|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
#21885024 - 07/01/15 08:55 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|

Cool! Where is the damned sugar?
--------------------
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,808
|
|
In your cupboard I presume.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
#21885425 - 07/01/15 10:23 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: I don't think you understand the difference between rationally impossible and rationally possible.
I'll try to explain it, It's rationally possible that the moon is made of cheese, this is because it could be true, not saying it is but it is still technically possible.
The rationally impossible is not technically possible, like a square circle.
Flying to the moon is rationally possible.
I cannot deny the rationally possible because it has the potential to exist but I can deny the rationally impossible as it does not.
No one's necessarily denying that there may be relatively straight forward inductions you are able make. You'll be okay thinking for yourself.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt]
#21885515 - 07/01/15 10:47 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I once had an original thought, but I am all bedder now.
--------------------
|
Khancious
da Crow



Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
|
|
Headphones and a neck message can cure erectile dysfunction
-------------------- I am that, which is.
|
Coincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic


Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Khancious]
#21886493 - 07/02/15 06:09 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I use this arguement when it comes to DMT...and religion, but its because ive experianced things which provided me with empirical evidence and proof of these things, now, I may not be able to communicate these these to other people, or if I can I'm aware that my simple claims are not sufficient evidence, so what do you say to people?
"I know because my experiance wont allow me to deny it"
Actually, I would say "I'm pretty sure because my experiance wont allow me to deny it" ...because I also know that as a human I really don't know anything for sure, so I'm comfortable with saying "I'm pretty sure this is whats happening, but I acknowledge the possibility that I may be wrong"
Is this not reasonable?
-E. Borodin
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
The problem is: people often commingle their experience with their conclusion.
Real world example: "I saw a Bigfoot and no one can tell me otherwise." (It was a bear.)
The experience would better be described as "I saw a large furry animal, but because of my preconceived belief in Bigfeets, I jumped to the conclusion that it must be a Squatch."
Same for NDEs, ghost, UFOs, telepathy, miracles and other assorted things of that nature.
--------------------
|
Coincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic


Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: The problem is: people often commingle their experience with their conclusion.
Real world example: "I saw a Bigfoot and no one can tell me otherwise." (It was a bear.)
The experience would better be described as "I saw a large furry animal, but because of my preconceived belief in Bigfeets, I jumped to the conclusion that it must be a Squatch."
Same for NDEs, ghost, UFOs, telepathy, miracles and other assorted things of that nature.
I respectufully disargree with the statements about telepathy, NDE, UFOs, etc...
DMT was the convincing agent, I experianced death, my conscious being left my physical body, the only difference between death and a DMT break-through is that you come back from a DMT trip....and with DMT we have repeatable experiance, we cant induce UFO sightings or near death experiance, there's no repeatability of experiance,this is why these things hold such a peripheral place in the human experiance, but it doesn't make them any less real.
Ive experianced things science cant explain, that science cant even touch, though these things ate very real, the impulse to deny personal experiance in favor of what outside influeances say "can and cant happen" is what fuels this debate, people feel that because its never happened to them that it cant happen to anyone....
Here's telepathy in daily life, have you ever looked at a person who didn't know you were watching them? And had the person instantly turn around toward you? His did they know they were being watched? Rupert sheldrake describes experiments in which an isolated individuals would have to guess "am I being watched or not" their backs were facing a window, sometimes a person would look at the individual other times not, more often than not the individuals KNEW when they were being watched....is this not telepathy in its most basic form? This is an everyday occorance, science says telepathy doesn't exist, yet I experiance it on a daily basis....
Science is great for describing the laws of 3 dimentional time and space and the world we live in, however there are very real things on other plains, science itself through quantum physics admits the universe is multidimentional....
It may not be wise to take reality at face value, most things are not whet they appear, most things are counter-intuitive....
Ive been bringing up Samuel Johnson's refutation of bishop Berkeley quite a lot recently, but it applies... Refutation of Bishop Berkeley After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."
I see scientists as Johnson, stubbing their toes on rocks to confirm the reality of the existance that surrounds them, its actually a very sophmoric and childish way to pfecieve the universe...
(For even science will tell you: all atoms consist of a nucleus with electrons in orbit, te nucleus of any two atoms never touch (except in a neutron star) so all matter is more empty space and electronic matter than anything physical, the nucleus is even speculated to be a vibrating energy string...nothing physical....
The rules are not set either, read a science book that's 10 years out of date, its inaccurate, and in 10 years from now science will believe something different, so everything you believe to be right will eventually be proven wrong by the very force you put faith in to describe the laws of your existance, science.
I'm an objective observer, I think science has lost its objectivity....
E. Borodin
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Here we go again.
Quote:
my conscious being left my physical body
That is your perception. Nothing left your body because you are your body. Not one person in recorded history has ever shown evidence of such travel - not in NDEs, astral projection, nor drug-induced altered states.
Quote:
Here's telepathy in daily life, have you ever looked at a person who didn't know you were watching them? And had the person instantly turn around toward you? His did they know they were being watched?
*double sigh*
This common misperception has been repeatedly tested and repeatedly failed. Do this under controlled conditions and win a million dollars from JREF.
Quote:
I think science has lost its objectivity....
Puh-lease. Science is a methodology and as such cannot gain or lose anything.
Back to the drawing board with ye!
--------------------
|
Khancious
da Crow



Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
|
|
But how can I paint telepathy?
-------------------- I am that, which is.
|
Coincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic


Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Khancious]
#21887708 - 07/02/15 12:22 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Ebin Alexander was an interesting non-DMT case.
All I'm trying to say is there are VERY real aspects of existance Which science is unable or unwilling to look into.
....and to think that all that is real is what is immediately precieved by our base senses or explainable by our currant state of science is a mistake, the situations is obviously far more complex.
-E. Borodin
to, or cant look
|
Coincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic


Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
|
Science is full of scientists who have interest in their theory being the accepted one, they will fight tooth and nail to defend their science even if its obviously wrong, science is full of credit hungry grab-tailing weasels desperate for funding, its lost its objectivity. Theory is defended as sacred fact and to say anything to oppose the all mighty accepted scientific theories is seen as blasphemy....but I suppose you would have to be close to scientists and involved in the scientific community to know this.
-E. Borodin
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,866
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
Quote:
Kurt said:
Quote:
sudly said: I don't think you understand the difference between rationally impossible and rationally possible.
I'll try to explain it, It's rationally possible that the moon is made of cheese, this is because it could be true, not saying it is but it is still technically possible.
The rationally impossible is not technically possible, like a square circle.
Flying to the moon is rationally possible.
I cannot deny the rationally possible because it has the potential to exist but I can deny the rationally impossible as it does not.
No one's necessarily denying that there may be relatively straight forward inductions you are able make. You'll be okay thinking for yourself.
again: square circles are not rationally impossible, they are an actual thing. there are equations to describe them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squircle
Quote:
A squircle is a mathematical shape with properties between those of a square and those of a circle. It is a special case of superellipse. The word "squircle" is a portmanteau of the words "square" and "circle".
also, the moon could not be made of stinky cheese. it is not rationally possible because it has been confirmed already as being made out of rocks. of course, rocks and stinky cheese are made out of the same shit at a sub-atomic level, so in a way, it could be argued that the moon is in fact made of stinky cheese(or at least the same component parts). In any event, i will say to you once more sir, that you are not the ultimate arbiter of rationality. Your knowledge of the workings of the universe is not conclusive. You know what you know, but you don't know what you don't know. Any attempt to claim more than that is intellectually dishonest. that is all
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Coincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic


Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
#21887904 - 07/02/15 01:19 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
....by the way, Rupert sheldrake did conduct several different types of controlled studies (he also references several controlled studies conducted by others), most of which seemed to confirm his theorys, some did fail, but it was more do to logistical issues than the reasoning behind it. Im not saying I believe these things, but just like anything else I consider them as a possibility....
-E. Borodin
|
Hippocampus



Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
Bill Withers said:I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know, I know
|
Coincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic


Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Hippocampus]
#21888047 - 07/02/15 01:53 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Orgoneconclusion said controlled studies proved the opposite. Which is not entirley the case.
-E. Borodin
|
Hippocampus



Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
|
He's the Scully to your Mulder, but without the titillating sexual tension.
|
Coincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic


Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Hippocampus]
#21888274 - 07/02/15 02:52 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Its hard for me to see how psilocin users can think this way, which further leads me to believe that DMT is the true convincer. The problem with psilocin is the users never take it in shamanic doses, ive taken 6 gram trips where ive reached States very similar to a DMT peak, so I know psilocin has potential, however most never take advantage of its full range of effects....
Smoked DMT in the 150-200mg dose range should convince any skeptic. (Though some people are too dense to grasp the implications of the experiance)
-E. Borodin
|
Coincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic


Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
|
I get into these debates in real life and it always ends with me providing the individual with a high dose DMT experiance....ill put it this way its never the same debate after.
-E. Borodin
|
liquidlounge

Registered: 12/22/10
Posts: 9,256
|
|
Quote:
Coincidentiaoppositorum said: Smoked DMT in the 150-200mg dose range should convince any skeptic. (Though some people are too dense to grasp the implications of the experiance)
You're a prime example of what OC was pointing out in the OP.
-------------------- As far as I assume to know...
|
|