Originally Posted by B Butler

In Eric's reality there are spiritual truths that can be learned through spiritual methods. Different people using similar spiritual methods should find the same sort of basic Truths. One can make a case that various groups of pacifist spiritualists have come to similar conclusions, though Eric occasionally steps out of the envelope, taking the odd position that is inconsistent with my own dabbling in occult spiritualism. At a guess, he is not yet an Ascended Master.

Of course, methods of spiritually proving that a spiritual truth is indeed Truth will often not be convincing to those who don't embrace spiritualism. [/undertatement] It's hard to explain, but you should assume that if you spent enough time meditating properly you would realize that Eric is always right in spiritual matters. [/irony]

He will sometimes distinguish between spiritualist truths in the spiritualist realm and more objective truths that fall in the realm of science. He will sometimes acknowledge that one can learn much through science. That's fine when he stays consistent, but he'll at times try to explain science to someone who knows and respects science more than he does. When one of his spiritually proven spiritualist ideas is conflicted by science, it follows that the science must be wrong. For some reason, the scientists sometimes question this.

He doesn't seem to get that such conversation results in bad karma, is apt to lead to conflict, strife and petty name calling. One has difficulty achieving harmony, inner tranquility and beauty while telling scientists how science works, and doing the telling badly. Still, it is sometimes necessary for him to disparage this bit of science or that. Otherwise, he would have to reevaluate spiritual truths he has grown fond of.

Of course, explaining to an evangelical that his interpretation of the Bible isn't the only possible interpretation leads to similar bad karma. Explaining to conservatives that the Laffer Curve that proposes decreasing tax rates increases tax income seldom if ever works is also bad karma. Contradicting anyone's core beliefs is apt to produce bad karma.

Which is the core of why many to most of the discussions one encounters in these forums feature bad karma.

That's a pretty good statement. I have yet to see convincingly, however, that I need to reevaluate the spiritual truths I have grown fond of, because of something that scientists know and I do not. Such a thing is theoretically possible, and not yet being an ascended master, I have lots to learn about science and spirituality both. And I am not convinced either that scientists are not subject to ideological blinders, which I actually know more about than they do, even if they have more knowledge within their field than I do.

Debunking what I consider bad ideology is difficult, I agree; it's a tough job, but someone's got to do it It is up to me to "tone down my tone" when possible. Given the dangers these ideologies pose, that can be difficult. It is not just a matter of what is true and false, but of the consequences of the power these ideologies wield over our lives. Even so, the more emotional detachment I can have from my fear of these dangers, the better. I do not need to let fear rule over me, any more than over those who hold the ideologies which I think I need to debunk. The best I can do is apologize and move on. Those like Galen who will not ever forgive, I can't do anything about.

"Science" that is funded by political interests should be viewed with suspicion, and I think it has a lot more in common with dogmatic spiritual and religious beliefs than actual, unbiased science does. Science isn't perfect and is also subject to flaws in human perception and biases. Studies that are funded by partisan think tanks very rarely go into a study or experiment without having already drawn their own preconceived conclusions, and they'll do all they can to make sure the results support these conclusions. Even if that means skewing sample sizes, conducting experiments with too many variables, framing surveys with loaded questions, assuming correlations equals causation, or even falsifying data. The unfortunate thing is that science has become largely politicized, since that is how it gets most of its funding. I also find it all too common that people confuse scientific fact with opinion, since they fail to see how subjective their perception of the conclusions made from this biased science actually is.

words of wisdom for all of us from artist Daniel Holeman:

Being "Awakened" means one has had an awakening - a profound experience of seeing the nature of the illusion one has been living, that acute remembering of TRUTH of what one is and how one has been living in distortion and forgetting. Following an awakening is normally many years of continued experience of distortion and "one's issues" but seen from the new perspective or context of the greater TRUTH, until finally it stabilizes and one lives "Home" all the time and never wavers. This comes from the repeated seeing that the "habit" one has been so long in of creating dishonesty in the illusion that one is separate and therefore appears to be a somebody trying to get from life what they want and think they need (ego). Always attempting to have things THEIR way and wanting others to be how THEY want (self-will). After repeated seeing that all one's suffering and complaints stem from this, and that it is all based on a lie, one gradually (or suddenly) lets go and surrenders to the TRUTH, and thus to the TRUE being, God, and is once again, HOME.

There are many paths back home, all unique to the individual who finds their way back, but all have one thing in common - the way back home is through TRUTH, as it was the distortion of TRUTH that made us seem lost, mistakenly see ourselves as "separate", and away from home.
All are invited back Home!
Namaste,
Daniel

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, that's untrue, although its adherents don't call it that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I stand corrected then.

Scientism is usually applied to a willingness to apply scientific method (or pretend to) where it cannot apply and isn't appropriate, such as in answering values questions or aesthetic questions, or to dismiss all other methods of learning and all questions that can't be addressed by scientific method as inferior or without significance or meaning.

I would not necessarily agree with Eric's application of the term, of course.

Eric's application would be referring to anyone who uses the scientific method to anything as scientism. Fortunately those who attempt to apply science to things beyond scientific inquiry, and stipulate that science is alone the only source of knowledge (it is not--there is also subjective knowledge, logic/reason, and ethics) are few and they are also foolish.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Eric's application would be referring to anyone who uses the scientific method to anything as scientism. Fortunately those who attempt to apply science to things beyond scientific inquiry, and stipulate that science is alone the only source of knowledge (it is not--there is also subjective knowledge, logic/reason, and ethics) are few and they are also foolish.

Yes, I agree. Um -- actually I believe Eric doesn't mind applying the scientific method to anything he doesn't personally give a damn about. He just has a problem applying it to life, human behavior, psychic phenomena, or anything that he regards as exempt from natural law.

My own view is that scientific method is the proper tool for all questions of fact regarding the world of observable phenomena. Any question that is either not about observable phenomena or not a question of fact is outside its competence, but if we can observe it and are asking questions of fact about it, that's the realm of science and all other epistemic methods need not apply.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yes, I agree. Um -- actually I believe Eric doesn't mind applying the scientific method to anything he doesn't personally give a damn about. He just has a problem applying it to life, human behavior, psychic phenomena, or anything that he regards as exempt from natural law.

My own view is that scientific method is the proper tool for all questions of fact regarding the world of observable phenomena. Any question that is either not about observable phenomena or not a question of fact is outside its competence, but if we can observe it and are asking questions of fact about it, that's the realm of science and all other epistemic methods need not apply.

It seems Brian then our view points are rather close then. From what I can tell our main difference is over the human consciousness being "one with" the Cosmos, or "part of" the Cosmos.

Also he would be wrong to not apply science to life, behavior. Biology and Sociology and Psychology respectively. As to "psychic phenomena" I don't buy into any of that. The reason I don't is because I passed myself off as a psychic before for money. Essentially psychics observe people, and tell them what they want to hear. It is a scam, a legal scam in most places in the US mind you, but still a scam.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There are many paths back home, all unique to the individual who finds their way back, but all have one thing in common - the way back home is through TRUTH, as it was the distortion of TRUTH that made us seem lost, mistakenly see ourselves as "separate", and away from home.
All are invited back Home!
Namaste,
Daniel

Maybe Nomads know a thing or two about finding One's way back "Home".

Here's some Moody Blues for you, Sunflower.


Prince

PS:

Please excuse me for being a "butt-insky".

Originally Posted by Kinser79

It seems Brian then our view points are rather close then. From what I can tell our main difference is over the human consciousness being "one with" the Cosmos, or "part of" the Cosmos.

That appears to be the case, IMO.

Originally Posted by The Kin-ser

Also he would be wrong to not apply science to life, behavior. Biology and Sociology and Psychology respectively. As to "psychic phenomena" I don't buy into any of that. The reason I don't is because I passed myself off as a psychic before for money. Essentially psychics observe people, and tell them what they want to hear. It is a scam, a legal scam in most places in the US mind you, but still a scam.

You may have passed yourself off as a psychic, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that some "psychic dynamic-thingy" does exist. Maybe you actually are psychic(whatever that means), but hadn't/haven't tapped-into your own abilities...yet.

As you were.


Take care,

Prince

PS:"Co-inky-dinks" are a curious occurance, IMO.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

You may have passed yourself off as a psychic, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that some "psychic dynamic-thingy" does exist. Maybe you actually are psychic(whatever that means), but hadn't/haven't tapped-into your own abilities...yet.

As you were.


Take care,

Prince

PS:"Co-inky-dinks" are a curious occurance, IMO.

Well a "psychic-dynamic-thingy" would need to be defined as either a phenomenon (and thus subject to science) or a non-phenomenon (subject to subjective knowledge and/or logic/reason). I contend that it is neither since it is more reasonable (using Occam's razor) to view "psychic-dynamic-thingies" as cold reading and or making up shit people want to hear. Also the most logical reason for doing such a thing is for $$$$$$$.

P.T. Barnum said a sucker is born every minute. If someone consents to have someone else make up stuff that they want to hear for money, there is no moral foul. Hence why the scam requires the fine print "For Entertainment Purposes Only" in most states.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The best I can do is apologize and move on. Those like Galen who will not ever forgive, I can't do anything about.

O, Ye of little faith!


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Maybe Nomads know a thing or two about finding One's way back "Home".

Here's some Moody Blues for you, Sunflower.


Prince

I like the OM song, but my favorite song by them is a bit darker; seems sometimes we don't make it home!

http://youtu.be/9OlEkOjmUXE

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Hence why the scam requires the fine print "For Entertainment Purposes Only" in most states.

More likely because the conventional wisdom of the state shares the views of folks like yourself, Kinser. Anything to avoid some controversy. Occam's razor can hurt, when cut too close to the "bone" of contention, it seems.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

More likely because the conventional wisdom of the state shares the views of folks like yourself, Kinser. Anything to avoid some controversy. Occam's razor can hurt, when cut too close to the "bone" of contention, it seems.

Ever stop to ponder why there would be controversy if someone took psychic-dynamic-thingies seriously? Probably because they would make foolish choices on the basis of what they are told by someone just trying to make a buck I'd suppose.

And yes Occam's Razor can hurt when you use it against yourself as you just did.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Eric's application would be referring to anyone who uses the scientific method to anything as scientism.

What can I say about a statement like that? You're not paying attention, would be a nice way of putting it. It is up to you to decide, or not, to pay attention to what I say. I look forward to such a time, if it ever comes.

(Brian) Yes, I agree. Um -- actually I believe Eric doesn't mind applying the scientific method to anything he doesn't personally give a damn about. He just has a problem applying it to life, human behavior, psychic phenomena, or anything that he regards as exempt from natural law.

My own view is that scientific method is the proper tool for all questions of fact regarding the world of observable phenomena. Any question that is either not about observable phenomena or not a question of fact is outside its competence, but if we can observe it and are asking questions of fact about it, that's the realm of science and all other epistemic methods need not apply.

Translated from Brianese into Ericese, I would agree.

Scratch the "give a damn" about; more frustration from materialists trying (and failing) to knock me off my rather-unshakeable position


"natural law" as Brian admitted is what is universally true, but that is not necessarily the law we know. Brian did say words to that effect, and I agree. And, the things listed above, cannot be (fully) described by the "physical natural law" that we know.

"observable" means subject to the empirical scientific method.

In any subject under investigation, empirical science can answer questions of fact about phenomena that can be scientifically "observed." Any such subject also has aspects to it that can't be answered using those methods, so other epistemic methods are also needed. Anytime that anyone wants to apply strictly-observed scientific methods to any subject, (s)he can do so, and still use other methods at other times as well to study that same subject.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Ever stop to ponder why there would be controversy if someone took psychic-dynamic-thingies seriously? Probably because they would make foolish choices on the basis of what they are told by someone just trying to make a buck I'd suppose.

So I guess the solution is to get a reading for free!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So I guess the solution is to get a reading for free!

That would only take money out of the equation--rendering doing the reading a waste of time. Again, I know I've passed myself off as a psychic before remember?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I like the OM song, but my favorite song by them is a bit darker; seems sometimes we don't make it home!

http://youtu.be/9OlEkOjmUXE

Well Sunflower, maybe you've got some untapped "Nomad-Spirit" in you.
Who knows, maybe we can start our own Gypsy-"Convoy"?!!!



Prince/Bumblebee

PS:

Originally Posted by Kinser79

It seems Brian then our view points are rather close then. From what I can tell our main difference is over the human consciousness being "one with" the Cosmos, or "part of" the Cosmos.

One with, not part of. I think of consciousness as a single entity which receives information from multiple sources simultaneously, those sources being not closely connected -- a distinction between consciousness, which is not individual, and personality, which is.

Also he would be wrong to not apply science to life, behavior. Biology and Sociology and Psychology respectively.

I agree of course.

As to "psychic phenomena" I don't buy into any of that. The reason I don't is because I passed myself off as a psychic before for money. Essentially psychics observe people, and tell them what they want to hear. It is a scam, a legal scam in most places in the US mind you, but still a scam.

People are able to pretend psychic abilities and fool people for money.

Therefore all alleged psychic abilities are a scam.

See the illogic there?

I don't pay attention at all to people who claim psychic abilities and charge money for their use, although I know from personal experience that not all of them are frauds. Nevertheless, developing those abilities is far more important to me than paying for them, which I'm generally unwilling to do. I disagree with Eric that there's anything supernatural about them, though.

I'm what I call a non-classical materialist. A materialist being someone who believes that all observable phenomena can be accounted for in terms of natural processes, natural law, and the ways the material world works. A classical materialist believes this, and also believes that the material world works in ways that are suggested by Newtonian physics: deterministic, mechanistic, and devoid of what might be called vital or soulful qualities. A non-classical materialist is still a materialist, but has a view of material reality that encompasses relativity, quantum mechanics, and chaos theory: indeterminate, fractal, hologrammic, and lending itself to vital and soulful qualities (even though better words should be found for those things).

So I believe in some (not all) of the same phenomena that Eric does, but for me they have natural explanations, not essentially religious ones. (Which means that "psychic" powers are actually misnamed IMO.)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

One with, not part of. I think of consciousness as a single entity which receives information from multiple sources simultaneously, those sources being not closely connected -- a distinction between consciousness, which is not individual, and personality, which is.

If we boil down consciousness to subjective experience, which is what it is, then it is individual. For example I can tell you what my subjective experience is, but it is impossible for you to experience my subjective experience by any means I know about.

People are able to pretend psychic abilities and fool people for money.

Therefore all alleged psychic abilities are a scam.

See the illogic there?

Were that my position it would be illogical. Rather my position is that those who claim to have psychic abilities are usually scammers. Those who don't charge money are simply delusional.

I don't pay attention at all to people who claim psychic abilities and charge money for their use,

As someone who has operated such a hustle--take my advice and don't.

although I know from personal experience that not all of them are frauds. Nevertheless, developing those abilities is far more important to me than paying for them, which I'm generally unwilling to do. I disagree with Eric that there's anything supernatural about them, though.

This of course begs the question on whether or not psychic-dynamic-thingies are phenomena or non-phenomena.

I'm what I call a non-classical materialist. A materialist being someone who believes that all observable phenomena can be accounted for in terms of natural processes, natural law, and the ways the material world works. A classical materialist believes this, and also believes that the material world works in ways that are suggested by Newtonian physics: deterministic, mechanistic, and devoid of what might be called vital or soulful qualities. A non-classical materialist is still a materialist, but has a view of material reality that encompasses relativity, quantum mechanics, and chaos theory: indeterminate, fractal, hologrammic, and lending itself to vital and soulful qualities (even though better words should be found for those things).

If the definition of a non-classical materialist is: materialist, but has a view of material reality that encompasses relativity, quantum mechanics, and chaos theory. Then most materialists would be of the non-classical type. Given the science behind chaos theory, quantum mechanics and relativity it would be foolish to hold onto an obsolete viewpoint.

That said define what "soulful qualities" are and encompass. That combination of words sounds like hocus pocus to me but if you mean something else perhaps that should be clarified.

So I believe in some (not all) of the same phenomena that Eric does, but for me they have natural explanations, not essentially religious ones. (Which means that "psychic" powers are actually misnamed IMO.)

So then would you classify reading tarot, horoscopes, crystal ball gazing and channeling as phenomena or non-phenomena?

Originally Posted by B Butler

In Eric's reality there are spiritual truths that can be learned through spiritual methods. Different people using similar spiritual methods should find the same sort of basic Truths. One can make a case that various groups of pacifist spiritualists have come to similar conclusions, though Eric occasionally steps out of the envelope, taking the odd position that is inconsistent with my own dabbling in occult spiritualism. At a guess, he is not yet an Ascended Master.

How do you "discover" something spiritually? How do you differentiate what is discovered from what is wished for or what is simply repeated back?

Of course, methods of spiritually proving that a spiritual truth is indeed Truth will often not be convincing to those who don't embrace spiritualism. [/undertatement] It's hard to explain, but you should assume that if you spent enough time meditating properly you would realize that Eric is always right in spiritual matters. [/irony]

In other words, there is absolutely no way to tell the difference between what someone discovers and what someone has just made up out of their imagination. Completely useless "truths".

He will sometimes distinguish between spiritualist truths in the spiritualist realm and more objective truths that fall in the realm of science. He will sometimes acknowledge that one can learn much through science. That's fine when he stays consistent, but he'll at times try to explain science to someone who knows and respects science more than he does. When one of his spiritually proven spiritualist ideas is conflicted by science, it follows that the science must be wrong. For some reason, the scientists sometimes question this.

In other words, science is OK as long as it tells him exactly what he wants to hear. Too bad that isn't really science.

He doesn't seem to get that such conversation results in bad karma, is apt to lead to conflict, strife and petty name calling. One has difficulty achieving harmony, inner tranquility and beauty while telling scientists how science works, and doing the telling badly. Still, it is sometimes necessary for him to disparage this bit of science or that. Otherwise, he would have to reevaluate spiritual truths he has grown fond of.

Eric has no humility then. He can't accept the fact that he is ever wrong about anything. He could learn a lot from real science then. Every scientist has humility pounded into them everyday by their continuous failures to develop or make accurate hypotheses, with only the occasional "eureka" moment of clarity.

Of course, explaining to an evangelical that his interpretation of the Bible isn't the only possible interpretation leads to similar bad karma. Explaining to conservatives that the Laffer Curve that proposes decreasing tax rates increases tax income seldom if ever works is also bad karma. Contradicting anyone's core beliefs is apt to produce bad karma.

Which is the core of why many to most of the discussions one encounters in these forums feature bad karma.

And yet the scientific process is objective enough to render anyone's core belief irrelevant. Science works.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Good heavens, there are tons of them. Turbulence in water flow. Smoke rising from a cigarette. The weather. Most relevant to the current discussion, synaptic activity in the brain.

I didn't mean to ask for examples of chaotic systems. I asked for an example that we have verified is chaotic because of quantum level events. It's one thing to hypothesize about the link and quite another to demonstrate it through experiment.

All of these being described by the form of equation that is infinitely sensitive to initial conditions, making prediction impossible as a practical matter because large changes in outcomes result from very small errors or imprecision in measurement of starting conditions even when strict determinism of those conditions is assumed.

Yes. That's chaos. But, you haven't demonstrated that any of those lack of precisions is at the quantum scale. That was what you initially claimed.

Since quantum mechanics tells us that the initial conditions are in fact NOT determined,

Only at quantum scales. Wave functions collapse and condition's become determinant at larger scales. That's the stochastic nature of larger systems. So many individual quantum events together behave as a mechanical process.

the indeterminacy-in-practice that chaos presents becomes indeterminacy-in-theory as well. The universe is indeterminate at the subatomic level,

Individual pieces of the universe at subatomic scales are indeterminate. The universe as a whole is not at a subatomic scale. You can't simply project quantum effects for the universe just because an individual piece behaves in a quantum manner. Stochastic!

and most macroscopic natural processes preserve this indeterminacy,

No, they don't. If they did, Newton would have discovered quantum mechanics rather than Newtonian mechanics.

but a few (e.g., the orbits of the planets, some chemical reactions, and other processes that are predictable mechanistically) suppress it so that indeterminacy is not measurable at the macro scale.

Some? Give me a list of macroscopic events that aren't chemical reactions or general relativity! Even light photons enmass behave in a mechanistic manner.

We have every reason to believe, though, that human behavior falls into the larger category of processes that transmit the indeterminacy rather than suppressing it.

Every reason except any physical evidence that that is true. There is some interesting research concerning the possible role of quantum effects in neuron enzymatic activity. But, I've seen nothing published that definitively places human behavior in the quantum rules category. Maybe you could point out which issue of Nature I missed?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

And yet the scientific process is objective enough to render anyone's core belief irrelevant. Science works.

Not irrelevant. See the global warming thread. If one's world view and values conflict with science, many find it quite easy to set aside the science. Enough people can ignore the science that public policy is effected.

And this is not uncommon. Throughout these forums one sees discussion on politics, economics and many another subject where the evidence of science is insufficient to answer a question. Science is generally less useful and less used than the fine art of hurling insults.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

That would only take money out of the equation--rendering doing the reading a waste of time. Again, I know I've passed myself off as a psychic before remember?

And now you're passing yourself off as someone who knows about science. So what?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I disagree with Eric that there's anything supernatural about them, though.

I disagree with Eric too

So I believe in some (not all) of the same phenomena that Eric does, but for me they have natural explanations, not essentially religious ones. (Which means that "psychic" powers are actually misnamed IMO.)

Spiritual but not religious. That's a good common phrase these days. Count me among them.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Well Sunflower, maybe you've got some untapped "Nomad-Spirit" in you.

Just a hippie gypsy!