Home | Community | Message Board

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours
About THAT Big Bang
    #28221848 - 03/09/23 06:56 AM (10 months, 15 days ago)

HOW TO AVOID FALLING FOR THE MALADAPTIVE DELUSION OF SPIRITUAL DENIALISM

This is a really, really tricky issue, because it's kind of unbelievable how hypnotized I was into spiritual denialism. I mean, how could I fall for not believing in something that obviously just a truth all along? I think a lot of people fall into the same hypnotic pitfalls that I did, so I'll clear the air on a few things.

Scientific method is GREAT but LIMITED. To start, while it's commonly made out as if science is the best and only way to understanding, this is false. First, science, by its own very nature, can't "prove" or "disprove" that science is the "best" and "only way" to understanding. Therefore any scientific thinker who asserts so is ironically running afoul of his own principals by being "arbitrary" or "subjective", not "objective", which the scientific method demands.

What do we even mean when we use the word "science"? Science, simply put, is an outgrowth of philosophy that teaches using the scientific method to ascertain understanding. In other words, it can cast a net in trying to understand questions, but it's not an unlimited net. Particularly, it can only map onto the sensory world of "consensus reality" requiring peer-to-peer agreement (an arbitrary blinder to "unique" situations) and/or be meaningful in terms of allowing for description and comparison between things. In that sense, it cares about objective reality and can't deal with things that are too "subjective". But what about things that we don't have words for? What about things that aren't predictably recurring? What about being forever in our Mind and trying to understand if there's a world without it? Could we know about it? What about something that happens in my experience but you don't have access to? What about being outside the five senses, or... how we would know that there isn't another sense?

Try describing the color "green" to someone. Science can't do it. It can describe what it means in terms of wavelengths and photons, but it will never get to the actual sensation and, frankly, the true meaning / essence of "green". It's for this reason that we don't actually know if other people have minds!

If this by itself didn't show the gap the scientific method leaves by itself in our understanding of the world, worse still, is that it leaves the biggest mystery of them all unanswered: it doesn't explain how the world exists, it merely kicks the can down the road. Where did "physical laws" come from to create the singularity of the Big Bang? Why did there even need to be "physical laws"? Why those "physical laws" and not some other physical laws? Why the multiverse and no multiverse? Why logic and no logic at all? These are questions, again, that require us to use more than just the scientific method to inform our understanding of the world.

With all that said, science--no doubt--has produced a lot of very impressive results. It's actionability in producing information though should not be taken as evidence that it is the "be all, end all" of discovering truth. All science's success means is that, well, it's really good at discovering what it CAN discover. People can easily fall into spiritual denialism by throwing away the baby with the bathwater. After all, if you all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a set of nails (especially when you've produced some nice woodwork!). And, as my last paragraph illustrated, not every nail is going to be hit by the "scientific method" hammer unfortunately. Again, this is not a criticism of science, but rather just of scientism: assuming that the scientific method is the only way to understanding.

ABOUT THAT "BIG BANG".

First, the Big Bang is often misconceptualized. As the Big Bang theory goes: there was a singularity (for an unknown reason existed) and was apparently "too dense" and physical laws were "just" there (why & how were they there?) that required an explosion from this "denseness" (why those physical laws and not some other, also remains unknown). None of that, again is wrong, per se, but the popular misconceptualization is that the Big Bang happened in a space "out there". That's not the actual case, as scientists understand it. The Big Bang was, of course, the very expansion of space-time. So, there is no "out there", because there is nothing outside of it. A little philosophy could have told us that though: If something is outside of Reality, it is very much a "real thing" and part of Reality. So, there's no boundary. This is ultimately why there's the General Relativity theory. There is no external scale at which you can say things are "before" or "after" the universe or Reality, and there's no external scale at which you can say things are to the "right" or to the "left" of it. Things are necessarily interconnected for this reason, as nothing can truly be separate from the Home and can only be talked about in context to something else. Things can't just have an independent floating meaning without context, or a shared distributed medium of meaning. This includes your mental self and the world around you. And you only ever live in your Mind; the Mind is the only realm in which we experience anything. Since it's not separate from Reality but part of Reality, Reality is literally alive and conscious. Yes, the Universe is conscious because YOU are. That's it. Why wasn't the Big Bang talked about in its accurate way in school? Can you not see how that imparts a greater spiritual understanding????

Instead, what I got was to think about all of the stars "out there", and how I was a piece of meat that didn't matter. The situation was so bad that, at this point, I distinguish between the word "Universe" and "Reality" even though they technically are the same thing and "Universe" is a great word: after all, it literally translates into "one word", an interesting nod to the mystical truths!!!! I was taught about it in a way that made me feel like a foreigner to a place cut outside of me, separating subject from object: I was told to just look at the "stars". Just look at the "stars". They are part of a solar system. Which is part of a galaxy. Which is part of a cluster galaxy. Which is part of a Universe. It made me think in a very materialistic way: here I am; there that is. When I die, I'm just a piece of crap that never meant much to the world. This is where that kind of teaching led me. Again, the teaching wasn't wrong per se, it's just I guess the emphasis did not go towards the spiritual truth. The previous paragraph contains a much more empowering view of the Big Bang. Were it talked about in this way, perhaps we could have avoided many of the so-called "religion vs. science" "debates".

Quote:

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.

~Erwin Schrodinger (Nature and the Greeks)




--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGorguss
Chaotic sums


Registered: 02/03/10
Posts: 634
Last seen: 21 minutes, 24 seconds
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28221920 - 03/09/23 08:08 AM (10 months, 14 days ago)

From my understanding of blackholes and singularities, it seems that the universe is an infinite froth. The moments of time that are observable are from the crest or trough of point of that froth. Time for me seems like it can be happening in the future (a place) and here at different times based on where you are. So imagine your in a spaceship look at a blackhole form a safe distance/orbit. Suppose someone wanted to float on in and die for the sake of whatever... From our perspective on the spaceship, they would never totally 'fall in' and become invisible behind the event horizon. Just at the event horizon or before, time would be so distorted that they would remain frozen like a picture, from the perspective of people in the spaceship.

Now for the person however, he would not be frozen, he would gently float on in and as he turned around to wave goodbye to the people in the spaceship, he would now be seeing the expansion of the universe in fast forward. He is falling into a place where time doesn't exist. All matter and energy are compressed into a single point apparently.

So above are what people theorized would happen. And some have theorized about the end result of a blackholes life. I the theory that they are seeds to the next froth/universe, however you want to say it for now is fine. But eventually we are going to have a word for the infinite universe as it is only happening as 1, here in this part, but across an infinite distance of time, more of the very same froth/universe is happening.

As for spirituality, my own ties neatly into the above. You are just you for a moment, you have your peaks troughs crests, but someday you diminish and return to the source. Nothing of you actually gets destroyed, The first law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of conservation of energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it can be changed from one form to another.

I don't think our consciousness goes some place, or afterlife in the standard sense. No soul, no heaven or hell. But we are still going back to somewhere we all once were. That is just a fact. So, we must entertain the thought of 'our' consciousness ending, along with every other instance of reality. Stars die, planets die, blackholes die, but there seems to be a cycle of rebirth, and the biggest one is the one we can't answer yet, does the universe have a 'rebirth' even if it isn't itself, does anything exist once our universe ends?

So two definitions, the "infinite universe", and "the void". There will be gaps of endless expanse in my version of the 'multi-verse if you will. Perhaps even in the void, where time is the only thing that exist, perhaps its properties change, and it acts like a single point. I have lots of ideas about that stuff. Theoretical physics can be fun even if your just an amateur. Gotta remember to walk heavy with the ball and chain of doubt, I don't know all the shit I said to be true. I hardly believe it, but I can think of the variables of possibility.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: Gorguss]
    #28221929 - 03/09/23 08:24 AM (10 months, 14 days ago)

That was absolutely beautiful Gorguss. I think it's well said. Is that how science describes it? Because, whatever you just described, it's keeping with my general philosophy. It's for the same reason that there is no true center to the Universe, it exists everywhere at once (please don't reference the movie).

But I don't know. I think Reality is more incredible than we can appreciate; whatever we find through physics, logic, and mathematics generally continually proves to be astonishing, as do psychedelics. Who knows what's out there that we can't fully conceptualize in our current state?


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSvetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑
Male

Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 22 minutes
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28222083 - 03/09/23 10:29 AM (10 months, 14 days ago)

Can you further describe your previous spiritual denialism?

What exactly do you mean by that term?


You mentioned in some other threads that you crashed into the spiritual domain unexpectedly, and that it brought you some cognitive shock.

Could you elaborate on this a little? What did you experience that made you so certain about the spiritual realm?


You mentioned some of the limits of the scientific method here, and some of the difficult questions it may never be able to answer.

What alternative method do you use to answer these questions?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: Svetaketu]
    #28222157 - 03/09/23 12:09 PM (10 months, 14 days ago)

Spiritual denialism is the inability to accept what is plainly in front of us: that there exists a class of experiences that are "ineffable" and impart understanding (though different interpretations of that understanding can be made). Spiritual denialism is typically used as a means to closed-mindedly shut down the existence of other experiences, because it doesn't confirm to one's worldview. In a certain sense, spiritual denialism is self-defeating, since no experience can ever be fully described through words (as I say, try describing feeling of the color "green").

With that said, people who disagree with the existence of various interpretations of spiritual experience are not necessarily spiritual denialists. It could, for instance, possibly be a gigantic delusion, but, in this case, the delusion is the reality.

I was led to believe that it was all BS, just trust what the science books have laid out, and that's it. It's just not the case, hasn't ever been, and now I see I was totally brainwashed by a cult of thinkers, who weren't even consistent with the forefathers of some of our great science!

The cognitive shock was "synchronicities" happening on a level that I felt was out of pace with normal life. While we can chalk up one individual "synchronicity" to a dumb coincidence, a sea of them happening in a ridiculous manner tend to strike the intuition that "there may be more here than I originally appreciated", especially when the synchronicities collectively form a decisive message. Like, for instance, I would think of the concept "555", and then I would watch a TV show that day, and it would have a big scene on 5555555. Or, I'm thinking about "333", and then I come into the room and my Dad tells me a football team won by 3 points after losing by three points in the last 3 games. Or then me stumbling upon a website on numerology that precisely lays out the symbols that I've been seeing. I'm not a numerology nerd--in fact, I've never even thought about the topic or researched it. I would personally tend to think it's BS, and most of it probably is. But, why would the symbols that I've seen come out in such a way and then be confirmed by "numerologists" to be the important numbers?

Or, me thinking of someone showing up to my doorstep with a pizza box, and then my Mom randomly shows up with a pizza box (no pizza was inside of it). Stuff that's pretty outlandish happening at a rate that's out of pace with normal synchronicities on a day-to-day pretty much hour-to-hour basis. Or, I'm thinking about someone that I haven't seen in years showing up on my doorstep, and she shows up on my doorstep the next day (literally, no one shows up on my doorstep... and this person lives 20 miles away from me, I haven't seen or heard of her in years).

So, at a certain point, I go from "yeah, we have a million thoughts a day, dumb coincidences, affirmation bias happen" to "hmmmm... maybe". That this period coincided was presaged by a non-drug induced mystical experience that lasted 16 hours adds to the level of clues.

Ultimately, NONE of this amounts to proof, but I can't say it can be disproved either. At the end of the day, it comes down to a simple level of intuition based on one's sense of probabilities and personal bias.

And, most importantly, it's kind of moot. Because interpretation is sort of a petty issue to me. The existence of the mystical domain is what matters to me, not the nitty-gritty detail workout that will always be subject to debate and perspective.

That's a great question about alternatives to the scientific method. First, the scientific method is excellent at what it can do, but it is not to be confused with the entire territory of what it explores.

I think a good alternative is to just allow the imagination to consider the possibilities. Science can tackle some of the imagination's questions. But, as Einstein said, "atheists are people who are not aware of the wonders of the spheres" and "imagination is more important than knowledge" (paraphrasing). There are certain undecidable questions, but using the scientific method to limit the questions we ask and appreciate is to allow the epistemological limit of the tool (the scientific method) to limit our view on reality. Ultimately, reality doesn't give a damn about our methods of interrogation, is my view.

Accordingly, it's not surprising to me that some of the greatest physicists, Einstein, Planck, Schrodinger, Pauli, Heisenberg, Bohr were all deeply influenced by "crack pot" mystical ideas... because they were able to do both the scientific method intelligently while appreciating what lays beyond its grasp that could perhaps be alluded by the ineffable.


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGorguss
Chaotic sums


Registered: 02/03/10
Posts: 634
Last seen: 21 minutes, 24 seconds
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: Svetaketu]
    #28222165 - 03/09/23 12:15 PM (10 months, 14 days ago)

I think psychedelics have more to teach us and challenge about our understanding of our egos, perception, and what consciousness is. I don't think the tree is wavy as fuck for everyone else, it's my senses that have been distorted. Objective reality is different than how we perceive it, but the objective part is what's more or less true, and our perception is what's on the line of fault.

Of course, there may be some threshold science cannot cross, like if we were in a simulation, but to assume answer after that limit is in my opinion wrong. That inductive way of thinking is part of humanity's shackles.

Spirituality is the connection you feel with objective reality, at least this is what it means to me. Me and the world/place I live in are separate by a thin veneer. My code that is my DNA makes me but that code spawned from simpler make ups like the periodic table of elements. That code spawned from the unravelling of the big bang. In this sense, the universe is alive. This is the sort of none measured spirituality that lean towards if I ever get close.

Everything else is objective, measured and grounded in science. Decisions we make about our lives should be guesstimated with some foundation of rules and physics are built right in. Everyone is already obeying the rules of our universe whether they like it or not. Step close to a cliff edge or a tall building, you know instinctually caution or danger, cause if you go over, gravity will pull you to the bottom.

This is the hard part for thinking of blackholes and extradimensional stuff, we really only think and conceptualize 3d


--------------------
------------

------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGorguss
Chaotic sums


Registered: 02/03/10
Posts: 634
Last seen: 21 minutes, 24 seconds
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: Gorguss]
    #28222171 - 03/09/23 12:20 PM (10 months, 14 days ago)

You don't feel the color green you see it, and if it can be measured you can show that color to others. Even if they don't see the same color because they can't see the wavelengths(something wrong with their eyes/Occipital lobe) Our own personal feelings/experiences/interpretation of the objective reality is the variable. It's what counts, but only in a menial way. If the color green frightens me, that's my interpretation of reality but it doesn't mean green has more to it.


--------------------
------------

------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: Gorguss]
    #28222193 - 03/09/23 12:47 PM (10 months, 14 days ago)

Quote:

Gorguss said:
I think psychedelics have more to teach us and challenge about our understanding of our egos, perception, and what consciousness is. I don't think the tree is wavy as fuck for everyone else, it's my senses that have been distorted. Objective reality is different than how we perceive it, but the objective part is what's more or less true, and our perception is what's on the line of fault.

Of course, there may be some threshold science cannot cross, like if we were in a simulation, but to assume answer after that limit is in my opinion wrong. That inductive way of thinking is part of humanity's shackles.

Spirituality is the connection you feel with objective reality, at least this is what it means to me. Me and the world/place I live in are separate by a thin veneer. My code that is my DNA makes me but that code spawned from simpler make ups like the periodic table of elements. That code spawned from the unravelling of the big bang. In this sense, the universe is alive. This is the sort of none measured spirituality that lean towards if I ever get close.

Everything else is objective, measured and grounded in science. Decisions we make about our lives should be guesstimated with some foundation of rules and physics are built right in. Everyone is already obeying the rules of our universe whether they like it or not. Step close to a cliff edge or a tall building, you know instinctually caution or danger, cause if you go over, gravity will pull you to the bottom.

This is the hard part for thinking of blackholes and extradimensional stuff, we really only think and conceptualize 3d




I love your thoughts. The only thing I question is this divider line you make between the "objective" and the "subjective". Perhaps there's no divider line after all? How do you know something "objective" actually exists when it's reported only through "subjective" means, and the "subjective" interpretation can be so variable? It feels like you're giving way to mind-body dualism. I don't think anyone has an answer to that, but this idea of an objective world existing outside your senses, believe it or not, has never been "seen". I tend to believe in a dual-aspect monism, where "material" or "objective" and "mind" "subjective" are two sides of the same coin, but I have absolutely no idea. The only idea I am opposed to is that the "subjective" world doesn't exist. In truth, it's the "outside" world that's unknowable.


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGorguss
Chaotic sums


Registered: 02/03/10
Posts: 634
Last seen: 21 minutes, 24 seconds
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28222278 - 03/09/23 01:51 PM (10 months, 14 days ago)

I have met some people who have this similar idea as you do, that if it hasn't been seen, does it really exist?

The answer can sometimes be found in thought experiments. For example, blackholes, gravity waves and more phenomena were theorized on paper before they were ever seen or measured. It was 70 years later that LIGO detected a gravity wave, and of course there was another similar instrument to double check if it was a glitch or an actual measurement. Blackholes were only recently observed using many radio telescopes across the world and complex algorithms to piece together the picture.

So, things can be predicted to exist, before they are 'seen' and that only happens when you are working with the right set of rules, and you can extrapolate those rules on paper, like imagination, but grounded in reality. Math and science aren't making up reality as it discovers it, it is measuring reality as it observes it and breaking it down into its most fundamental aspects. E=mc2 is only a small part of the equation that Einstein discovered that says energy is equal to mass x the speed of light squared.

Understanding that mars is a barren landscape with no life to speak of, and there is nothing to observe it, but outsiders (us) doesn't mean that if we didn't exist, neither would reality. I think they go over these types of things in philosophy. Once you take yourself out of the equation it's really rather simple and not so deep after all. Things exist independent of whether or not you or anyone observes them. Gravity waves were already reverberating through space when some great ape called Einstein predicted intense gravity wells could create such a thing, and those waves travelled invisibly at the speed of light for 7 decades before other humans put his theory to the test, and discovered he was right after all.

I get the sense you will be reluctant to move forward with this explanation of reality and sentient creatures' observation of it.


--------------------
------------

------------


Edited by Gorguss (03/09/23 01:53 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: Gorguss]
    #28222315 - 03/09/23 02:12 PM (10 months, 14 days ago)

Not quite. I actually agree with what you're saying. Your point about mars is aligned with my views (at this moment). I think there's an objective world where the subjective mirrors off it in different ways, but I don't know for sure. What is the case to me is that without a Perceiver, Mars doesn't "look" like anything. We only know about the "looking" not this objective thing called Mars standing alongside it. I have Faith that Mars objectively exists based on a preponderance of evidence that to me, intuitively strikes me as enough to say it objectively exists, but I can't say for sure. I'm also skeptical though of dualistic attempts to force a strict difference between "objectivity" and "subjectivity".

Quote:

“The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one.”
~ Erwin Schrodinger.




I would suggest reading Schrodinger's works in My View on the World. It's a great read. Entirely scientific, but totally mystical at the same time. By the way, I think all of what you wrote above strikes me as deeply spiritual. I think there's some nuance that I appreciate a little differently, but that's OK. As you said, that's our "flavoring".


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGorguss
Chaotic sums


Registered: 02/03/10
Posts: 634
Last seen: 21 minutes, 24 seconds
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28222344 - 03/09/23 02:26 PM (10 months, 14 days ago)

Mars can't be looked at if no one existed, but the light from the sun would hit it anyway, and it would absorb/reflect as it does now.

A good example of talking about something that exist but we just can't see it would be like ultraviolet. It's a wavelength of light too high for us to see. Other creatures have adapted to be able to see it through. So, while I see regular flowers only mildly different than other vegetation, a creature who sees in ultraviolet can spot the flower like a white dot against a black back drop.

Iron oxide (rust) looks orangey-red because it reflects back that wavelength of light.

Objective truth, and subjective truth. Weight should be applied to the objective one first, and then your subjective take on it last. You wouldn't build a rocket on hopes and dreams. You would do every calculation you possibly could make it work.

I guess what I'm saying is, if your life ended right now, would anyone or anything else still exist?

How you answer that question is whether or not you think there is an objective reality that is independent of observation.


--------------------
------------

------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSvetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑
Male

Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 22 minutes
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: Gorguss]
    #28222493 - 03/09/23 03:25 PM (10 months, 14 days ago)

Interesting thoughts.

I agree with large chunks of what you've both written, but some things are a bit confusing to me.

Quote:

solarshroomster said:
Spiritual denialism is the inability to accept what is plainly in front of us: that there exists a class of experiences that are "ineffable" and impart understanding (though different interpretations of that understanding can be made).




I would agree there are ineffable experiences, though that may just be a failing of language.

How do you define spiritual?

You mentioned the existence of a mystical domain, what exactly is that?

What is it about many extreme coincidences in a short time that makes them spiritual? Do you believe they were caused by something spiritual or mystical?

I think imagination is great, and good scientists should encourage imagination; though I also see how scientists may be dismissive of ideas that they feel cannot be tested.

Quote:

Gorguss said:
Spirituality is the connection you feel with objective reality, at least this is what it means to me. Me and the world/place I live in are separate by a thin veneer. My code that is my DNA makes me but that code spawned from simpler make ups like the periodic table of elements. That code spawned from the unravelling of the big bang. In this sense, the universe is alive. This is the sort of none measured spirituality that lean towards if I ever get close.





This is an interesting definition I haven't heard before.

How can you tell if you are connected to the objective reality vs a subjective reality?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: Svetaketu]
    #28222664 - 03/09/23 05:26 PM (10 months, 14 days ago)

Quote:

Svetaketu said:
Interesting thoughts.

I agree with large chunks of what you've both written, but some things are a bit confusing to me.

Quote:

solarshroomster said:
Spiritual denialism is the inability to accept what is plainly in front of us: that there exists a class of experiences that are "ineffable" and impart understanding (though different interpretations of that understanding can be made).




I would agree there are ineffable experiences, though that may just be a failing of language.

How do you define spiritual?

You mentioned the existence of a mystical domain, what exactly is that?

What is it about many extreme coincidences in a short time that makes them spiritual? Do you believe they were caused by something spiritual or mystical?

I think imagination is great, and good scientists should encourage imagination; though I also see how scientists may be dismissive of ideas that they feel cannot be tested.




If something is ineffable, there is a failing of verbal language, not necessarily language itself. Dualists who try to use this same argument that because we can't describe something, such as qualia, and therefore it isn't "physical" miss the point for a similar reason. Something can still be "physical" but so characteristically different than what is commonly understood as "physical", that we should probably use another term to describe it even though it's technically the same thing. I believe physics has done a great job to dismantling any notion that we lived in the hard, concrete "materialism" we were originally led to believe. We can continue to call it "materialism", but when we start getting to talking about deep physics, it quite frankly sounds a lot like what the mystics have been talking about for millennia. For instance, concepts that are entertained now by physicists about time and parallel worlds can still be said to be "physics", but these are concepts that long originated in the parent of the scientific method, philosophy... and, particularly, mystical thought.

This leads me to answering your next two questions. You're not going to really like my response to your questions about how I define the "spiritual" or "mystical domain", but it's a totally fair question on your part to ask. At the end of the day, I define this as an ineffable feeling that imparts knowledge on people that don't translate in the ordinary state of consciousness.  It tends to strike me as "mystical" or "spiritual", but you don't have to use those terms! My brother, for instance, hates using those terms and prefers something else. What's important to note, however, is that this ineffable feeling gets people to act in ways that are divergent from those who haven't experienced it... and they act in a manner as if they've "seen something else" that's objectively confirmatory based on their behaviors, including conversant discussion over esoteric concepts and newly changed behavior associated with such expressed ineffable experiences. This sounds to me like what I always thought about when I heard the word "mystical".

Finally, for your question about extreme coincidences, the first two responses reflect my answer. Things can be both natural and spiritual. Science is, as they say, "magic explained". I think the phenomena don't have conventional explanation, but science can possibly catch up to it at some point. I think it's more than "dumb coincidence", but I'm open to the idea that I could be totally mistaken. It's just that... at the point at which I would be so mistaken, I now have even more questions: how could one be so mistaken? It seems that the delusional thinking is even more amazing than the delusion itself in this instance. But, I don't know. It's an interesting topic, and I wish people would be willing to say "I don't know" more often.

Where I disagree with you is that you seem to endorse the idea that scientists should be "dismissive of ideas that they feel cannot be tested". Totally disagree. Unfortunately, when one is so cocky about the successes of their pursuit, as is understandable for those who have used the scientific method, they fail to see beyond their methodology. I see this all the time in life. When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a set of nails. It's just not the case. Your method can be thoroughly successful investigating some things, but fail to capture everything. To say that my sensation of green doesn't exist because your method can't prove it, or to say that I can't think, because you can't prove it, requires a leap of faith. To say that there isn't a material world alongside the mental world, also requires a leap of faith. And yet, for some of them, I make the leap of faith based on intuition. Though I can't prove that your mind exists, I believe it anyway. Maybe science will catch up to the problem of "other minds", but right now, it seems to be an intractable problem with the scientific method.


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSvetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑
Male

Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 22 minutes
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28223796 - 03/10/23 12:52 PM (10 months, 13 days ago)

I would agree that ineffable experiences and qualia may be purely physical phenomenon, but I can't know for sure.

You seem to be saying that these spiritual phenomena are based in the physical world. Wouldn't that just be materialism? I don't think materialists claim to know everything there is already, there is certainly much uncharted territory.

I agree these ineffable experiences impart ideas that have measurable effects, but does that make the "knowledge" they impart absolutely true? I am very wary of intuition.


Quote:

I think it's more than "dumb coincidence", but I'm open to the idea that I could be totally mistaken. It's just that... at the point at which I would be so mistaken, I now have even more questions: how could one be so mistaken? It seems that the delusional thinking is even more amazing than the delusion itself in this instance.




I agree, I don't know is the honest answer. The synchronicities I have personally experienced seem unimpressive and I feel I have explanations for them (as you mentioned, confirmation bias or counting the hits and ignoring the misses), but I haven't experienced your synchronicities and they may have been much more impressive.

I will however say that IME delusional thinking is truly fascinating and has no limits. A month or so ago I had a long conversation with someone who believes the world is flat. He was young, intelligent, and genuinely believed he was correct. I was shocked at his ability to disregard what I considered good evidence of a spherical world.

Quote:

Where I disagree with you is that you seem to endorse the idea that scientists should be "dismissive of ideas that they feel cannot be tested". Totally disagree.




I get what you are saying, it's at the very least impolite to be so dismissive. However I think its hard to take an idea seriously if it has no scientific basis or testability. After all, there are potentially infinite ideas and explanation for the phenomena we experience, and we have a finite amount of time to investigate them. It seems like we won't get anywhere if we give all unfalsifiable claims our full attention.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: Svetaketu]
    #28223862 - 03/10/23 01:36 PM (10 months, 13 days ago)

You could use the term "materialism" to describe it, but given where we are at with our knowledge, "materialism" doesn't properly evoke the feeling I've learned, even through science. It's very fuzzy, and things aren't as solid as we make them out to be, ie. "materialism" is not a good word for it. I think the word "physicalism" is better, and "abstractism" better still. At a certain point, the term doesn't convey what it was originally meant to convey.

Quote:

I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.
~ Werner Heisnerberg





I don't know anything about Plato, but one of the founders of quantum mechanics was right on the money when he said "the smallest units are not physical objects in the ordinary sense". Note how he says "ordinary sense". In other words, sure, you can call them "physical objects"... but they are not what we normally think of as "physical objects".

You say you're wary of intuition, yet, ironically, intuition undergirds your entire belief system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think logic, for instance, rules reality? That's based on an intuitive feeling. You seem to think that testability can provide a concrete answer, but how do you know the things you find out today will be true tomorrow or were true in the distant past? How do you even know there was a past? No matter what way you cut it, you're gonna have to take a dose of faith.

Your friend who couldn't believe that we don't live on a "flat earth" should be sympathetic with you. He doesn't believe that he can trust the intuitive feeling that evidence has stacked up in front of him to show it's spherical. Why should he? At the end of the day, he himself hasn't personally seen it as a sphere, so why doubt it? How does he know your physical laws apply to this concept?

So, I think your right to be skeptical of the extent of people's delusions, and it is truly fascinating how delusional people can be. At the same time, I think it's a "delusion-of-the-gaps" conclusion when you always apply it to things that are inherently undecidable & unknowable. Best to just say, "I don't know".

I'm sympathetic towards your skepticism (mystical phenomena certainly sounds like it's BS), but, as I've said, I've experienced enough where I personally have to be open to it. Continuing to summarily dismiss it as "dumb coincidences", just strikes me as dismissive towards the unknown as opposed to embracive, which is a massive turn off to me. I try to distinguish between psuedo-skepticism (don't like) and skepticism (like). Your intuition that you "think its hard to take an idea seriously if it has no scientific basis or testability" is just not one I share based on my values. Not everything has to be about productivity. Personally, that feeling closes my mind off from enjoying life. You can have your cake and eat it too: enjoying what science proves out and all the unknowable stuff out there. It being unknowable doesn't prove OR disprove it. That scientists don't have the time to explore this doesn't surprise me... they shouldn't be exploring it, since it's not the scientific method: in order for their enterprise to get somewhere and be "productive", they can't work with undecidables. But that's just their life values; other people want to take a different approach in life. Some people like the sciences; others like the arts.


Edited by solarshroomster (03/10/23 01:59 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesymbaline
 User Gallery


Registered: 10/17/18
Posts: 900
Last seen: 1 month, 24 days
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28223877 - 03/10/23 01:45 PM (10 months, 13 days ago)

kindve reminds me of my theory that angels and cells and germs and souls are present in a forver conundrum like cars at an intersection along with internet and relationships. u see yourself and your father (along with relativity in somebody passing you) or people walking in the street for example

havent read thru most of this but my guess is its kindve similar

i believe theres an indian/hindu term for this kindve like indras holy planet


--------------------
never find a gun of mine



Edited by symbaline (03/10/23 01:46 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSvetaketu
The Devil's Avocado 🥑
Male

Registered: 10/08/15
Posts: 1,508
Loc: United States
Last seen: 19 hours, 22 minutes
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28224020 - 03/10/23 03:53 PM (10 months, 13 days ago)

Fair enough, I've always disliked the term "materialism".

Quote:

You say you're wary of intuition, yet, ironically, intuition undergirds your entire belief system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think logic, for instance, rules reality? That's based on an intuitive feeling.




I don't think it rules reality, it's a method of investigation that allows us to dismantle an idea into workable parts. The 3 foundations of logic are the basis of all mathematics.

I use logic because it can turn a complicated mess into digestible bits.

I suppose you could say I intuitively value truth and understanding, which is baseless and subjective I agree. 

Quote:


You seem to think that testability can provide a concrete answer, but how do you know the things you find out today will be true tomorrow or were true in the distant past?




What difference does it make? With testability I can be reasonably certain that they are true now. Right now things seem to be pretty consistent. That could change, but all we can do is work with what we've got.

Quote:


How do you even know there was a past?




I have a reasonable belief that there was a past based on the available evidence.

You seem to be en route to solipsism, and I get it, nothing can be known "absolutely" but we do the best we can. I can be reasonably certain that this exists, that there was a past, and that you're another conscious entity just like I am. These assertions are testable, even if we can't verify them "absolutely".


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesymbaline
 User Gallery


Registered: 10/17/18
Posts: 900
Last seen: 1 month, 24 days
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: Svetaketu]
    #28224034 - 03/10/23 04:08 PM (10 months, 13 days ago)

I agree with the notion "how do you even know if there was a past"

How could any human being kill 11 million people
I think its crazy, being a jew and hearing of holocaust victims (none in my family)
wondering how history is a lie

mein kampf has some interesting theories too


--------------------
never find a gun of mine



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesolarshroomster
Wonderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/01/13
Posts: 506
Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: symbaline]
    #28224046 - 03/10/23 04:22 PM (10 months, 13 days ago)

symbaline,

I was making the point that Faith is a good thing, not a bad thing. That our intuitive thinking that the past is real is a proper thing. The intuitive feel that other people have minds is a proper thing.

We use our intuition every which way, as we should. Even if we can't know it for 100%, we can be pretty darn sure based on the evidence in front of us. But when someone says that "intuition" makes him/her uncomfortable, our ability to trust in the past without 100% certainty goes out the window. So, I was pointing out the line between pseudo-skepticism and skepticism. It's pseudo-skeptical to say the past didn't happen in light of the evidence.


--------------------
Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLucisM
Nutritional Yeast

Registered: 03/28/15
Posts: 15,622
Last seen: 1 month, 28 days
Re: About THAT Big Bang [Re: solarshroomster]
    #28224600 - 03/11/23 01:12 AM (10 months, 13 days ago)

If you're not up to date with current science, there has been recent information which is making people think the big bang might be wrong based upon what James Webb telescope has shown us.  I think the doubt relating to the big bang theories accuracy is only related to what JWT has shown us, but there might be more info out there which goes against big bang theory, I could be wrong though so don't quote me on that!

The more we learn about the universe the more we're going to have to correct some of our theories.  Doubt is normal, don't overthink it!  There's not some one ultimate answer for everything!


--------------------
©️


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Fresh Perspectives CosmicDebris 763 10 09/02/13 02:49 PM
by WhoManBeing
* Heaven is coming to earth *the sequel*
( 1 2 3 4 ... 51 52 )
zorbman 178,039 1,020 03/15/18 06:53 PM
by BrendanFlock
* Do you believe Astral Projection is real or part of your imagination?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
gulper2323 3,520 65 11/08/12 05:38 AM
by zzripz
* A new understanding of time and space circastes 646 15 03/24/13 10:01 AM
by White Beard
* What religion are you?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
undecided 23,189 122 12/25/22 07:38 PM
by LogicaL Chaos
* 15-year-old new Buddha continues fasting
( 1 2 3 all )
Catalysis 8,027 54 11/25/10 07:26 PM
by lasttime
* Survey on God?
( 1 2 all )
KungFu_Shaman 6,991 34 10/13/05 03:13 PM
by KungFu_Shaman
* questioning premises or fake spirituality - this is important.
( 1 2 all )
redgreenvines 6,819 30 10/13/05 10:10 AM
by MarkostheGnostic

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Shroomism, Rose, Kickle, yogabunny, DividedQuantum
1,231 topic views. 1 members, 5 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.