The Truth (As I see it)

The problem with this is that just because I might experience such a thing, it doesn't mean it exists outside my head. Just as it may be possible to stimulate part of anyone's brain to make them feel like they are levitating, it doesn't mean that humans can levitate.

So, sure, maybe if I do this, I will start to feel like I am at one with the universe. Then what? Will the "ancient consciousness" impart some knowledge to me that I couldn't otherwise have obtained? Something concrete that could be written down and analysed?

If the answer is no, then we won't have demonstrated anything by putting me in this state of mind, other than that it's possible for me to reach such a state of mind, which I don't dispute anyway.

If the answer is yes, then there is no need for me to do it - someone else who has already reached that state can write down the cool things they've learned, and I'll just read those.

So... it seems like there is even less need for me to "turn my attention to it". I don't understand what you mean by this.

You haven't really explained what I'm supposed to do. Many years ago when I was debating with a Christian, he challenged me to "ask Jesus to come into my heart". Of course, I was pretty sceptical, but I couldn't argue with his logic that I had nothing to lose by doing it, so I did. And guess what - nothing changed. Of course, he said "You didn't do it honestly enough" or some such justification.

I'm not sure about the "decent job of describing" part, since I still don't really know what you're talking about. However, I do believe that it's possible to reach a state of inner calm and a feeling of heightened awareness through meditation. And it's also possible to experience a kind of religious rapture through repetition of prayers and mental prostration.

What I don't believe is that these phenomena imply anything fundamental about the universe.

I prefer to remain mysterious. Mysterious and alluring. Plus, this way, if I ever get my own title, it can be "Possible Englishman". I'm thinking ahead, see.

 

True, I agree it is not proof of anything but the nature of consciousness from a subjective point of view.

The answer is yes, it may include revealed knowledge which may be written and analysed, as indeed it has been, but you don't read it anyway.

I also note that your characterisation of religious practises is shallow and simplistic, but I see the point you're making there.

You don't have to focus on it for it to be true, and it is in no hurry. You're right, you don't need to think about it at all. Good luck with that.

[I have here deleted any further ethnic slurs as a gesture of goodwill.]

Finally, I feel I must reiterate the thought experiment because, well, because it's pure gold...

All I can say is, that would have to one charming motherfucking guinea pig to talk a ravenous hobo out of eating him! Here endeth the lesson. Hear ye the word of the Gross, praise be to Gross.

 

Really? Well I would be fascinated to read this stuff. But, honestly, I doubt it exists. I mean, really, if it were possible to make scientific breakthroughs by "focusing" then you'd think people would be doing that already. Why bother spending billions on the Large Hadron Collider when you could just sit around in a quiet room for a few months and get the same results?

Or is that not the kind of knowledge that gets revealed? If it's more like Nostradamus stuff that has zero predictive value, then it's not knowledge at all. Or if it's vague notions of what happens to your soul when you die then it would also have to account for why there is no evidence that the soul exists in the first place.

It? It? What? You still haven't explained what you're talking about. WHAT am I supposed to focus on? Evidently your extensive education on the synthesis of science and religion didn't include how to explain concepts to other people.

 

Well you seem to be giving it a damn good try.

Logic is not an entirely human construct. Things that are logical cannot be false, although things we only perceive as logical can. Logic, or more accurately the processes that govern the natural world that we explain and investigate with logic, is not applied by humans but perceived by them. If humans did not exist on Earth then everything on the planet would still follow patterns dictated by 'logic' - just as the paths of the stars are - since in this sense logic is merely the tracing of cause and effect.

 

• par·a·dox   [par-uh-doks]
  –noun
  1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
  -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradox

Perception is not Reality. A Paradox need only to "seem self-contradictory" in order to exist. This means a paradox is a thing perceived, not a thing that is real. And, as any illusion will show you, perception doesn't obey logic.

You only think that because you don't know the difference between descriptions of perception and descriptions of reality.

Consider this: Every person's knowledge is limited by what they can remember in any given instance. Therefore, regardless how much knowledge is stored in their memory banks, at any given moment something that was learned in the past is not remembered. If a person trusts their own knowledge so that they don't listen to others, their own limitations will cause them to potentially overlook a needful piece of data or logic. Any individual who fails to listens to the knowledge and wisdom of others is consider to be "wise in their own understanding" which is the height of folly because no one is perfect and no one remembers everything in every moment of their lives.

Also my "yip yip" was to indicate that I was merely "pointing" to an idea. A dog's bark is not language that describes a thing, but is merely noise to draw attention to a thing, and so, as always, you missed the forest for the trees.

Reminds of that scientist who comparied his knowledge to a grain of sand upon an ocean beach.

We can either spend our lives studying a single grain of sand or we can spend our lifes studying the whole, every changing picture of the ocean beach and be awed by the grandeur and beauty that surrounds us. (Even as the storms of life come to destroy us.)

This is why I called wayne a ESFP [the Performer] Personality Type. He is always seeking the thrill/the rush or rather the laugh. I think he fancies himself as ESTP [the Doer] personality type which is more rational, but in order to become what he wishes to be, he needs to become (what I called "more logical" but really meant) more "Vulcan", more dispassionate.

 

• par·a·dox   [par-uh-doks]
  –noun
  2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.
  -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradox

Notice that this is your own link, and that I had already mentioned what sense in which I was using the word. Trying to create ambiguity not only doesn't prove whatever nonsense point you're trying to make, it makes you look stupid, as if you hadn't understood what I was saying at all or as if you thought that the fact that there is an alternative definition (one which I'm not talking about at all, as is clearly stated) is at all relevant.

If you're using the word in the sense of a situation or statement or something that only seems contradictory, but isn't, you're not using the word in the same sense that I am, as even a superficial read of what I wrote would elucidate.

I only think that the generalization of a case to encompass almost every other, based on a single (possible misunderstood) special case is fallacious because you think that I don't know the difference between descriptions of perception and descriptions of reality?

So, by your own argument, you should listen to me and not to yourself, even in the case of your argument about doing just this. Even if I were to accept your statement, I would simply point out that I've only been pointing out the formal and informal 'faults' in your reasoning, so, if you think that your statement here relates to what I've been doing, what you're stating is simply that we should listen to everyone and treat what they say with equal weight, whether what they say makes sense or not.

Oh wow! How did I not only miss such an obvious point, I missed that I missed the point, since I don't think I remarked on that remark at all?

If you're truly so conceited so as to not accept what I'm saying, simply have a read through the thread, and, ignoring my posts if you wish, notice the amount of people that consent that you're blatantly contradicting yourself and making no sense whatsoever. If you really think that you have a valid point to make, try phrasing it in a way which makes sense and perhaps attempt to provide support for your claim that isn't stupid.

 

Yeah, I think that the scientist meant that he could only grasp one grain of sand's worth of knowledge in his lifetime. So you can't say "I'm not going to limit myself like that foolish scientist - I'm going learn everything as if my mind was limitless!" In the end you are still a single mind, and can NEVER know more than a single mind's worth of information, whatever ytzk might try to tell you about collective consciousness.

In other words, it was an expression of humility, not a statement of narrow-mindedness.

Alternatively, if you really want to take it as a statement of narrow-mindedness, then in order for humanity to make progress we need some people to be analyzing individual grains of sand while others examine the bigger picture. Not to mention that there is probably just as much awe-inspiring beauty in the structure and properties of a single grain of sand as there are in a whole beach anyway.

In other words, however you look at it, you missed the point of what the scientist was saying.

 

According to the rules of debate as I know them, the person who uses the word first gets to define which definition is being used. Which, if I remember correctly, was neither of us. Which indicates that the fault you have pointed out in me is yours own as well. (Unless, of course, I am wrong on who used it first.)

Actually it based on every reply you have made to me. I typically speak with terms such as "I think" and "I believe" which are clearly words indicating my perceptions and you have treated everything that I have said as declarations of Fact not Truth. Science deals with Facts not Truth; Philosophy and Religion deal with Truth not Facts. I am not a scientist, nor have I claimed to be one.

So, by your own argument, you should listen to me and not to yourself, even in the case of your argument about doing just this. Even if I were to accept your statement, I would simply point out that I've only been pointing out the formal and informal 'faults' in your reasoning, so, if you think that your statement here relates to what I've been doing, what you're stating is simply that we should listen to everyone and treat what they say with equal weight, whether what they say makes sense or not.[/quote]

Yes, one should listen to fools, not because they are wise, but because they might reveal or remind you of something you forgot or did not see. And only fools rely entirely on others to do their thinking for them.

I completely missed that post. Also didn't I say that I am always wrong?

 

'The rules of debate'. Wow. If it really means that much to you, I cheerfully withdraw my use of the word 'paradox' and insert either the definition I gave, or the term 'logical paradox', instead! I think I may have run into a problem here, though, because I was the first to use the word 'logical', in the thread, but I wasn't the first to use the word 'paradox' (you were, actually!); so do I have to collude with you, or something, to define 'logical paradox'? Actually, what about all the other words we've used? If the first person to use a word gets to define it, can the person who first used one or more of the words in their definition choose the definition of the words in their definition? And what happens then? Your rhetoric class must be mighty complicated!

Wowza; speaking of misunderstanding..! The 'special case' becoming general I was referring to was your ridiculous assertion that because the theories of light being a wave and light being a particle are now 'combined', we should extend that idea to all other scientific theories. Also, I suppose that according to 'the rules of debating', Gross being the first to use the word 'truth', and myself being the first to use the word 'fact', in this thread, we can choose the definitions being used!

I assume that to ridicule and criticize something that someone is saying, you'd have to listen to it first; so, I must have been listening to you!

That's a self-contradictory statement: a logical paradox!

 

DICK THAT SHIT!

FACTS AND TRUTH ARE THE SAME THING. THEY ARE THEY ARE THEY ARE THEY JUST ARE.

IF SOMETHING IS TRUE IT IS A FACT.

Please? Don't make them different things. I can't handle facts not being true.

My brain will dribble from my ears and facts will become untrue and truth will become lies and I DON'T NEED THAT SHIT.

 

According to Xyle, I think I have the power to make them different things, since I used 'fact' first; so, if you feel that strongly about it, watch your step, pal!

 

Wayne no! You're out of control!

Also, radiator, (small burrowing animal, with sharp, pointy claws and a tendency towards alcoholism.)

I may go mad with power.

 

Fuck yeah! I'm the one who first used the word 'definition' in the thread! Fuck yeah!!!

Edit: And I was the first to say 'Muro'! I prescribe its meaning as 'radiator'.

 

By the gods, we are changing the universe!

...Or at least someone's perception of it. Or perceived perception.

...Or maybe we aren't, but if not, what are we doing? And why did it take over twenty pages, and why does it feel so good and so bad at the same time to consider the possibility that we have lost control?

...*head explodes*

 

Maybe this is how the guinea pig should deal with the ravenous hobo?

 

Why didn't Aristotle just drop two things and see if they fell at the same rate?

 

A guinea pig weighing 0.2 kg and a ravenous hobo weighing 68 kg are both dropped from cliff 80 m high. Which will hit the ground first?

 

Neither! The T-Rex at the bottom eats them before they land.

 

But the hobo and the guinea pig can talk, and they sound the same, so possibly they can persuade the T-rex not to eat them on their way down!

 

Focus on the fact of your consciousness beyond the limits of your [censored] [censored] mother [censored] ego, English!