| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Wonderer Registered: 11/01/13 Posts: 506 Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours |
| ||||||
|
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: -------------------- 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."
| |||||||
|
Chaotic sums Registered: 02/03/10 Posts: 634 Last seen: 21 minutes, 13 seconds |
| ||||||
|
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.
| |||||||
|
Wonderer Registered: 11/01/13 Posts: 506 Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours |
| ||||||
|
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."
| |||||||
|
The Devil's Avocado 🥑 Registered: 10/08/15 Posts: 1,508 Loc: United States Last seen: 19 hours, 22 minutes |
| ||||||
|
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?
| |||||||
|
Wonderer Registered: 11/01/13 Posts: 506 Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours |
| ||||||
|
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."
| |||||||
|
Chaotic sums Registered: 02/03/10 Posts: 634 Last seen: 21 minutes, 13 seconds |
| ||||||
|
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 -------------------- ------------ ------------
| |||||||
|
Chaotic sums Registered: 02/03/10 Posts: 634 Last seen: 21 minutes, 13 seconds |
| ||||||
|
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/interpretat
-------------------- ------------ ------------
| |||||||
|
Wonderer Registered: 11/01/13 Posts: 506 Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: 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."
| |||||||
|
Chaotic sums Registered: 02/03/10 Posts: 634 Last seen: 21 minutes, 13 seconds |
| ||||||
|
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)
| |||||||
|
Wonderer Registered: 11/01/13 Posts: 506 Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours |
| ||||||
|
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: 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."
| |||||||
|
Chaotic sums Registered: 02/03/10 Posts: 634 Last seen: 21 minutes, 13 seconds |
| ||||||
|
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. -------------------- ------------ ------------
| |||||||
|
The Devil's Avocado 🥑 Registered: 10/08/15 Posts: 1,508 Loc: United States Last seen: 19 hours, 22 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Interesting thoughts.
I agree with large chunks of what you've both written, but some things are a bit confusing to me. Quote: 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: 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?
| |||||||
|
Wonderer Registered: 11/01/13 Posts: 506 Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: 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."
| |||||||
|
The Devil's Avocado 🥑 Registered: 10/08/15 Posts: 1,508 Loc: United States Last seen: 19 hours, 22 minutes |
| ||||||
|
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 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: 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.
| |||||||
|
Wonderer Registered: 11/01/13 Posts: 506 Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours |
| ||||||
|
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 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)
| |||||||
|
Registered: 10/17/18 Posts: 900 Last seen: 1 month, 24 days |
| ||||||
|
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 Edited by symbaline (03/10/23 01:46 PM)
| |||||||
|
The Devil's Avocado 🥑 Registered: 10/08/15 Posts: 1,508 Loc: United States Last seen: 19 hours, 22 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Fair enough, I've always disliked the term "materialism".
Quote: 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: 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: 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".
| |||||||
|
Registered: 10/17/18 Posts: 900 Last seen: 1 month, 24 days |
| ||||||
|
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
| |||||||
|
Wonderer Registered: 11/01/13 Posts: 506 Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours |
| ||||||
|
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."
| |||||||
|
Nutritional Yeast Registered: 03/28/15 Posts: 15,622 Last seen: 1 month, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
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! -------------------- ©️
| |||||||
|
Chaotic sums Registered: 02/03/10 Posts: 634 Last seen: 21 minutes, 13 seconds |
| ||||||
Quote: I think part of what is wrong is that we didn't correctly identify early astral bodies. For example, they are thinking Dark Energy may be due to blackholes in the early universe, perhaps formed by quasars, that are just wildly bigger than we thought. As you throw in your disclaimer and uncertainty, I will too, I've only skimmed headlines and articles, lots of fluff out there, but I've not done a deep dive and learned everything I could about their 'new' discovery. One thing is certain though, it's that science doesn't revamp its entire knowledge base when something new is discovered or a variable was wrong, it corrects itself closer to what really is happening or has happened, and in doing this, the equations and theories we currently have, grow stronger (more accurate) because we put together another piece of the puzzle. -------------------- ------------ ------------
| |||||||
|
Wanderer Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 17,848 Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours |
| ||||||
|
One thing is certain though, it's that science doesn't revamp its entire knowledge base when something new is discovered or a variable was wrong,
Can you give an example of what you mean by this? My mind first went to gravity, but the only part of the theory of gravity which hasn't changed over time is.. well, I dunno. The name has changed. The math has changed. The perceived source has changed. The mechanics have changed. The fundamentality of it has changed. The interconnectedness of it has changed. I'm not sure what part of it has stayed the same in science. So maybe you can help me understand? Is it the pursuit of defining an experience that has remained while all the defining characteristics have changed? I think I'd agree that knowing the experience of gravity doesn't depend on definitions of gravity, and so the experience is never thrown out, only all the prior definitions (knowledge) about the experience. I'd also agree that we get better at describing our experiences the more time we spend studying them but never really capture them in a description. If every description of gravity disappeared, does gravity disappear with it? Of course not, because the description is not the experience. That is why science doesn't build solely on its own descriptions and is not afraid to throw a description out when it longer relates to the experience. -------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
| |||||||
|
Chaotic sums Registered: 02/03/10 Posts: 634 Last seen: 21 minutes, 13 seconds |
| ||||||
|
A good example is Newtonian physics. They are perfectly fine to calculate gravity on earth. Its only when moving into space do they fall short of describing what's going on. So Einsteinian physics step in, they don't remove the old equations, just add stuff. General relativity and special relativity.
When they discover a new species in a branch of species evolved, they find the slot that particular species fits into the tree, science is adding to itself as more science is done, and its constantly trying to prove itself wrong through testing. You don't input your expected outcomes and try and make it happen backwards. You predict what you think might happen based on the understanding of your own test and the way you think things should behave. Then you do the test and compare the results with your guess. If your understanding of your test is 100% you can predict everything that going to happen, when where why and what. You see these tedtalks or science presentations where the guys running around doing all this crazy stuff with liquid nitrogen changing air volume in balloons, carbon dioxide change liquids colors, fire changing colors etc. -------------------- ------------ ------------
| |||||||
|
Wanderer Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 17,848 Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours |
| ||||||
|
Yes, not just science uses labels to navigate experience. Language in general does this. Math as well, which was not labeled scientific when first existing. Remove language and math, what science are you left with?
Science is a huge umbrella. Kind of the modern big tent church for descriptions of experience. But IMO you're really missing the way all descriptors change. Even mathematical ones. How often do you calculate the gravity of your experience? Such use is bound to certain experiences. If those experiences cease, so too does the need for such a type calculation. And this is the state for most of us, an uncalculated experience of gravity. No description even necessary. But people like to use a static description of gravity to pretend the description is the experience! Silly. Can you recite the formula for Newtonian gravity without looking it up? How about velocity? thermal properties? This type of gravity is already present on Earth, right? You should be able to look at your hand and see this formula. It's truly there, right? And for those who calculate the density of a material, they don't have to consider the material in the calculation right? The calculation never changes. If a change in material is used, don't throw out that old calculation! Keep using that answer, the math never changes. Experience is the root of science, not the other way around. If your experience is unchanging, then science is unchanging. Unchanging is not a good description of experience IMO
| |||||||
|
Chaotic sums Registered: 02/03/10 Posts: 634 Last seen: 21 minutes, 13 seconds |
| ||||||
|
I do know some stuff off the back of my hand. And its from memory not something I use everyday. 9.8m/s2 is the rate at which gravity on earth is exerting on all objects, resting or not. a2 + b2 = c2 is Pythagorean theorem. Used in squaring up a room, like for laying tile or something. The math we learned and the equations for doing things geometrically or algebraically or whatever, are the real world spells if you will, that allow us to alter or build stuff to the laws of reality. Bridges don't collapse because they are engineered with margins of error and best variables for its use and degradation so on. Skyscrapers are another feat of engineering.
"Engineering is a highly quantitative field, so math is involved in some capacity in all disciplines of engineering. Engineers often need mathematical calculations to evaluate the strength and suitability of materials for executing their designs." - degreequery* I know that a lot of real-world causes/effects taking place aren't linear, but logarithmic or exponential. Also, experience like your saying, science isn't a good description of it, but that is what makes experience subjective. You could still measure things 3rd person of the person experiencing. So, for example, a mushroom trip, science may not be very good at describing what they are experiencing. But for the person or people observing the personal on the trip, they could try to take measurements, to answer what is quite a long list, but you could start with basic stuff like heart rate, blood pressure. You could do blood work before and after, perhaps during. Its why we know the mushrooms, and psychedelics in general, are some of the least harmful drugs that exist, from what I understand they have virtually none of the physical toxicity. I'm so lost on what I'm talking about though. Are we agreeing on basic shit? I feel like I need to delete the shit above what am I arguing -------------------- ------------ ------------
| |||||||
|
Wanderer Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 17,848 Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours |
| ||||||
|
One thing is certain though, it's that science doesn't revamp its entire knowledge base when something new is discovered or a variable was wrong,
Science doesn't do anything. People experiencing the world do. That's my main point to simplify. And because our experiences change drastically, science does too. Up to and of course including throwing out entire knowledge bases. This is demonstrated time and again over history as circumstances change and what people are doing changes. If a knowledge base is no longer useful to the people experiencing the world, it is discarded.
| |||||||
|
Chaotic sums Registered: 02/03/10 Posts: 634 Last seen: 21 minutes, 13 seconds |
| ||||||
|
Seems like science is part of humanity advancing, and more efficiently dominating its environment, for better or worse.
It is a tool, like a hammer, you use it to build a better shelter than rudimentary tools. Science and mathematics I guess i realize im dumping into one pot, but both are on equal footing. -------------------- ------------ ------------
| |||||||
|
Wanderer Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 17,848 Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours |
| ||||||
|
Yeah, dominance is what people seem to be on about lately and gets construed as "advancement". Maybe for a long time. At some point I hope, enough is enough. That the world, me, you, are good enough. The experience of life is good enough. We do not need to dominate life to experience it. And maybe then we can see life for what it really is, because that is enough.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
| |||||||
|
Chaotic sums Registered: 02/03/10 Posts: 634 Last seen: 21 minutes, 13 seconds |
| ||||||
|
Some part of humanities always curious to peak over the edge, for better or worse. I get what you're saying though.
I'm very worried about the side effects of our way of life, and what it's destroying, but I can only make decisions about my lifestyle to help combat it. I can vote for those that have the same idea too. There are lots of discoveries that have been made that make life a lot better than if we hadn't had science. Vaccines for example. People use to die of all sorts of shit like typhoid fever or polio. With great power comes great responsibility. Thats what we need to be telling ourselves, not that we're too small to affect our atmosphere. -------------------- ------------ ------------
| |||||||
|
Wonderer Registered: 11/01/13 Posts: 506 Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours |
| ||||||
|
I think there's a point to glorifying science & technology, but we also need to admit to its deficits. It may have been great for some humans (and I think the rates of depression suggest material progress has not benefited us), but life writ large has not benefited from its success, in my view. In particular, it has accelerated our conceptual disconnect from nature. The Anthropocene extinction, fully the result of science & technology IMO, is killing out life at a rate that is 100 to 1,000 times the natural background extinction rate. As you say, with "great power comes great responsibility". Here's hoping we can use the fruits of science & technology positively.
Quote: -------------------- 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."
| |||||||
|
L'une Registered: 09/17/11 Posts: 11,309 Last seen: 1 day, 21 hours |
| ||||||
|
In space there are no mosquitoes, flies or ticks. I think some people would consider that progress
Edited by Buster_Brown (03/11/23 05:07 PM)
| |||||||
|
Chaotic sums Registered: 02/03/10 Posts: 634 Last seen: 21 minutes, 13 seconds |
| ||||||
|
From the perspective of human life, we are the most successful species, if your metric is the proliferation of that organism.
If your metric is how much destruction of the natural environment is taking place because of the way it lives, we are the worse for everything else. How do we ride the wave of the present and make the best of what trajectory we're on? How much can we course correct? It will take scientific approaches to reverse or arrest the rate of destruction etc. We're locked in that changing present moment, and humans as a whole sort of suck at making good choices for the future. I think Artificial enhancement is necessary. -------------------- ------------ ------------
| |||||||
|
L'une Registered: 09/17/11 Posts: 11,309 Last seen: 1 day, 21 hours |
| ||||||
|
More species electing the human experience can account for species extinction. Gradually every fly and tick will gravitate to the human experience. The supportive structure can include transhumanism imo
| |||||||
|
Neti Neti Registered: 02/07/15 Posts: 7,426 Loc: The Pathless Path |
| ||||||
|
The thing with science is , by its essential nature it puts a "thing" or object into a box and describes it upon doing such you have to compare and label and divide the box further with other boxes in comparison to get further descriptions
And even with that when "scientific knowledge" is discovered , what is also discovered is how much we don't "know" I have a deep love and passion for science And think it is an amazing thing I think other forms of knowledge are more important though , for living a content and happy life
-------------------- 54. The true nature of things is to be known personally , through the eyes of clear illumination and not through a sage : what the moon exactly is , is to be known with one's own eyes ; can another make him know it?
| |||||||
|
Wanderer Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 17,848 Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours |
| ||||||
![]()
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
| |||||||
|
OTD Masterbater Registered: 02/07/07 Posts: 17,974 Loc: PNW |
| ||||||
Quote:
-------------------- Everything I have ever said is total bogus bs I am full of crud therefore everything I say should never be taken literal. And I am mentally unstable.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 07/16/11 Posts: 1,085 Loc: ation: Tasmania Last seen: 12 days, 19 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: As someone who believes in spiritual crap, I don't think science is wrong, evil, stupid, useless and smelly, but lets be honest, If ALL of human scientific knowledge (100% proven) was combined in total, it would amount to maybe a grain or two of sand on a beach that represent ALL knowable knowledge. Edited by blessed (03/18/23 06:45 PM)
| |||||||
|
Neti Neti Registered: 02/07/15 Posts: 7,426 Loc: The Pathless Path |
| ||||||
Quote: Agreed ![]() " By knowing Brahman nothing else needs to be known " -------------------- 54. The true nature of things is to be known personally , through the eyes of clear illumination and not through a sage : what the moon exactly is , is to be known with one's own eyes ; can another make him know it?
| |||||||
|
Chaotic sums Registered: 02/03/10 Posts: 634 Last seen: 21 minutes, 13 seconds |
| ||||||
|
The slow siege of science dominating every facet of our lives will never end until everything is known. Fighting it is futile.
All throughout humans' history after civilization, it's just been chipping its way into everyday life, not because it forces itself onto people, but because it's so much easier or convenient or just better. When boomers grew up, in some parts of the country, schools still taught that the earth was ~6,000 years old. When I was in high school biology, we learned nerve cells are one of the few types of cells that don't regenerate in any meaningful way. This means spinal injuries, and other things involving nerves, won't ever heal. Now they have just used CRISPR type technology to restore nerves in the eyes of mice with the same most common reason why humans go blind. It may be unsettling to think about a future where we are much more capable of altering both the physical world and our bodies. As well as changing our minds with the advanced Brain computer interfaces. Here on this forum its widely understood the power and unknown of what psychedelics can do to a persons mind. Not in just, 'getting high,' either, but a profound change in how we see ourselves and the world around us. There's no reason to limit that mystical experience to chemical compounds, electrical signals from our brain can decoded. We might be able to rewrite ourselves, our codes. I think in the next 10-20 years we will be interfacing with electricity and information purely with our minds. Its far more interesting to me to delve into near future lifestyles and technologies than to talk about how scientific discovery will never know it all or how it just doesn't have all the answers. That's bullshit. Science certainly hasn't deduced all the answers... yet.. but it will. Lots of people won't accept those answers. So a part of how civilization advances is directly tied to the old dying and the young learning. The old typically get clinging about certain things they just can't accept has changed. The world they knew has changed such that it may as well be dead. The young are new sponges soaking up everything without the same level of resistance, if there is any, and with no past conflicting beliefs about what the unknown might be. What the unknown might be. We are in the process, through scientific thinking, of deductively reasoning the unknown. What's taking so long to advance is that 1.) there is A LOT to figure out and 2.) Many people still arrive at adulthood with an inductive mind and way of reasoning out their experience of reality. They will willy nilly pick and chose answers to unknowns without any evidence. The inductive mind simply believes that they are true, and to challenge that is wrong. Deductive minds are much different, and far superior in helping us combat our own natural bias. We all get uncomfortable when we first learn of the horrible truths of reality. The trick we haven't mastered is teaching not to bury your head in the sand with your soul and jesus or whatever, and just accept life and death as it is. Don't infer some afterlife just so you can pretend you won't cease to exist one day. I hope to convey my own perspective to help make it clear why I think the way I think, and why I think mankind would be MUCH better off with science, then without it. -------------------- ------------ ------------
| |||||||
|
Neti Neti Registered: 02/07/15 Posts: 7,426 Loc: The Pathless Path |
| ||||||
|
I agree mankind is better off with science than without it , science is the study of objects though, what is awareness? Not an object therefore cannot be studied objectively
![]() Are you a philsophical materialist perchance? -------------------- 54. The true nature of things is to be known personally , through the eyes of clear illumination and not through a sage : what the moon exactly is , is to be known with one's own eyes ; can another make him know it?
| |||||||
|
Wonderer Registered: 11/01/13 Posts: 506 Last seen: 3 days, 22 hours |
| ||||||
|
Science has provided a lot of information, but it would be almost embarrassing to point out how it hasn't even touched the surface of answering the big questions.
I've found it to be extraordinarily distracting at times, and marveling too much at it, as Einstein pointed out, makes us forget how little we do know. I can't count the number of times that scientism has led people to burying their heads and, for instance, explaining how love just exists because of serotonin receptors (as if, their reductionism provided anything more than a correlation and never explained why the correlation had to be that way and not some other way, why there even needed to be a correlation, or why there is even something called the sensation itself that exists as it does). The problem is that in order to answer the big question, physics needs to answer itself. And when it does so, it will be relying, not on physics, or the scientific method, but the undecidability of the teacher from which it was born: Philosophy. Appropriately, when it comes to explaining "why do the laws of physics exist", scientists bunt outright. The multiverse doesn't provide our answer, since we still have to ask "why does the logic necessarily need to exist" to generate all possible worlds. And then there's the issue of the problem of induction, which scientistic thinkers feel they can evade by saying how everything "must be decided by deduction", or "never ask 'why', ask 'how'". It's a confusion of epistemological limitations of the scientific method with reality itself. Just because we see a cycle of patterns, doesn't mean that pattern has always been that way or will always be that way. We are forever stuck with not knowing for sure. Science also can't deal with things that are "too subjective", or don't repeat frequently, like UFOs. Don't get me wrong, I think science tears away at questions that bewildered me how it possibly solved, but it hasn't made a dent in answering any of the big questions. Einstein rightly once quipped: Quote: Or, as Heisenberg put it: Quote: You will always be inside your questioning, and the scientific method is just that. Even if we were to upload ourselves into a computer, we will still be left wondering who is generating any of the simulation. I think we're fundamentally left with uncertainty. And that's not even getting into the humbling practical issue of how people repeatedly think "they have it all figured out", only to then have to revise their entire thesis. Edited by solarshroomster (03/18/23 08:30 PM)
| |||||||
|
Chaotic sums Registered: 02/03/10 Posts: 634 Last seen: 21 minutes, 13 seconds |
| ||||||
Quote: Never heard of this until now, looked it up. I suppose from my understanding of a few lines of definition, to some extent, yes i am. I believe you could recreate realities with future technology. I firmly believe in matrix level simulation possibility. We know so little about the brain, it'll be exciting to see how wrong or right I am, and what quality of life improvements may be discovered. -------------------- ------------ ------------
| |||||||
|
Chaotic sums Registered: 02/03/10 Posts: 634 Last seen: 21 minutes, 13 seconds |
| ||||||
|
Maybe not because I see somewhere it says they only believe matter is a form of substance, but energy is too, as they are two sides to the same coin.
-------------------- ------------ ------------
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Fresh Perspectives | 763 | 10 | 09/02/13 02:49 PM by WhoManBeing | ||
![]() |
Heaven is coming to earth *the sequel* ( |
178,039 | 1,020 | 03/15/18 06:53 PM by BrendanFlock | ||
![]() |
Do you believe Astral Projection is real or part of your imagination? ( |
3,520 | 65 | 11/08/12 05:38 AM by zzripz | ||
![]() |
A new understanding of time and space | 646 | 15 | 03/24/13 10:01 AM by White Beard | ||
![]() |
What religion are you? ( |
23,189 | 122 | 12/25/22 07:38 PM by LogicaL Chaos | ||
![]() |
15-year-old new Buddha continues fasting ( |
8,027 | 54 | 11/25/10 07:26 PM by lasttime | ||
![]() |
Survey on God? ( |
6,991 | 34 | 10/13/05 03:13 PM by KungFu_Shaman | ||
![]() |
questioning premises or fake spirituality - this is important. ( |
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 ] | ||





