• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

brain/mind

Causality said:
You talk of 'inferred' like it's a bad thing. Black holes are 'inferred' by the motions of other objects around them. Direct demonstration is great, but inference is very useful if done properly.
Click to expand...
The term 'inferred' is not used pejoratively. You are correct about material inference of material events, whereas there is no direct common means of measure between phenomenal and noumenal events.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Who needs to indulge skepticism? To hell with skepticism. Just provide some sort of evidence that mind has an independent existence.~~ Paul
Click to expand...
As earlier stated, it is necessarily a personal experiencial demonstration. Should one, who is capable and willing, do this for you, you will be convinced beyond all the debate here.
 
maatorc said:
As earlier stated, it is necessarily a personal experiencial demonstration. Should one, who is capable and willing, do this for you, you will be convinced beyond all the debate here.
Click to expand...


And since not one poster in this thread has has been capable or willing to demonstrate this for me, even when I asked politely, I guess we will just have to continue the debate.
 
Hokulele said:
And since not one poster in this thread has has been capable or willing to demonstrate this for me, even when I asked politely, I guess we will just have to continue the debate.
Click to expand...
In the given case, "even when I asked politely" may not be enough.
 
Maatorc said:
As earlier stated, it is necessarily a personal experiencial demonstration. Should one, who is capable and willing, do this for you, you will be convinced beyond all the debate here.
Click to expand...
You mean I have to have some sort of guru "show me the path"? I spent years in the Transcendental Meditation movement. I must have missed that lecture, or been distracted by the people bouncing on the mattresses.

It's dangerous to trust one's inner experiences beyond all debate. They don't give a damn whether they confuse or enlighten you.

~~ Paul
 
maatorc said:
As earlier stated, it is necessarily a personal experiencial demonstration. Should one, who is capable and willing, do this for you, you will be convinced beyond all the debate here.
Click to expand...
I"m sorry, I don't even have the remotest clue what such a demonstration would consist of. If understand, you are claiming that there is some way for some person to demonstrate that the mind is not the brain. You don't have to do it if you don't want - since it goes without saying that you will not want to and there are no circumstances which exist under which you would want to. (never mind it would defeat all that wrong headed thinking that is such a plague on us skeptics. Never mind that it would put an end, once and for all, about the nature of the mind.) But it might be nice if you were to give us some rough idea of what such a demonstration might consist of - or is this too close to actually making some sort of testable claim.

I have found, when I want to make bulls**t claims, that it is best to make my BS claims so vague as to be indisputable. I'm thinking that is your approach also. What you're doing is claiming to make a claim and that's pretty tough to make an argument against. That's good damn thinkin'. If you make a claim of any particular nature, then you might actually have to support that claim. You are saying, essentially, "I could do something (but nothing in particular) that would convince you of something else (again, nothing in particular) but I simply choose not to. Pretty convincing stuff.

It is always astonishing to me that people claim to be in possession of information that would over turn the world view of science and transform our understanding of our existence, but don't feel any particular compulsion to share in any meaningful way this information. I have discovered the truth of existence, but I'm thinking I might just keep it to myself. Oh, and saying it is not sharing it. A person can say anything, can't they, and it seems that they do.
 
Billydkid said:
It is always astonishing to me that people claim to be in possession of information that would over turn the world view of science and transform our understanding of our existence, but don't feel any particular compulsion to share in any meaningful way this information. I have discovered the truth of existence, but I'm thinking I might just keep it to myself.
Click to expand...
... Until you're ready. When you're ready, I'll share it and you will be enlightened. But you have to be ready. And willing. And open to it.

And after being this stunningly condescending, they wonder why people snap at them.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
1... You mean I have to have some sort of guru "show me the path"? I spent years in the Transcendental Meditation movement. I must have missed that lecture, or been distracted by the people bouncing on the mattresses.
2... It's dangerous to trust one's inner experiences beyond all debate. They don't give a damn whether they confuse or enlighten you.~ Paul
Click to expand...
1... No, and I agree with the implication that such pseudo-spiritual schemes you mention are a heep of manipulative trash.
2... It is indeed dangerous to trust the effects of the manipulations of such scammers, but as we know this is not limited to 'gurus showing you the path'.
I am talking about an objectively realised demonstration, totally convincing to you, but not able to be materially proven to another, although others who have experienced it will understand what you report.
This is the reason why the JREF MDC will never go beyond demonstrating scientifically currently inexplicable events which are accepted as but are not provable as "psychic, supernatural, or occult powers": There is no way they can be materially, directly and experientially, measured and proven.
 
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
... Until you're ready. When you're ready, I'll share it and you will be enlightened. But you have to be ready. And willing. And open to it. And after being this stunningly condescending, they wonder why people snap at them.~~ Paul
Click to expand...
This is not the case atall. The determining factor for acquiring or receiving is entirely the mental attitude of the individual. Condescension is not part of those able to give.
This is an interesting thread. I have known all along, and accept it as coming with the territory, that I will be ridiculed, etc., etc., etc., for taking a counter-skeptical position. But my skin is very much thicker than some here think. Yes, I will indulge some tit-for-tat and am somewhat amused by some of the 'deeply serious, insightful, meaningful, authoritative, definitive, pissy, tantrumy, etc.,' personal attacks. Who cares, the world is a big place, and if our time to go comes tomorrrow no-one will give a damn.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
Then what would be enough? I will admit, this is the first time I someone has denied me understanding when I have sought it. What is the purpose of knowledge if it can't be transmitted?
Click to expand...

maatorc said:
This is not the case atall. The determining factor for acquiring or receiving is entirely the mental attitude of the individual. Condescension is not part of those able to give.
This is an interesting thread. I have known all along, and accept it as coming with the territory, that I will be ridiculed, etc., etc., etc., for taking a counter-skeptical position. But my skin is very much thicker than some here think. Yes, I will indulge some tit-for-tat and am somewhat amused by some of the 'deeply serious, insightful, meaningful, authoritative, definitive, pissy, tantrumy, etc.,' personal attacks. Who cares, the world is a big place, and if our time to go comes tomorrrow no-one will give a damn.
Click to expand...


So no answer for me?
 
Slimething said:
"No! No answer for you! Never an answer for you!" - maatdork, the Answer Nazi. He isn't replying to me either but you can have his next answer to me if it will make you happy. :)
Click to expand...
SLIMEthing, you are perfectly named! A freudian slip?
 
Slimething said:
"No! No answer for you! Never an answer for you!" - maatdork, the Answer Nazi
Click to expand...


:(

He isn't replying to me either but you can have his next answer to me if it will make you happy. :)
Click to expand...


Umm, I don't think he likes you, so the answer probably won't be very nice. I think I will wait for a nice answer. ;)


(Hmmm, it appears that may take a while . . .)
 
billydkid said:
I"m sorry, I don't even have the remotest clue what such a demonstration would consist of. If understand, you are claiming that there is some way for some person to demonstrate that the mind is not the brain.
Click to expand...
As stated, such a demonstration is necessarily experiencily personal and cannot be materially proven to another. There are many ways to do it, and the easiest one to understand is called psychic projection.
The practioner will appear before you and his or her identification will be unmistakeable.
If you are awake you will see the person clearly and unmistakeably, and the purpose of the projection such as a message will be communicated to you. The experience is quite objective as in an ordinary conversation.
If you are asleep, and importantly, if the presence of the projector is not an intrusion on your privacy, you will be awakened by the projector. Again, during the experience you will be fully awake and the experience will be normally objective, and usually a message is conveyed which you will remember fully as in an ordinary conversation.
There are other methods of communication which are beyond the scope of this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom