flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > third eye

Goto page Previous  1, 2
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
sleepsleep: I still didn't really understand explaination from your link, because it uses many terms which I don't exactly understand.
Well, there are a lot of things we (as people) do not understand, because we don't all "specialize" in some area Laughing

vid wrote:
what is "higher plane"?
don't you know what a plane is? (i'm talking about the mathematical 'plane', not the aeroplane Laughing).

vid wrote:
what is "crown chakra"? And what is "vortex of crown chakra" ?
Did you try google for it? for me all biological names are too "incomprehensible" Wink

vid wrote:
Why do they call "pineal gland" the "energy center" here? What does "recieving" pure energy (eg. one not bound to some matter) mean?
Now i get where you're heading. Smile

You have grown up with definitions of 'energy' and words like that which you associate with the normal matter-thinking. Obviously if you ask someone "what is energy", the answer would be hard find without using words like "matter" or "amount of work" because those words, presumably, should also be defined as to what they are (again, without using the word 'energy' or anything like that).

Sure you can go ahead and explain: "well matter is this thing you're standing on", but in reality, you can't really tell (analogously) "well, green is the color you see in leaves" because a blind person wouldn't be able to 'see' green (the color I mean, not the light).


And obviously since you are not really "specialized" in this "area" (so to speak), you'll probably not understand a lot of things, and perhaps listen to some "experts" (so to speak, again).

for example, don't tell me you proved all the formulas everyone discovered, by yourself, did you? Laughing

vid wrote:
What is "higher dimension". Is it same as "higher plane"?
I don't really get your question.

you're already defined in at least 4 dimensions (space, 3D, and time), so asking what that is, is exactly as asking "what is time", which is obviously hard to answer correctly, and in fact in scientifical terms, impossible.

so a 'higher' dimension, is, well, you get the idea Smile

vid wrote:
What is "pituitary body", is it same as "astral body"? How does pineal gland vibrate? I think claim about vibrating pineal gland is pretty against our knowledge of it.
what do you mean?

vid wrote:
and the soul

what is "soul" in this context?

vid wrote:
what are "positive forces" and "negative forces"?
ask "what is a magnetic force" without using any examples (and references to other forces), because those two 'forces' can't be defined by example, unless you meditate of course, which I doubt you do Wink

vid wrote:
This claim is scientifically testable - so is there any evidence supporting it?
Since the page explained an "experiment", why are you even questioning it? (and btw, what do you mean by "scientifically testable"? all of the above things can be "testable" if you really meditate, that's the same thing as saying "science can be testable if you open your senses (e.g: eyes), otherwise you won't prolly see much stuff with the eyes closed).

for me, it's no different than any other web page concerning "experiments", so while 'we' trust such pages, 'we' should trust this page as well, especially since we're not experts in that area (at least I'm not).


now since you have so many questions, and I've lost track of them, I'll conclude that:
vid wrote:
My impression is that this article uses bunch of loosely defined terms, and so it doesn't really say anything. Of course you can show me I am wrong, by explaining those terms (ideally without using any other such loosely defined terms, otherwise i would need those explained too).
This is the same as with normal "energy" and matter. You can't explain them without using other such "terms".

for me at least, any area I don't know uses a bunch of "loosely" defined terms as well.

best "explanation" for the green color is to see it yourself (in fact, I ask you to explain how green looks like (supposedly I'm blind). Note: I ask you so that I can imagine it, I don't ask for the "light-wave frequency" stuff, but some explanation that would help me in "vizualizing" it).

Now you can see why such questions can be hard to answer with "conventional" terms, so to speak.

so, best explanation for this is to do it yourself (see this as well).

best phrase from the link in my opinion:
Quote:


Scientific study of both the physical world and the inner world of human experiences are, according to Dr Newberg, equally beneficial. "When someone has a mystical experience, they perceive that sense of reality to be far greater and far clearer than our usual everyday sense of reality," he said. He added: "Since the sense of spiritual reality is more powerful and clear, perhaps that sense of reality is more accurate than our scientific everyday sense of reality."
Post 31 Dec 2007, 15:31
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
vid wrote:
what is "higher plane"?
don't you know what a plane is? (i'm talking about the mathematical 'plane', not the aeroplane Laughing).

Yes i know. But the plane i know doesn't have any "height" defined, and text evidently speaks about different kind of "planes".

Quote:
vid wrote:
what is "crown chakra"? And what is "vortex of crown chakra" ?
Did you try google for it? for me all biological names are too "incomprehensible" Wink

I tried now Smile If I disregard all nonsense definition (associating state of counsciusnes with color, etc...) I found one definition that at least says something: [quote=http://www.healer.ch/crownchakra.html]Consciousness: The Crown Chakra represents that part of our consciousness concerned with perceptions of unity or separation[/quote]
This could be understood that it is part of brain responsible for telling ourself from rest of things we percieve. This is the part which is disabled by meditation. People who have it disabled can't recognize "themself", and it gives them subjective sensation of "being one with everything else". Is this the Crown Chakra?

Quote:
You have grown up with definitions of 'energy' and words like that which you associate with the normal matter-thinking. Obviously if you ask someone "what is energy", the answer would be hard find without using words like "matter" or "amount of work" because those words, presumably, should also be defined as to what they are (again, without using the word 'energy' or anything like that).

Sure you can go ahead and explain: "well matter is this thing you're standing on", but in reality, you can't really tell (analogously) "well, green is the color you see in leaves" because a blind person wouldn't be able to 'see' green (the color I mean, not the light).

And obviously since you are not really "specialized" in this "area" (so to speak), you'll probably not understand a lot of things, and perhaps listen to some "experts" (so to speak, again).

So why do they use word "energy" for something other than this word usually mean? Creating such ambiguities can only confuse people - they should make up another word for another thing. Anyway, how do these "energies" manifest themself? How can we tell they exist?

Quote:
for example, don't tell me you proved all the formulas everyone discovered, by yourself, did you? Laughing

No, I didn't. There were zounds of people who did, they published their tests, and whenever I want to challenge any formula, I can see all proofs of it. Unlike other non-scientific claims, where I can't dis/prove them in any way. There are many people who claim they have proven something, or that science proved it, but they never give any reference to proof, and usually you discover there is no such proof.

Quote:
you're already defined in at least 4 dimensions (space, 3D, and time), so asking what that is, is exactly as asking "what is time", which is obviously hard to answer correctly, and in fact in scientifical terms, impossible.

so a 'higher' dimension, is, well, you get the idea Smile

so, does the term "dimension" here mean same as "dimension" for common usage? Problem is that no one ever demonstrated there are any other dimensions besides our 4 (timespace), but this text mentions them is if they were existing. That's why i thought they used word "dimension" in other meaning than the usual one (as they like to do with many other words).

vid wrote:
What is "pituitary body", is it same as "astral body"? How does pineal gland vibrate? I think claim about vibrating pineal gland is pretty against our knowledge of it.
what do you mean?

vid wrote:
and the soul

what is "soul" in this context?

Quote:
ask "what is a magnetic force" without using any examples (and references to other forces), because those two 'forces' can't be defined by example, unless you meditate of course, which I doubt you do Wink

So, "positive" and "negative" forces are some forces that only manifest themselves in regard to human mind? They didn't exist before there were any humans and animals?

Quote:
[quote="vid"]This claim is scientifically testable - so is there any evidence supporting it?

Quote:
Since the page explained an "experiment", why are you even questioning it?

What experiment did the site explain? I didn't notice any experiment there. Maybe you have very loose definition of experiment, experiment is something that has well defined conditions, is repeatable, and makes predictions about it's outcome.

Quote:
(and btw, what do you mean by "scientifically testable"? all of the above things can be "testable" if you really meditate, that's the same thing as saying "science can be testable if you open your senses (e.g: eyes), otherwise you won't prolly see much stuff with the eyes closed).

Idea about what i mean by testability is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.
No, most of those things aren't testable, because they don't meet criteria of testability. They are not well defined (they use ambigous loosely defined terms), and they don't make explicit predictions.

Quote:
for me, it's no different than any other web page concerning "experiments", so while 'we' trust such pages, 'we' should trust this page as well, especially since we're not experts in that area (at least I'm not).
science tries to diminish "trusting" part as much as possible. Everyone who wants to publish scientific experiment has to describe it well enough, so that experiment is repeatable by anyone - eg. you don't have to trust, you can test, unlike with most eastern philosophies claims. Note that personal emotion is not as objective criteria as visual receptory in unaltered state of mind is.

Quote:
vid wrote:
My impression is that this article uses bunch of loosely defined terms, and so it doesn't really say anything. Of course you can show me I am wrong, by explaining those terms (ideally without using any other such loosely defined terms, otherwise i would need those explained too).
This is the same as with normal "energy" and matter. You can't explain them without using other such "terms".

You can describe them by their effect, which you can't describe in any other way. What is effect of "vibrating astral body" on our everyday life, that can't be attributed to energy/matter?

Quote:
best "explanation" for the green color is to see it yourself (in fact, I ask you to explain how green looks like (supposedly I'm blind). Note: I ask you so that I can imagine it, I don't ask for the "light-wave frequency" stuff, but some explanation that would help me in "vizualizing" it).

You cannot possibly vizualize quantum entanglement, yet we know it exists, because it manifests itself somehow.
Post 31 Dec 2007, 16:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Yes i know. But the plane i know doesn't have any "height" defined, and text evidently speaks about different kind of "planes".
What "height" has time?

it is continuous. these 'higher planes' are continous as well.

vid wrote:
This could be understood that it is part of brain responsible for telling ourself from rest of things we percieve. This is the part which is disabled by meditation. People who have it disabled can't recognize "themself", and it gives them subjective sensation of "being one with everything else". Is this the Crown Chakra?
Like I said, I dunno Wink

vid wrote:
So why do they use word "energy" for something other than this word usually mean?
Energy is a vaguely loosed term actually, it's not only the "amount of work done".

in fact, now we discovered that matter is energy (since it can be converted), and who else knows how many things are "energy".

There is also the "ki" energy, or vrill (same, different name).

vid wrote:
Creating such ambiguities can only confuse people - they should make up another word for another thing. Anyway, how do these "energies" manifest themself? How can we tell they exist?
by meditating Wink

vid wrote:
No, I didn't. There were zounds of people who did, they published their tests, and whenever I want to challenge any formula, I can see all proofs of it. Unlike other non-scientific claims, where I can't dis/prove them in any way.
First of all, how would you be able to "see" all proofs of it if you don't understand it (let's say). As an example (example), I do not understand a lot of biological stuff because I simply do not know biology. Any text that "disputes" or "challenges" other biological text can say whatever it wants, for I will usually not understand what it says, and will either accept it or reject it, by "trusting" or not, because I don't know. I can't really tell if the text that "challenges" the other text is true or bogus. Why? for the same reason I don't understand the original text since I don't know biology.

And second, you may not be able to "see" the proofs on a paper if you do not open your eyes (this is not a metaphor!), because you won't be able to read that text. This is classic proof. Second step is to understand the thing written on the text. If you don't specialize in that area, it's a lot harder to understand and therefore claim if it's bogus or not (same applies to texts that challenge it!).

replace the "Eyes" above with the "third eye" and the paper with the "higher planes" to get the picture Wink

vid wrote:
so, does the term "dimension" here mean same as "dimension" for common usage? Problem is that no one ever demonstrated there are any other dimensions besides our 4 (timespace), but this text mentions them is if they were existing.
Actually this "demonstration" can be done, depends whether you think of it this way or not (with the meditating stuff I mean). It's not easy to understand, and in fact, if I challenge you to imagine a 4D world of space (5th dimension is time), or a world without time, you wouldn't be able to, or at least very hard.

vid wrote:
So, "positive" and "negative" forces are some forces that only manifest themselves in regard to human mind? They didn't exist before there were any humans and animals?
no, you got the wrong track.

Those forces manifest themselves on the "higher dimensions" so to speak. That is, in "common" everyday life they won't manifest (though in some places, meditation is a common thing, so they manifest in their everyday life).

Like I said, for most, it's the same as "colors" not manifesting in any way to a blind person. (and yet, incredible powerful beams could manifest even to them (i.e damage them)).

vid wrote:
What experiment did the site explain? I didn't notice any experiment there. Maybe you have very loose definition of experiment, experiment is something that has well defined conditions, is repeatable, and makes predictions about it's outcome.
i apologize for being incorrect.

I was referring to the experiment made in my second link (in my previous post I gave a link).

vid wrote:
science tries to diminish "trusting" part as much as possible.
well actually it doesn't because we have to trust other people who specialize in different areas.

vid wrote:
Everyone who wants to publish scientific experiment has to describe it well enough, so that experiment is repeatable by anyone - eg. you don't have to trust, you can test, unlike with most eastern philosophies claims. Note that personal emotion is not as objective criteria as visual receptory in unaltered state of mind is.
Again, let's say you want to prove quarcs, or for that matter, the anti-matter stuff.

problem: you don't own a particle accelerator, so you can't. Therefore, for you (and for me) anti-matter does NOT EXIST. and for that matter any such kind of proofs who use particle accelerators.

So you see, we actually think anti-matter exists, thus we trust those who:

1) made the experiment (with their particle accelerators)
2) or those who dispute/challenge that (also with their p.a.s)

this means we still have to trust someone, otherwise we'll have to invest a lot on particle accelerators, be qualified, etc... and this just to prove anti-matter.

add this to the proof for absolutely anything else (including walking on the moon yourself, otherwise you only trust "videos" or claims from NASA, etc.)).

vid wrote:
You cannot possibly vizualize quantum entanglement, yet we know it exists, because it manifests itself somehow.
colors don't manifest for blind people (again, a powerful beam could damage them, etc).

this thing manifests too, if you're willing to meditate (and other such things).

depends whether you open your eyes to see the colors, or open your third eye, to put it with that term Wink
Post 31 Dec 2007, 16:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
I will try to shorten this discussion and react to repeated points only once.

Quote:
colors don't manifest for blind people

They do. They don't manifest directly, but only very small part of reality is observed directly by humans. It is possible to make machine that will identify colors and convert them to tone for example. Thus, the color will (indirectly) manifest itself to blind people. How can I directly or indirectly manifest "higher plane"?

Quote:
by meditating

Meditating only affects your consciousness, and all aspects of meditation (including sensation of being in "higher plane", and being "out of body") can be explained on purely physical/natural basis, without need for any "astral bodies" and "higher planes". If meditation is the only way how these supposed things manifest, then you can dismiss this hypothesis based on Occam's razor principe. Reason is that this hypothesis doesn't bring anything new (doesn't explain anything not explained by existing theories).

Quote:
problem: you don't own a particle accelerator, so you can't. Therefore, for you (and for me) anti-matter does NOT EXIST. and for that matter any such kind of proofs who use particle accelerators.

Wrong reasoning. Originally, burden of proof was on scientists to prove that something like quarcs or anti-matter exists. They did it, in proper manner, eg. their experiment is repeatable (even if with proper equipment, which not everyone has). That means fact is treated as proven.

Now if you want to challenge their conclusion, you can, burden on proof is on you. You can't challenge something "scientifically proven" by asking for another proof. Most of scientific proofs are eventually repeated, even pricy ones involving particle accelerators, and are thus tested again.

But, if people would "prove" it in scientifically incorrect way, eg. they would just say "today my god told me in dream that there is some anti-matter", it wouldn't prove anything, and burden of proof remains on them.

Seriously, read about scientific method, it is a great way to collect wisdom, and very (altough not 100%) foolproof. Most of those philosophies don't even tell HOW they learned all that stuff, not speaking about providing way to verify them.


Last edited by vid on 31 Dec 2007, 17:30; edited 1 time in total
Post 31 Dec 2007, 16:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
FrozenKnight



Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 128
FrozenKnight
Well i don't know if it has anything to do with a third eye but supposedly i can see auras. Unfortunately, I have as of yet been unable to prove there is any color or consistency to any color in aura's. And I currently think the color may be imagined or possibly generated from background colors. all i know for certain about aura's "from what i can see" is that they appear as "fields" around everything living or not. so far i have found that anyone who i have explained the process of viewing an aura too has seen the same field i have always seen. (a colorless fiend which surrounds just about every object)

Unfortunately, i live near Sedona, AZ. a magnet for people who believe in supernatural things. So, it's not uncommon for one of them to try to explain to me an aura is. it's kind of funny how they can go on for an hour about aura's that they never have seen and when i tell them what i can see they always tell me to "keep practicing" and "i will eventually see the aura's color". I've been able to see this **** as far back as i can remember. (before pre-school) how much practice do you really need?

As for things like telepathy's actually I have to wonder why most or all of can't read each others minds. it's not hard to design a circuit that transmits, in fact it's reltivally easy once you know how. and it's known that 2 circuits operating at the same or similar frequency's placed close enough together will produce interference in one another. now keeping that in mind, the human brain is known to emit multipl frequency's. it is also known to be capable of both rewiring it's self and reprogramming it's self. so is it really hard to believe that a human brain would be capable of receiving and possibly understanding frequency's transmitted from other human brains? especially since all human brains are fairly similar in the frequency's they operate on.

As for higher pain of existence. i understand the concept but have yet to experience such a thing. i work in a hospital, have seen hundreds of dead body's and even seen a few people die. been in the morgue hundreds of times and in all the dark corners of the building. and have yet to see a single ghost. the funny thing is i have been told there are ghosts on the property but for some crazy reason they only show themselves to people who already believe in them. the closest i have come to proving anything supernatural was when one of my coworkers saw a Black Coyote on the property and as understand it still hangs around from time to time. but I'm not entirely sure that is a big deal.
Post 31 Dec 2007, 17:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
FrozenKnight: Having subjective sense of seeing aura is not anything extraordinary. It is natural fenomen that arises from our physiology.

abstract of one explaination (sorry, i didn't find full text online for free)
http://www.llewellynencyclopedia.com/article/315

This clearly shows how some people who wanted to know truth, but didn't have proper method, might have come to conclusion that people have some "aura".

Quote:
so is it really hard to believe that a human brain would be capable of receiving and possibly understanding frequency's transmitted from other human brains?

Well... yes. Human brain has literary billions of "wires" in it. Imagine what work would it be to separate all fundamentals from wave composed of so many parts. After that, you would have to associate alll this part to exact wire in YOUR brain... how? Also, signals in brain is passed as some kind of electrical potential changes. Are you sure that this potential changes can be reconstructed from electromagnetic waves they emit?

And aside from learning what is "on wires", you have to understand that hardware changes with usage. Wires which are used more often will operate differently than wires that are seldom used. I think (not sure) that this state of mind is not emited in those waves.

I suggest reading something about simplified models of neural networks, and try to model some simple neural networks yourself. There was a nice neural network exampe on forum, that learnt how to draw digits.

Quote:
As for higher pain of existence. i understand the concept but have yet to experience such a thing.

even after "experiencing" it, it still may not be truth - like aura, out of body experiences, etc.
Post 31 Dec 2007, 17:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
How can I directly or indirectly manifest "higher plane"?
through meditation Wink

it's like opening your "third eye" which can see ultraviolet light. It's not ultraviolet, but rather the "higher" planes, do you follow?

vid wrote:
Meditating only affects your consciousness
put it this way: your vision (eyes) only affect your consiousness.

same thing.

vid wrote:
If meditation is the only way how these supposed things manifest, then you can dismiss this hypothesis based on Occam's razor principe. Reason is that this hypothesis doesn't bring anything new (doesn't explain anything not explained by existing theories).
I don't know what you mean by "explain". Does it mean knowledge?

Let's take a silly example. Suppose you would go into a black hole, and then teleport yourself (just as an example) somewhere in a different world. This world had a lot of aliens and you see them watching our world, our every move. Then, they send you back into this world of yours. So now, you know aliens are watching us, does this mean it should be ignored? 'ignored' not as "taking some actions against it", but rather as a form of knowledge or possibly insight. For example, you will never look at the world as before with this knowledge Wink

and like I said, there is no easy way to "explain" this. Just as a blind guy will probably say "Wow" when he will receive vision (let's say he does).

vid wrote:
Wrong reasoning. Originally, burden of proof was on scientists to prove that something like quarcs or anti-matter exists. They did it, in proper manner, eg. their experiment is repeatable (even if with proper equipment, which not everyone has). That means fact is treated as proven.
You don't get it.

Let's say I am the scientist performing the experiment and let's say that anti-matter does not exist (only an example). I simply write into a paper that I discovered anti-matter, blabla.. (note: I did not perform the experiment, but only own a particle accelerator).

People look at this and see it's true, since no one has challenged it before.

Now supposedly some other guys come with their particle accelerator, and then they test my experiment. They concluded (let's say for example) that I was wrong, however, let's say I payed them to shut they mouth 'unofficially', or for that matter, they had the same personality as I did (i.e with anti-matter).

Then they write in their paper that anti-matter really exists (again, fake), so everyone agrees with me.

And now, very few will further challenge this as it has been done by two people. So does this mean anti-matter exists? (remember, in this example, it doesn't exist!)

Further let's assume some third guy comes, and performs the experiment again. He says in his paper that anti-matter is bogus and he didn't have any.

What will be your conclusion? Who's right and who's wrong? Fact is, you can't tell, because you don't own such an expensive thing, so you can't prove it yourself.

Guy1: "Anti-matter exists, my experiments proved that...."
Guy2: "It's bogus, my experiments proved that ..."
Guy1: "You must be wrong because my data etc"
etc..

it's a repeated pattern, and the only ones who will be able to choose which Guy is right will be those with particle accelerators. But since you (and me) don't have such things, I ask you, who's right?

or maybe it's all just a big conspiracy, you know? Laughing

vid wrote:
Now if you want to challenge their conclusion, you can, burden on proof is on you. You can't challenge something "scientifically proven" by asking for another proof. Most of scientific proofs are eventually repeated, even pricy ones involving particle accelerators, and are thus tested again.
If I challenge their proof, what makes people believe my experiments and not those of the scientists? fact is, they CANNOT make reasonable conclusions based on the data from neither me nor them, because they don't have particle accelerators.

vid wrote:
Seriously, read about scientific method, it is a great way to collect wisdom, and very (altough not 100%) foolproof. Most of these philosophies don't even tell HOW they learned all that stuff.
Ok I ask you this (for the sake of the argument):

Prove to me that anti-matter exists. Don't use some link to webpages because the whole thing is a big conspiracy, like I said Wink those who wrote the pages and performed the experiments can't be trusted. They all unofficially agreed (maybe some money) to spoil out this bogus for those that cannot prove it themselves.

do you get the idea?Laughing
Post 31 Dec 2007, 17:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
First two points end up into third - if meditation is only way to supposedly demonstrate existence of these things, and meditation is completely explained and understood with current knowledge without those things, we can dismiss hypothesis about existence of those things. Meditation is just an illusion of hacked brain, like drugs, or dreaming.

Quote:
Let's take a silly example. Suppose you would go into a black hole, and then teleport yourself (just as an example) somewhere in a different world. This world had a lot of aliens and you see them watching our world, our every move. Then, they send you back into this world of yours. So now, you know aliens are watching us, does this mean it should be ignored? 'ignored' not as "taking some actions against it", but rather as a form of knowledge or possibly insight. For example, you will never look at the world as before with this knowledge Wink

First of all, you'd have to make sure that your alien trip wasn't LSD trip, or other form of illusion. Actually, there are people who truly experienced this (only in their mind, but that doesn't make difference for them) - do you take it as true knowledge because of that?

Quote:
and like I said, there is no easy way to "explain" this. Just as a blind guy will probably say "Wow" when he will receive vision (let's say he does).

Just like drugs Smile Surely, hacking your brain will reveal completely new emotions and feelings to you, some of which may appear very real. Our brain is bitch in distinguishing reality from fiction, it makes up so many things. Brain makes up things it doesn't know. When you barely hear something, brain chooses some word anyway, even if it's not what person said. In vision, brain fills your blind spot and makes it appear real to you. In your dreams, brain is on-the-wild, and often it appears very real to your brain. And especially, if you set your brain to half-dream and decrease data (by switching off few parts of it) in meditation, it has more to make up for that.

Quote:
Let's say I am the scientist performing the experiment and let's say that anti-matter does not exist (only an example). I simply write into a paper that I discovered anti-matter, blabla.. (note: I did not perform the experiment, but only own a particle accelerator).

People look at this and see it's true, since no one has challenged it before.

Now supposedly some other guys come with their particle accelerator, and then they test my experiment. They concluded (let's say for example) that I was wrong, however, let's say I payed them to shut they mouth 'unofficially', or for that matter, they had the same personality as I did (i.e with anti-matter).

Then they write in their paper that anti-matter really exists (again, fake), so everyone agrees with me.

And now, very few will further challenge this as it has been done by two people. So does this mean anti-matter exists? (remember, in this example, it doesn't exist!)

Yes, in this case, it would be wrong conclusion. But how probable is that? Particle accelerator, like all rare equipment, is watched over by thousands of world's top scientists. You wouldn't be able to get over that single time, not twice.

And you are making same fallacy Kohlrak did in other debate: you are picking up rare improbable case against some general rule, which I said applies "most of times". Even if the very improbable thing would happen, it will corrupt one conclusion of science, and other thousands to millions will remain intact.

Quote:
Further let's assume some third guy comes, and performs the experiment again. He says in his paper that anti-matter is bogus and he didn't have any.

What will be your conclusion? Who's right and who's wrong? Fact is, you can't tell, because you don't own such an expensive thing, so you can't prove it yourself.

Guy1: "Anti-matter exists, my experiments proved that...."
Guy2: "It's bogus, my experiments proved that ..."
Guy1: "You must be wrong because my data etc"
etc..

it's a repeated pattern, and the only ones who will be able to choose which Guy is right will be those with particle accelerators. But since you (and me) don't have such things, I ask you, who's right?

Simply: you would repeat experiment watched over by many people from both sides, and 3rd parties. But liar would probably be discovered sooner, because he wouldn't want to agree to such experiment. The one who is truly interested in it would WANT to repeat experiment, because he would be like "how the hell is it possible that it did happen for me, and didn't happen for them?".

Quote:
vid wrote:
Seriously, read about scientific method, it is a great way to collect wisdom, and very (altough not 100%) foolproof. Most of these philosophies don't even tell HOW they learned all that stuff.
Ok I ask you this (for the sake of the argument):

Prove to me that anti-matter exists. Don't use some link to webpages because the whole thing is a big conspiracy, like I said Wink those who wrote the pages and performed the experiments can't be trusted. They all unofficially agreed (maybe some money) to spoil out this bogus for those that cannot prove it themselves.

do you get the idea?Laughing

Such proving would have nothing to do with scientific method. Of course no one can gather/verify everything himself. Scientific methods are about building up on other's effort, and correcting other's mistakes. Very much like open source.
Post 31 Dec 2007, 18:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8898
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
there are lots of questions here, so i try my best to share with u all.

it is like pain, how would u know/feel "pain" if u never get hurt before?
so, even you use hundred thousand millions of words to describe "pain", the person who listen to it still woundn't able to understand unless he/she felt it before.

it is like word eg. sweet, sour, bitter, all these need "experience" in order to understand.

so, i give some examples below, and hopefully, u guys will treat these examples seriously and give it a few hour to try.

so, what is aura, (maybe u couldn't see aura, but most people could actually feel it).

find a seat which is comfortable,
try clap ur palms twice. distance ur palms around 5 cm. (interior left palm faces interior right palm)
make ur palm static (don't move it anymore) (make sure ur hands is not rested on anything).

after around 1 minute without moving ur palms, try move it, (try not to use any energy). u SHOULD feel some "magnet" effect when u try to move it now.

i call it "Qi" in chinese mandarin.

(maybe i should make a video.....) Smile
1 video saves thousand millions words.
Post 31 Dec 2007, 18:19
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
it is like pain, how would u know/feel "pain" if u never get hurt before?
so, even you use hundred thousand millions of words to describe "pain", the person who listen to it still woundn't able to understand unless he/she felt it before.

But pain is state of human mind. It relates only to human consciousness, and doesn't exist apart from it. If you dissect proper part of brain, you can no longer feel pain. Yet terms like "higher plane" suggest they exist apart from our brain / consciousness, and apart from humans. Then, they should demonstrate their presence even without human mind/brain. Human mind/brain isn't so much different from other things around, why should these things appear only with this particular one?

And still, you can demonstrate pain without experiencing it, by tracing neurons and measuring their voltage.

Quote:
so, what is aura, (maybe u couldn't see aura, but most people could actually feel it).

find a seat which is comfortable,
try clap ur palms twice. distance ur palms around 5 cm. (interior left palm faces interior right palm)
make ur palm static (don't move it anymore) (make sure ur hands is not rested on anything).

after around 1 minute without moving ur palms, try move it, (try not to use any energy). u SHOULD feel some "magnet" effect when u try to move it now.

so you say that that "magnet" effect is caused by aura? Do you think that effect is real (there is some force physically moving our hands), or is it just illusion of mind (we feel like it is harder to move hands)?
Post 31 Dec 2007, 18:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
First two points end up into third - if meditation is only way to supposedly demonstrate existence of these things, and meditation is completely explained and understood with current knowledge without those things, we can dismiss hypothesis about existence of those things. Meditation is just an illusion of hacked brain, like drugs, or dreaming.
You can't prove 'illusions' happen.

then again, i am sure if all people were blind, they would say the same to the guy who really had eyes.

and by the way, the link I gave you (here) seems to do some things and certainly doesn't say anything about "illusions". (be sure to read the last paragraph from Dr.Newberg).

why do you consider this site untrue when shitload of other pages you trust? isn't this a bit subjective?

vid wrote:
First of all, you'd have to make sure that your alien trip wasn't LSD trip, or other form of illusion. Actually, there are people who truly experienced this (only in their mind, but that doesn't make difference for them) - do you take it as true knowledge because of that?
how to prove it's an illusion? since there are "people" (i.e more than one) does that prove it, or what?

and I sincerely wasn't aware that some people really experienced such a silly example Laughing

vid wrote:
Yes, in this case, it would be wrong conclusion. But how probable is that? Particle accelerator, like all rare equipment, is watched over by thousands of world's top scientists. You wouldn't be able to get over that single time, not twice.

And you are making same fallacy Kohlrak did in other debate: you are picking up rare improbable case against some general rule, which I said applies "most of times". Even if the very improbable thing would happen, it will corrupt one conclusion of science, and other thousands to millions will remain intact.
I don't understand, how is it so unprobable? People lie, and no matter how "top scientists" they are, do you think it's less likely they could lie or be wrong? In fact, this is trusting, because you seem to "trust" 'top scientists' more than regular people.

not only that, but what makes you think the webpage and Dr.Newberg lie more than any other "top scientists"? Isn't this a bit subjective again?

vid wrote:
Simply: you would repeat experiment watched over by many people from both sides, and 3rd parties. But liar would probably be discovered sooner, because he wouldn't want to agree to such experiment. The one who is truly interested in it would WANT to repeat experiment, because he would be like "how the hell is it possible that it did happen for me, and didn't happen for them?".
Who will repeat the experiment?

Certainly Guy2 can repeat it as often as he want, he'll come to the same conclusion (i.e the real one). BUT Guy1 can also "come to his same conclusion" by performing the experiment again, and again, fakely.

Unless you personally go to the accelerator and see the stuff in action (wait, the equipment could be hacked and give the wrong results, so they let you see what they want you to see), there's no way you would be sure.

vid wrote:
Such proving would have nothing to do with scientific method. Of course no one can gather/verify everything himself. Scientific methods are about building up on other's effort, and correcting other's mistakes. Very much like open source.
Open source includes trusting, because you can't simply analyze the entire code (let's say the code is 10 GB in length), so you'll have to trust the others.

so I am asking why do you think (objectively) the webpage provied in this thread (and Dr.Newberg's experiment) is any less accurate than all other webpages you agree with?


vid wrote:
But pain is state of human mind. It relates only to human consciousness, and doesn't exist apart from it. If you dissect proper part of brain, you can no longer feel pain. Yet terms like "higher plane" suggest they exist apart from our brain / consciousness, and apart from humans. Then, they should demonstrate their presence even without human mind/brain. Human mind/brain isn't so much different from other things around, why should these things appear only with this particular one?
I can build a fake "device" (since you trust those things) with complicated components so no one can understand it, and it outputs the "higher plane" too. Since it would be so encrypted/complicated no one will understand it and therefore is the device correctly displaying the higher planes?

seriously, we as humans, experienced light LONG, LONG before we built some device that responds to it, and people acknowledged it, without claiming it is an illusion. Wink

and by the way, like I said, the colors can only be perceived by the eye. All other devices don't assume colors, they only modify (let's say output voltage, in case of photo-diodes) so that's not really how green looks like, is it?

third eye is similar
Post 31 Dec 2007, 18:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
sleepsleep wrote:
...[I] call it "Qi" in chinese mandarin. ...
What does everyone else call it?
There are approximately 106 entries in the Chinese-English Dictionary for "Qi", so it would facilitate our comprehension, if you would please tell us WHICH tone corresponds to this particular "Qi". I assume you are referring to the noun "Qi" of the second tone (rising inflection), which means, in English, "earth-spirit", or "peace".
http://www.mandarintools.com/cgi-bin/wordlook.pl?word=qi&searchtype=pinyin&where=whole&audio=on
vid wrote:

But pain is state of human mind. It relates only to human consciousness, and doesn't exist apart from it. If you dissect proper part of brain, you can no longer feel pain.
Please tread very carefully here, the ice is thin. Pain is a physiological process, same as vision, or movement. "Mind", on the other hand, is a term from pyschology, which is complicated, both to understand, and to explain. Pain does NOT depend upon human consciousness. All animals, not just humans, experience pain, which originates with activation of highly specialized mechanoreceptors in the periphery, called, appropriately, nociceptors. The fascinating aspect of pain is the ability of some folks to regulate, subjectively, the amount of pain they experience. In an experiment reported several decades ago, in the periodical "Science", or "Nature", several people were given an infrared heat lamp, with its intensity controlled by a rheostat, regulated by the human subjects themselves, not the observer. Each person was instructed to slowly rotate, with their dominant hand, the rheostat, while the lamp radiated proportionately more infrared heat to the volar surface of the contralateral arm (the "inner" arm, less exposed to sunlight, therefore with less keratin for protection against heat...) The subjects were instructed to rotate the knob to the point of the maximum tolerable pain, and then to stop, and move their arm away from the heat lamp. All of the subjects, except one man, rotated the knob of the rheostat to approximately the same place. That one man, a Sherpa, from Tibet, had been accustomed from childhood, to carrying heavy loads in snow and ice, continually for hours at a time, without rest. His tolerance for pain was far beyond any of the other subjects. Perhaps he had also been practicing Qi(2) for several years?
One must also beware the fallacy of thinking that it is relatively simple to "dissect [the] proper part of the [the] brain". In fact, we know from patients suffering traumatic brain injury, that some STILL feel the pain post trauma, but, as a result of their particular injury, avoidance of pain is no longer of importance to them. They continue to experience the same pain, as before their injury, but require no medications for relief of the pain, which has become unimportant to them. Their perception of the painful stimulus has not been damaged by the trauma, but their response to it, has changed dramatically. This problem is the obverse of that felt by people who have suffered amputation of a limb, and subsequently experience "phantom limb pain", i.e. pain originating from no longer extant nociceptors. Their pain on a portion of an arm or leg which no longer exists, is REAL, it can be treated successfully with opiates, but it does not originate obviously, with the nociceptors themselves, which disappeared along with the skin, muscles and bone of the limbs following amputation, but rather with the secondary neurons in the spinal cord, accustomed to relaying sensory information from the periphery up to the central nervous system.
Post 01 Jan 2008, 13:07
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
who we are?
i don't care. dust on the floor.
a short fart in the space time.
what we must do?
leave, use the power we have. open your eyes ( or feelings for blinds who read this ), and look the world, true colors, true feelings, temporary life, time is nothing, space is nothing, matter is nothing, everything is illusion.
all is illusion. something like that
ImageImageImage
really interresting comics, need to be read many times...
Post 02 Jan 2008, 14:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.