're right
I say there is no 'deeper reality' What you are experiencing is 'material' (without further trying to divide experience into internal/external and all that fuckshit). Literally, WHAT YOU ARE EXPERIENCING is the 'material'. The only material is material experience. The only 'immaterial' is 'immaterial'. "Something" cannot be immaterial, only the void, the complete absence of all beingness, including nothingness (the perception of nothingness) is actually immaterial, as it is immateriality itself.
I think people make this kinda stuff waaay more esoteric than it really is. Reality, material, existence or whatever word it's pretty cool, methinks
--------------------
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,857
Last seen: 54 minutes, 7 seconds
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#14182492 - 03/25/11 02:29 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
this is how it works: we can make different conclusions from the same data. For example:
is it a duck or a rabbit?

That was just a simple example to show the principal. When you have a complex data set you can find what ever you want to look for:

Our internel experience is an extraordinarily complex data set. You can find whatever constellations that you look for. This process is just like when you look at a rorschach blot. I would argue that what you find when looking at the your internal experience tells you more about your bias then it does about what is really going on. When you say that something is obvious, its like me telling you, "Look at this inkblot, its obviously a cricket" :
|
R2-D2
horseradish


Registered: 12/14/10
Posts: 945
Last seen: 4 years, 29 days
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: Freedom]
#14182549 - 03/25/11 02:38 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah that needed to be said, Freedom. I think language in is very much like this, too. I often find myself able to parse a single sentence in 3+ different ways.
edit: but the real data is the picture itself, not what one decides it is
--------------------
Edited by R2-D2 (03/25/11 02:39 PM)
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: R2-D2]
#14182588 - 03/25/11 02:45 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
but the real data is the picture itself, not what one decides it is
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: Freedom]
#14182939 - 03/25/11 06:02 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
A cricket?! Are you blind or just daft? It's a penguin wearing a bow tie.
--------------------
|
Poid
Shroomery's #1 Spellir




Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,372
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: "How can you provide material evidence of the immaterial?" [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#14183449 - 03/25/11 07:27 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I thought the last one was a pubic-hair louse.
-------------------- Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan  fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
|