|
 Timeleech
addict
Registered: 10/04/01
Posts: 590
Loc: Norway
Last seen: 21 years, 9 months
|
 Re: Swami/Shroomism relations  [Re: Learyfan]
#576869 - 03/12/02 12:34 PM (23 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
They should also stop having approved un-scientific opinions. You know what? Let's ban opinions completely! That woudl make things a lot easier in my op.. I mean, what the hell do I care?
--------------------
--
Eternally boggled, flummoxed, bewildered and surprised.
theophagy.org
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
 
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,885
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 hour, 14 minutes
|
Re: Swami/Shroomism relations [Re: Timeleech]
#576877 - 03/12/02 12:44 PM (23 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Well let's not go that far. How about we just a list from the Swami people on what we are allowed to have an opinion on. That would make Swami's job a lot easier.
--------------------
--------------------------------
Mp3 of the month: Tommy Jett - Groovy Little Trip
|
Timeleech
addict
Registered: 10/04/01
Posts: 590
Loc: Norway
Last seen: 21 years, 9 months
|
Re: Swami/Shroomism relations [Re: Learyfan]
#576882 - 03/12/02 12:49 PM (23 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah! Great idea learyfan! Except... hmmm, that kinda sounds quite fascist. It would get rid of that cursed "thinking" everybody is talking about though...
--------------------
--
Eternally boggled, flummoxed, bewildered and surprised.
theophagy.org
|
 Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Swami/Shroomism relations [Re: Learyfan]
#576903 - 03/12/02 01:10 PM (23 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Well let's not go that far. How about we just a list from the Swami people on what we are allowed to have an opinion on.
Emotionalism as a substitute for backing your viewpoint, how original!
The Swami people? Heh heh. Is that like the Elohim?
That would make Swami's job a lot easier.
Job? Ah yes, the shadow goverment pays me to do this.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Swami/Shroomism relations [Re: Learyfan]
#576923 - 03/12/02 01:32 PM (23 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Swami, these concepts are far too complicated for the common man to be able to prove. Should we just give up hope because we can't prove it?
What does hope have to do with the existence or non-existence of anything? All I am asking is for someone to tell my WHY they believe something so that I may understand. But all I get is emotionalism and smoke and mirrors.
Come on man. You're really trying to put out the fire of hope in these people.
Here LF tries to play junior pyschologist in determining my motivation and fails miserably. In any event, my motivation is irrelevant as to why another believes in Alien contact. LF would rather talk about me as a way to sidestep any real discussion about the subject.
Swami what in the world do we really know without a shadow of a doubt?
More semantic juggling that says nothing.
I know you want people to base their theories on evidence, but when it comes to concepts like "is there a soul", you just have to believe, or not believe.
WHY? What is the basis? From where does this idea originate? I must believe because my ancestor believed and he believed because he was a bewildered monkey-man in an incomprehensible world?
I've done a lot of amature experiments with people and animals to not believe in a soul.
That's it? No explanation or elaboration? Ok, you convinced me with that compelling story.
Why don't you stop trying to crush people beliefs unless you have proof that they should believe otherwise.
I am guessing that this is a question. Who is crushing anything? The truth will stand up to the light. If there is no truth, the belief will scurry into the dark corner like a frightened cockroach.
If you have proof that there is no such thing as a soul, let us know.
Here LearyFan falls back on the pathetic "negative-proof" dodge (which has been covered extensively, but keeps rearing its tiny head) used so frequently by believers when they run out of steam
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Swami/Shroomism relations [Re: Xlea321]
#576935 - 03/12/02 01:42 PM (23 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
swami, how much of what you regard as "science" do you think will be considered accurate in 1000 years?
There are two parts to science used interchangably, but are quite distinct. One is the scientific method of inquiry, which (while added to and refined) basically has not changed since it's inception. This has to do with observation, experimentation and repeatability. This will still be accurate in 1000 years.
The scientific body of knowledge is the other aspect and EVERYONE agrees will continue to evolve. Will water still be made out of hydrogen and oxygen - yes! Will our theories of the origins of the cosmos and physics change - most certainly.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Swami/Shroomism relations [Re: Anonymous]
#576946 - 03/12/02 01:50 PM (23 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
know what I think....I think that this sort of meta-arguing is even more pointless than the usual arguing...
More pointless than pointless? Are there real degrees of pointlessness?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,885
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 hour, 14 minutes
|
Re: Swami/Shroomism relations [Re: Swami]
#576978 - 03/12/02 02:13 PM (23 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
All I am asking is for someone to tell my WHY
they believe something so that I may understand.
People tell you why they believe in things all the time, and you always come back with..."prove it". I will say it again. NOONE here will be able to PROVE any of these highly complicated theories. WE ARE NOT SCIENTISTS, and shouldn't have to be in order to have an opinion or belief. You are telling us that these theories are completely invalid because we don't have proof.
But all I get is emotionalism and smoke and mirrors./semantic juggling
Seems to me, anytime you can't answer a question, you accuse the questioneer of doing this.
LF would rather talk about me as a way to sidestep any real
discussion about the subject.
I haven't sidestepped once. Just because you may not understand what someone means, then accuse them of "sidestepping" doesn't mean that they are
Swami what in the world do we really know without a shadow of a doubt?
More semantic juggling that says nothing.
Why doesn't that say anything?? You've got to come up with a better reply. There is very little that you know without a shadow of a doubt, so how can you say that someone's theory is wrong because they can't prove it without a shadow of a doubt.
Who is crushing anything? The truth will stand up to the light. If there is no truth, the
belief will scurry into the dark corner like a frightened cockroach.
WHAT TRUTH? That's the whole point. There is no absolute truth to a lot of these theories, and you're asking people to give it to you, and if they can't, then they are wrong.
If you have proof that there is no such thing as a soul, let us know.
Here LearyFan falls back on the pathetic "negative-proof" dodge (which has been covered extensively, but keeps rearing its
tiny head) used so frequently by believers when they run out of steam
I'm just asking you the exact same type of question you ask everyone else who has a unprovable theory, and you accuse me of using a negative proof dodge. That's a good tactic. If you can't answer a question, just accuse the person of sidestepping, or using negative proof etc etc.. I'm just asking you the same types of questions that you ask everyone else. That's all.
Imagine if you had theories that couldn't be proven Swami, and someone asks you to prove it over and over, and you know that you can never prove it. Wouldn't that get annoying? I was just showing you an example of how you treat people on this board. If everyone had to have concrete proof of ANYTHING that they say, noone would ever say anything. Something tells me you'd like it like that.
--------------------
--------------------------------
Mp3 of the month: Tommy Jett - Groovy Little Trip
|
poopship
newbie
Registered: 02/26/02
Posts: 25
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
|
Re: Swami/Shroomism relations [Re: Swami]
#577046 - 03/12/02 03:27 PM (23 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
so let me get this straight... in 1000 years, the scientific method will be the same? wheres your proof? why should i believe this? you seem quite justified in demanding reasons for others to defend their beliefs to your hard-lined materialism, but the opposite never happens... i mean, c'mon, every single breakthough in science happens by breaking the rules. relativity was not formulated by staying within the rules of newtonian physics, not by a long shot. every single advancement of science comes by breaking rules, its a fact of life. to say that science is any more or less based on faith than anything else is just playing favorites. you get results physically, others get theirs in other ways... can you verify right now that i'm feeling tired. of course not. does that mean my tiredness doesn't exist. of course not. its just not relagated to the field of "science." i mean, evolution, strictly speaking, is not science. science must be observable and reproducable, which evolution is clearly not. therefore, it is not science. does this mean it did or didn't happen? who knows? i sure dont. just because it is or is not science does not verify its authenticity. this is ridiculous.
all aboard
poopship
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Swami/Shroomism relations [Re: Swami]
#577079 - 03/12/02 04:07 PM (23 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The Swami people? Heh heh. Is that like the Elohim?
Heh... precisely
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Swami/Shroomism relations [Re: Swami]
#577100 - 03/12/02 04:33 PM (23 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"There are two parts to science used interchangably, but are quite distinct. One is the scientific method of inquiry, which (while added to and refined) basically has not changed since it's inception. This has to do with observation, experimentation and repeatability. This will still be accurate in 1000 years. "
Well, it's inception was really only 400 years ago. I wouldn't put too much faith it's gonna stay the same for the next 1000 years. Especially when we start getting to grips with the full meaning of quantum mechanics. Incidentally, if we consider observation, experimentation and repeatability a scientific method of enquiry then meeting aliens on mushrooms is absolute scientific fact as it can be repeated at will.
Yeah, science is good for certain things, but is absolutely useless (at this point in it's development) for explaining consciousness, the meaning of life or why we're all here. Meanwhile we all have a 13 billion cell, 40 billion neuron organism in our heads with a fully formed comprehensible explanation of the universe that can be accessed through psilocybin mushrooms. Maybe we should pay those ideas some attention.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
Edited by Alex123 (03/12/02 04:36 PM)
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Swami/Shroomism relations [Re: poopship]
#577102 - 03/12/02 04:36 PM (23 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
every single advancement of science comes by breaking rules, its a fact of life.
Not even remotely true, by anyone's defintion.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
poopship
newbie
Registered: 02/26/02
Posts: 25
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
|
Re: Swami/Shroomism relations [Re: Swami]
#577120 - 03/12/02 04:48 PM (23 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
sorry, i mistyped... like i said earlier, every BREAKTHOUGH in science breaks old rules. besides, i've yet to see you refute anybody's well though-out arguments that challenge yours, you just pick the weaks ones and the ones you want to hear. or just the mistakes. science studies the physical, mathematics studies the abstract, other things study other facets of reality... come on, you can't tell me that science proves math, and yet it exists, does it not? science is just preferred in this culture because yes, it does work! big fucking deal. other things work too, not just science. at its root, giving science precendence over anything else is just eurocentrism, which is funny, because the majority of practices in modern science are borrowed from other cultures anyhow.
all aboard
poopship
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Swami/Shroomism relations [Re: poopship]
#577145 - 03/12/02 05:11 PM (23 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
poopship:
"giving science precendence over anything else is just eurocentrism, which is
funny, because the majority of practices in modern science are borrowed from other
cultures anyhow."
Didn't you just contradict yourself in that sentence? Of what significance is "eurocentrism"
anyways? This is just another rediculous PC term which is full of emotion for the user of it,
but of little substance in a rational debate.
|
poopship
newbie
Registered: 02/26/02
Posts: 25
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
|
 Re: Swami/Shroomism relations [Re: ]
#577248 - 03/12/02 06:44 PM (23 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
to clarify
in the west, science is held on a pedestal. the scientific method is what got us all this progress, the very computers that we are using to communicate today. now, in the media and just generally in academia, the scientific method is spoken as this great achievement that nobody else thought of; western philosophy and european thought are the birth of this great accomplishment. holding this to a higher dergree because it is (or at least because it is considered of) european descent, is eurocentrism. putting an idea on a pedestal just because it is of the same culture as your own is what i'm talking about, and our culture stems from europe. now, the funny thing is, the majority of our scientific practices are a hodge-podge of practice from all over the world, from centuries of experimenting and doing things that had nothing to do with the scientific method. different tribes, different cultures all contributed to what we call modern science, yet it is (commonly) viewed as something stoic that we achieved on our own. so it is funny that science is eurocentric and yet has no right to be. does this make sense? it does to me, but i'm not always the best at getting whats in my head out to others (maybe i should become a college professor. ha)
all aboard
poopship
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Swami/Shroomism relations [Re: poopship]
#577405 - 03/12/02 09:26 PM (23 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
poopship:
"eurocentrism. putting an idea on a pedestal just because it is of the same culture as your own"
Who put the Scientific method on a pedestal because it is of European descent?
If people choose to use the scientific method it is because it works, it is because
it is sound. There are many things which have been validated by the scientifc method
which did not originate in Europe. Science is not Eurocentric any more than weaving
is Eurocentric. Science itself is value neutral, it is a method of determining the way
nature works. How the results are applied depend entirely upon what individuals do
with them, not on science.
----
poopship:
"the majority of our scientific practices..."
I don't know why you claim ownership of them when you hold them in such disregard.
-----
poopship:
"...are a hodge-podge of practice...
Modern scientific practices are hardly a "hodge-podge." What has worked in the past
has been kept, what has failed to work has been discarded.
-----
poopship:
"...from all over the world,..."
Is this what you mean by Eurocentric?
-----
poopship:
... from centuries of experimenting and doing things that had nothing to do with the
scientific method. "
If people are experimenting, testing the results of their experiments and
trying to reproduce their results, they are utilizing they scientific method whether
they they call it that or or not.
-----
poopship:
"...different tribes, different cultures all contributed to what
we call modern science,..."
Hardly sounds "Eurocentric" to me...
-----
poopship:
" yet it is (commonly) viewed as something stoic
that we achieved on our own.
Commonly...we...our? Who do you speak for? As far as stoic goes, many scientific
people are quite passionate about science. Have you heard of Pasteur, Semmelweis
or Lister?
----
poopship:
"it is funny that science is eurocentric and yet has no right to be"
That you anthorpomorphize science merely shows that you really don't understand it.
By claiming that science is "Eurocentric" you merely show that our so-called "educational"
system has achieved it's goal of cultural brainwashing by filling your mind with PC
pabum to be regurgitated when confronted with reason.
|
skaMariaPastora
Utopiate
Registered: 03/14/01
Posts: 443
Loc: MA
Last seen: 22 years, 2 months
|
Re: Swami/Shroomism relations [Re: ]
#577460 - 03/12/02 10:56 PM (23 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The scientific method is a great thing, and it works very well in most situations, but I think it fails to describe a lot that is part of our universe. Specifically, the realms of personal experience. In order for a scientific theory to be validated, it needs to be reproducable. And by definition personal experiences are personal: they cannot be viewed by anyone else. But just because they can't be validated doesn't make them any less real. Science can't even touch these experiences, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be investigated.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
well pastora, i wouldn't say shroom experiences are unrepeatable - i think they are very repeatable and accessible by anyone - just take the things and you experience it!!
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
poopship
newbie
Registered: 02/26/02
Posts: 25
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
|
|
first, skamaria, very well said. the only reason i'm even arguing this eurocentrism in science is to point out that there are in fact many many ways of doing things in this world to get results, not just the scientific method. what you have pointed out is indeed where this method falls short: human experience. experience (consciousness) is reality, not words and data. im just trying to point out how (or maybe why) people have become so reliant on the scientific method such that something that cannot be tested by science is completely ignored, as per swami's arguments.
ok, evolving, here is all im trying to say in terms of eurocentrism:
1. science is a very diverse conglomeration of practice from around the world.
2. science has indeed made progress and discovery possible much more than any other systematic way of approaching the world.
3. when recognizing this fact, people tend to focus on how great this science thing is, but attribution for this is solely given to the european cultures involved, not to the many many other contributions from other cultures.
4. this is an example of eurocentrism; ignoring credit where credit is due to perpetuate a myth of a "rugged individualist" science is in fact cultural centrism
5. this cultural centrism is propagated through the establisment and media into the masses to give a sense of pride of accopmlishment in every aspect of life, not just science. the only reason it is specifically relegated to science in my argument is because that is the only thing we're talking about here. if you want to talk about other types of eurocentrism, i'd be glad to, but you are apparently too defensive to be introspective of your own culture, unwilling to listen and immediately put the label "PC" on something that challenges your beliefs. the fact that we as Americans who believe in being free to do whatever we want are pumped full of pride in every aspect of our lives is insulting. we are supposed to be proud of everything we do because we are told that to do otherwise would be "un-American." I beg to differ; nothing could be further from being "American." The fact that we, as an industrialized society, force other societies to conform to our practices and look down on those who do not resemble our culture IS eurocentrism, which is in fact a result of brainwashing, just not the imaginary PC kind you have a disdain for. just because some tribe in the middle of the jungle doesnt have the luxuries that we do does not make them and less human than us, but that is a popular opinion (conscious or not) of "civilized" people.
all aboard
poopship
|
Anonymous
|
|
The scientific method in and of itself cannot describe things. What is necessary is for
human creativity to be used and develope ways in which the scientific method can be
applied in the exploration and verification of your human experiences. All science
begins with human observation, but observations are often colored by preconceived
notions, personal desires, prejudices and biochemical/neurological states. This
is where the application of scientific methods are of value, they can help you test your
perception of experiences and explanations you may have come up with regarding the
experiences.
Your concept of "real" is based upon your internal mental representation of the universe.
This is not the same as the actual universe, it is a model and as with any model, it is
not what it describes. This model can be greatly distorted by altering brain chemistry,
physical trauma to the nervous system and/or application of electrical stimuli. The
distorted model created by these influences cannot logically be assumed to be
objectively "real" without being able to verify the model. To do so shows an ignorance
of the nature of what is occuring within the brain when these influences alter it's
functioning.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
Learyfan
Swami
skaMariaPastora
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
CherryBom
Ulysees
