brain/mind

[Dancing David]

I'm sorry I misunderstood. Thanks for the correction.

No problemo, you are a poster whose posts are a touchstone for me.



gnicnaD divaD

 

[Dancing David]

We may be using the word qualitative differently here. I was using it as a synonym for non-physical, just so that as many people recognise what it is we're talking about.

Non-physical reality is directly demonstrated because it is experiential. That is its pure nature. Realisation that this reality is not physical comes by comparison of direct, experiential reality with the concept of physical reality. Physical reality is relational by definition and qualitative experience is directly known so the two are not compatable.

Models describe the physical world and are a construct formed by relationships so they cannot be non-physical (qualitative).

To just assert that the qualatative experience is non-physical does not mean that it is. To shwo that something is not physical would be very cool.

But how can you show that human experience is not confined to the brain? What part of the human brain experience is non-physical? So you are a dualist?

 

[Dancing David]

That doesn't answer my question as to why proof and evidence is needed to know about the existence of non-physical reality. You are taking it as read that proof and evidence are needed. I'm very interested in why you think they are necessary.

You are just setting up a category of words and excluding them from logic and reason. How do you know that a ghost is a ghost and not just a hallucination?

Human experince is a real thing, i will grant you that.

But the explanation of human reality and experience is different.


This seems to be magical thinking where you just assert that the rules of critical rthinking don't apply to a subset of your thoughts.

Why should non-physical be excluded from logic and reason?

No you can't believe that! Because, the way you have phrased it, you are making a physical claim. "Resides", "eyeball" and "giant" are all references to physical things. Unless someone believes that they experience those things (what you would call a hallucination), in which case it doesn't make any difference to physical models or beliefs about the physical world.

A hallucination is an internal stimulus, it is a perception that has no sensation to generate it.

You mean delusion.

So to answer your question, you draw the line at making claims that refer to physical reality.[/QUOTE]

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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 was not talking about trusting gurus and scammers. I was talking about trusting your inner experiences. Your inner experiences do not give a damn whether they confuse or enlighten you.

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 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.

It's objectively realised, yet determined entirely by my mood. Marvelous.

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.

All righty then.

~~ Paul

 

[Dancing David]

Good question. Perhaps we should agree on what causation means first. I suspect that your question needs re-phrasing. I mean, can we truly separate causation and physical things?

Can we truely seperate causation and non-physical things. magic and shamanism have thier rules.

 

[Dancing David]

Why not?

Where does a quality stand alone, where is it that you have shown a quality that is not related to a physical body?

Sho yo work.

 

[Dancing David]

Can you describe how a statement could possibly have any "inherent truth in and of itself"? I'm not even sure what that means. Words are used to describe our experiences and that is all. Are you expressing some sort of anti-Platonic philosophy?

~~ Paul

That is my point, words are used to describe. They are a self referencing set of communications, I think it is useful to say that the map is not the reality. I use the true/false language because I think it helps people understand the nature of words. They are not true, they are slippery, idiomatic, socialy and culturaly defined and limiting.

They are useful but when people become attached to them and get stuck on them then there are problems.

I don't want you to think I have any objections to your use of language.

A good example of a word people think has meaning in and of itself is 'qualia' or 'consciousness'. Outside of the this area of the board I have been engaged in this discussion on the brain/mind many times in the R&P forum.

If you use the word 'truth' the way use 'observational validity' that is fine by me, you have always shown a firm grip on the of the basis of communication and meaning.

I don't recall you ever using the word noumena.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

it is called behaviorism.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Ah yes you mean the 'flying' thing!

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

That is what shamans and magicians say about spirits, demons, angels and gods as well, hmmm.

 

[Dancing David]

... 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

Be sure to bring your checkbook as well.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

There is a testable claim, you name the time and i will even give you a shaman name or an 'external' name of my pagan persona that you can use to identitfy me. You will first be sure to write down a series of numbers or other material and mail it to a third party. Then at the chosen time the person sending the message will project to me. I will have wards up but we can establish a key word and image that will act as a small gate through the wards which will still keep me safe from posseion by your operative. Or even better i will ask my friend who has bounds like a diamond bubble or my friend who is uber sceptic to be the reciever.

I or they will then write down any messages they recieve and we will see if communication has occured. Or if you wish you can name the projector and the reciever and I will generate the message and they will show in a double blind that they have communicated.

Are you game? I will make the message a line of common text and a very short series of numbers (seven digits). Or you can choose the line of text. the only rule is that is has to be clear and short and not a well known phrase lie "Et tu, Brute" or "Those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it". We can even set up a panel to determine appropriate phrases that can be used.

Do you want to try?

 

[davidsmith73]

To just assert that the qualatative experience is non-physical does not mean that it is. To shwo that something is not physical would be very cool.

How could anyone show non-physical existence? Doesn't the act of showing necessarily involve language and therefore relational definitions? What if there is an aspect of reality that is not amenable to definition?

I must say that I am a bit bemused by all this. I think I will bow out of the debate for now as you've given me considerable questions to think about!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How could anyone show non-physical existence? Doesn't the act of showing necessarily involve language and therefore relational definitions? What if there is an aspect of reality that is not amenable to definition?

If it's not amenable to definition, why should anyone trust that the claimant is uttering words that have anything at all to do with the experience? Why should we trust that the claimant's thoughts on the matter are even coherent?

~~ Paul

 

[billydkid]

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.

I'm confused. First you say the phenomenon can not be demonstrated to another (the modifier "materially" means nothing) and then go on to described how the phenomenon is demonstrated. funny, seems like someone would have noticed this phenomenon over the long course of human history. I'm inclined to believe it is roughly equivalent to yogic flying. If you can demonstrate that the mind is not the brain - do it or shut up about it. If there is any reality to what you are saying, this knowledge would transform our world view, but somehow, it doesn't seem important to all you mystical types to let us all in on the truth. Talk is cheap.

 

[articulett]

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 . . .)

Will you share the million dollar prize with me--and the super duper knowledge too...when it finally manifests?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raT2PrTQqS0

My guess at the answer is in the V.S. Ramachandran clip above--but then I've been deemed deceptive and ignorant by the mighty Maatdork so pay no mind to me.

 

[articulett]

It may be temporal lobe epilepsy...or a delusion...but for some reason, I'm having a sort of Twilight Zone experience on this forum--all the screen names in the left column are reversed (mirror image)--anyone else seeing this?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

They look fine to me, ttelucitra.

~~ Paul

 

[articulett]

They look fine to me, ttelucitra.

~~ Paul

Thanks, .C luaP

 

[Hokulele]

My guess at the answer is in the V.S. Ramachandran clip above--but then I've been deemed deceptive and ignorant by the mighty Maatdork so pay no mind to me.

I love Ramachandran! He was in my sig for the past two months. I have read both of his books written for the general science audience. I never saw all of his BBC broadcasts, so I guess I will have to spend some time in YouTube this weekend.

 

[Hokulele]

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.

OK, this is starting to help. I have a couple of questions on this. Do you have to learn this from someone (like a language), or can it happen spontaneously? Can you reject a contact if you are otherwise occupied? Can the projector see you (this could be a problem if I am in the bath or somthing)?

The one I am most interested in is what happens if the projector and receiver come from different cultures and speak different languages (since this is described as a "conversation")? Have you practiced this with someone from a completely different culture? I speak a little French and a little Japanese, but am only fluent in English. However, there are some cultural practices and phrases in French that a Japanese person has a hard time understanding and vice versa. For example, for most Asians, it is considered extremely rude to tell someone flat out "No". This is not true for people with an American background. This can lead to all sorts of interesting misunderstandings. Does the type of communication you are talking about supercede these types of culture barriers?