Chaos Magic

[AkuManiMani]

Or, I could just ignore the people who need me to clarify and re-clarify, so that I can focus on the people that I think might be able to grok what i have to say in the only way I know how to say it. I can't possibly respond to every poster, every post. I need a criteria to whittle it down.

True, this.

 

[Zanders]

Or, I could just ignore the people who need me to clarify and re-clarify, so that I can focus on the people that I think might be able to grok what i have to say in the only way I know how to say it. I can't possibly respond to every poster, every post. I need a criteria to whittle it down.

A good teacher is prepared to explain and defend what he is trying to teach. If you made posts in the past explaining what you beleive, or there are some books that outline it, maybe you could link to those as reference.

Critical thinking doesn't involve taking someones word for it without some form of criticism. It has to stand up to criticism. Nobody is going to beleive what you are saying unless you can explain the mechanics of it. Maybe you should write a book.

 

[Limbo]

A good teacher is prepared to explain and defend what he is trying to teach. If you made posts in the past explaining what you beleive, or there are some books that outline it, maybe you could link to those as reference.

Critical thinking doesn't involve taking someones word for it without some form of criticism. It has to stand up to criticism.

True, but if I were a teacher I would have authority. And if I had authority, I would give you all reading assingments and mystical exercises to perform. Then, I would not have to explain and defend myself to uninitiated, ignorant students who think they already know it all, so what is there to learn?

 

[ria_rokz]

True, but if I were a teacher I would have authority. And if I had authority, I would give you all reading assingments and mystical exercises to perform. Then, I would not have to explain and defend myself to uninitiated, ignorant students who think they already know it all, so what is there to learn?

LOL! You've obviously never been a teacher!

 

[Limbo]

LOL! You've obviously never been a teacher!

What do you teach, if I may ask?

 

[Zanders]

True, but if I were a teacher I would have authority. And if I had authority, I would give you all reading assingments and mystical exercises to perform. Then, I would not have to explain and defend myself to uninitiated, ignorant students who think they already know it all, so what is there to learn?

If your intention is not to teach, then what exactly are you doing?

 

[Limbo]

If your intention is not to teach, then what exactly are you doing?

A little of this, a little of that. There are some cool people here. You, for instance. You aren't too far gone to teach. And, this place makes me laugh. Skeptics really do have a great sense of humor. Must be all the cynicism.

And, I try to understand what its like to be skeptical, through JREF. I never really had that option, what with having the paranormal shoved in my face all my life and all.

 

[Zanders]

A little of this, a little of that. There are some cool people here. You, for instance. You aren't too far gone to teach. And, this place makes me laugh. Skeptics really do have a great sense of humor. Must be all the cynicism.

And, I try to understand what its like to be skeptical through JREF. I never really had that option, what with having the paranormal shoved in my face all my life and all.

Thanks for the compliment. I think that people would be more willing to listen if your posts didn't use an enlightened superior tone (I'm not saying they don't do the same, because many do). Saying that you can't explain what you are talking about, even if it is true, makes something very hard to beleive.

 

[Limbo]

Thanks for the compliment. I think that people would be more willing to listen if your posts didn't use an enlightened superior tone (I'm not saying they don't do the same, because many do). Saying that you can't explain what you are talking about, even if it is true, makes something very hard to beleive.

I'll try.

 

[ria_rokz]

What do you teach, if I may ask?

Many things, many ages. There's always (at least) few who already think they know everything. I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to derail your thread. I was just chuckling at your assumption that being a teacher automatically grants you authority.

 

[Limbo]

Many things, many ages. There's always (at least) few who already think they know everything. I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to derail your thread. I was just chuckling at your assumption that being a teacher automatically grants you authority.

I suppose it might depend, in part, on who in turn has authority over the teacher in question. A bureaucracy? Or a vibe?

A mystic can expel a student on a whim, as the size of my ignore list can testify to. So, its up to the student. Want to learn, play by the mystics rules. Want to disrupt, end up on ignore. Not that you are disrupting!!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Our own biological equipment does not allow us the sensitivity to perceive individual electrons (or photons) unaided but they are still observable and subject to empirical study.

Fair enough.

Their reality rests upon them being observable in principle and in their interaction with the rest of reality that is being observed.

If by this you mean that if we were there we would be able to observe them or their interactions with things which we can observe, then I agree.

We'll probably have to start another thread for this topic but I think one theory that kinda overlaps with what I'm trying to convey to you would be biocentrism.

I can't say I know much about this, and I only skimmed that article, but my initial thoughts are that it's doubtful. Of course I'll need to read more before making any determination.

You're not getting what I'm saying. Empiricism is turning ones awareness toward external stimuli. Introspection is simply turning one's awareness 'inward'. The only difference between the two are the objects of observation. There IS no empiricism sans subjective experience. Period.

In a strictly literal sense, you're right. But the whole point of the scientific method is to eradicate the subjectivity, which it does with falisfiability, replicablity, predictions, and the fact that everybody and their mother criticises, modifies, and repeats the experiments until the data is overwhelming in one direction or another.

The same cannot be said of introspection.

I've interacted with such entities just as I'm interacting with you now. The only difference is that my interactions with them have been much more direct than our correspondence on this web forum.

I don't doubt that you genuinely believe you have. But I don't find that convincing evidence personally.

The studies you reference are not your own experiences.

No, they are better than my own experiences because they have undergone rigorous testing which has been designed to filter out all the biases, assumptions, and so on which I, as a fallible human being, possess and bring to any and all subjective experiences that I have.

Ergo, what you are claiming to me is hearsay, regardless of the veracity of the source.

This is a very odd definition of "hearsay".

How is being addressed by someone else a 'feat'? I didn't go thru some procedure to invoke the entities in question, they simply contacted me of their own accord; nor am I claiming any special powers, so how does the MDC factor into it?

I'm not saying you claim special powers. You are, however, claiming that there is a science of the supernatural, a science of which you have been part through these communications. If there really is a science, then it should be demonstrable. If it's demonstrable, you can prove the supernatural exists. If you can prove the supernatural exists, then you can win a million dollars.

Dude, what do you think Buddhism is?

Neither a body of scientific knowledge nor an accepted consensus of the truth about the supernatural.

How have I misused used the term 'empirical'?

Why did you link to the dictionary entry for the word "veracity"? But, to answer your question, the definition of "empirical" in the scientific sense is not the same as the sense in which you're using it. You are talking about a set of anecdotes and personal experiences with no controls, protocols, replicability, falisfiability or predictions. This is not science.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

True, but if I were a teacher I would have authority. And if I had authority, I would give you all reading assingments and mystical exercises to perform.

But that's exactly what you're doing in the first post of this thread. And you're claiming to be a teacher in this post:

Want to learn, play by the mystics rules. Want to disrupt, end up on ignore.

And, I try to understand what its like to be skeptical, through JREF.

You do realise that being sceptical is just the opposite of being credulous, don't you? You can be sceptical and a believer, you just have to have evidence supporting your beliefs.

 

[AkuManiMani]

We'll probably have to start another thread for this topic but I think one theory that kinda overlaps with what I'm trying to convey to you would be biocentrism.

I can't say I know much about this, and I only skimmed that article, but my initial thoughts are that it's doubtful. Of course I'll need to read more before making any determination.

Good

You're not getting what I'm saying. Empiricism is turning ones awareness toward external stimuli. Introspection is simply turning one's awareness 'inward'. The only difference between the two are the objects of observation. There IS no empiricism sans subjective experience. Period.

In a strictly literal sense, you're right. But the whole point of the scientific method is to eradicate the subjectivity, which it does with falisfiability, replicablity, predictions, and the fact that everybody and their mother criticises, modifies, and repeats the experiments until the data is overwhelming in one direction or another.

The same cannot be said of introspection.

I don't think the problem is so much subjectivity, per se, but the unconscious biases one may bring to the table that can distort one's reasoning and perceptions of the world in a deceptive way.

While having a lot of people looking over each other's shoulders to keep one another honest is a decent way to obtain clear accurate knowledge it can just as easily cause one to succumb to groupthink. Shared biases are just as distorting, if not more so, than personal biases because they are much harder to notice and overcome. Honest meditation and introspection is the best way to uncover and examine one's own hidden assumptions, biases, and motivations that operate outside of their awareness. You can't rely on others to read your mind for you.

I've interacted with such entities just as I'm interacting with you now. The only difference is that my interactions with them have been much more direct than our correspondence on this web forum.

I don't doubt that you genuinely believe you have. But I don't find that convincing evidence personally.

And you shouldn't. They aren't -your- experiences, so you are not obliged to accept them as factual. I'm simply providing you with information regarding my own experiences. From your perspective they are only anecdotal but it is evidence, none the less.

The studies you reference are not your own experiences.

No, they are better than my own experiences because they have undergone rigorous testing which has been designed to filter out all the biases, assumptions, and so on which I, as a fallible human being, possess and bring to any and all subjective experiences that I have.

You should approach the studies you referenced with the same open-minded skepticism with which you would approach personal claims like mine. Groups of people [even hyper-rational scientists] are just as fallible as individuals. If you regard even yourself with the same kind of skepticism you'll find that your introspection will prove to be much more reliable.

Ergo, what you are claiming to me is hearsay, regardless of the veracity of the source.

This is a very odd definition of "hearsay".

What can I say? I'm an odd guy

How is being addressed by someone else a 'feat'? I didn't go thru some procedure to invoke the entities in question, they simply contacted me of their own accord; nor am I claiming any special powers, so how does the MDC factor into it?

I'm not saying you claim special powers. You are, however, claiming that there is a science of the supernatural, a science of which you have been part through these communications. If there really is a science, then it should be demonstrable. If it's demonstrable, you can prove the supernatural exists. If you can prove the supernatural exists, then you can win a million dollars.

Thats just the thing. I don't 'believe in' the supernatural and never claimed to; I already said that I think it is a relative term. Why would I waste my time trying to 'prove' it's existence? In any case, you never told me what YOU consider to be 'supernatural' and why it cannot exist.

Dude, what do you think Buddhism is?

Neither a body of scientific knowledge nor an accepted consensus of the truth about the supernatural.

I thought we were talking about a body of knowledge, gained via introspection, concerning spiritual matters. I've already told you what my position on the 'supernatural' is.

How have I misused used the term 'empirical'?

Why did you link to the dictionary entry for the word "veracity"?

Miscopied the link. My bad >_<

But, to answer your question, the definition of "empirical" in the scientific sense is not the same as the sense in which you're using it. You are talking about a set of anecdotes and personal experiences with no controls, protocols, replicability, falisfiability or predictions. This is not science.

Okay, heres the dictionary definitions of 'empirical':

................................................................................................

em·pir·i·cal   
[em-pir-i-kuhl]
–adjective

1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.

3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

................................................................................................

My usage of 'empirical' is perfectly consistent with every sense of the word

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I don't think the problem is so much subjectivity, per se, but the unconscious biases one may bring to the table that can distort one's reasoning and perceptions of the world in a deceptive way.

While having a lot of people looking over each other's shoulders to keep one another honest is a decent way to obtain clear accurate knowledge it can just as easily cause one to succumb to groupthink. Shared biases are just as distorting, if not more so, than personal biases because they are much harder to notice and overcome.

Of course science is subject to this to some degree. But it is deliberately created to eliminate it as much as possible. And such groupthink has happened in the past and has been overcome. When it's overcome, it happens because of the weight of evidence. People ridiculed Einstein when he first published. And yet evidence and reason won out. Science is self-correcting, even for groupthink.

Honest meditation and introspection is the best way to uncover and examine one's own hidden assumptions, biases, and motivations that operate outside of their awareness. You can't rely on others to read your mind for you.

You can't rely on others to read your mind for you, no, but discussion with others is a great way to uncover your own hidden assumptions, biases and motivations. That's what's so good about being challenged on things.

And you shouldn't. They aren't -your- experiences, so you are not obliged to accept them as factual.

I'm not obliged to accept my experiences as factual, either. The human mind is a very strange instrument and is more than capable of fooling you completely in many ways for many reasons.

I'm simply providing you with information regarding my own experiences. From your perspective they are only anecdotal but it is evidence, none the less.

Not evidence that's worth a great deal to me, I'm afraid.

You should approach the studies you referenced with the same open-minded skepticism with which you would approach personal claims like mine. Groups of people [even hyper-rational scientists] are just as fallible as individuals.

Of course you have to evaluate studies for yourself. I always try to read the original paper rather than reports, for example. Which is, of course, another keystone of the scientific method - its transparency. I can read the original papers most of the time, I can see the raw data, I can evaluate the methodology, and I can see whether the conclusions are warranted.

I do approach these things with scepticism. But I also bear in mind the scientific method that the papers are written and published under, as well as how they fit with other papers which cover the same or similar ground. It's only through doing that that you start to build up a picture.

Thats just the thing. I don't 'believe in' the supernatural and never claimed to; I already said that I think it is a relative term. Why would I waste my time trying to 'prove' it's existence?

You seem to believe in something outside the normal want of man. If you could prove some of the claims you've made in this thread you could win a million dollars. And isn't a million dollars a good reason to waste your time?

In any case, you never told me what YOU consider to be 'supernatural' and why it cannot exist.

That's actually a bigger question than it at first appears. It's nearly 2 in the morning here. Can I get back to you on that one tomorrow?

I thought we were talking about a body of knowledge, gained via introspection, concerning spiritual matters. I've already told you what my position on the 'supernatural' is.

If you want to phrase it that way, yes. But "a body of knowledge" isn't what you started out claiming. You were claiming a science of the spiritual, comparable to scientific consensus for naturalistic things. This does not describe Buddhism.

My usage of 'empirical' is perfectly consistent with every sense of the word

But it's not the same as how the word is used in reference to empirical data in science.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I don't think the problem is so much subjectivity, per se, but the unconscious biases one may bring to the table that can distort one's reasoning and perceptions of the world in a deceptive way.

While having a lot of people looking over each other's shoulders to keep one another honest is a decent way to obtain clear accurate knowledge it can just as easily cause one to succumb to groupthink. Shared biases are just as distorting, if not more so, than personal biases because they are much harder to notice and overcome.

Of course science is subject to this to some degree. But it is deliberately created to eliminate it as much as possible. And such groupthink has happened in the past and has been overcome. When it's overcome, it happens because of the weight of evidence. People ridiculed Einstein when he first published. And yet evidence and reason won out. Science is self-correcting, even for groupthink.

Even so, my argument is that the subjective IAOI is an integral part of reality and, being such, is amenable to scientific investigation.

Honest meditation and introspection is the best way to uncover and examine one's own hidden assumptions, biases, and motivations that operate outside of their awareness. You can't rely on others to read your mind for you.

You can't rely on others to read your mind for you, no, but discussion with others is a great way to uncover your own hidden assumptions, biases and motivations. That's what's so good about being challenged on things.

Thats true. Discussions I've had here and with good friends IRL have played a big part in helping me refine many of my own ideas. However, challenging discussions with others only serves as a tool to bring unconscious biases to ones awareness. Its still good to have the skill to do this on your own; thats what introspection is all about

And you shouldn't. They aren't -your- experiences, so you are not obliged to accept them as factual.

I'm not obliged to accept my experiences as factual, either. The human mind is a very strange instrument and is more than capable of fooling you completely in many ways for many reasons.

One's experiences, in them selves, are -always- factual. Its the interpretation of those experiences where confusion and inaccuracy can come in.

I'm simply providing you with information regarding my own experiences. From your perspective they are only anecdotal but it is evidence, none the less.

Not evidence that's worth a great deal to me, I'm afraid.

Thats fine. Just remember that there *is* evidence for the existence of "spirits" -- you simply don't find it acceptable.

You should approach the studies you referenced with the same open-minded skepticism with which you would approach personal claims like mine. Groups of people [even hyper-rational scientists] are just as fallible as individuals.

Of course you have to evaluate studies for yourself. I always try to read the original paper rather than reports, for example. Which is, of course, another keystone of the scientific method - its transparency. I can read the original papers most of the time, I can see the raw data, I can evaluate the methodology, and I can see whether the conclusions are warranted.

I do approach these things with scepticism. But I also bear in mind the scientific method that the papers are written and published under, as well as how they fit with other papers which cover the same or similar ground. It's only through doing that that you start to build up a picture.

Do you think that it's possible for one to conduct good honest science on an individual basis, to build their own body of reliable knowledge and understanding?

Thats just the thing. I don't 'believe in' the supernatural and never claimed to; I already said that I think it is a relative term. Why would I waste my time trying to 'prove' it's existence?

You seem to believe in something outside the normal want of man. If you could prove some of the claims you've made in this thread you could win a million dollars. And isn't a million dollars a good reason to waste your time?

I've no idea how I'd go about proving such things, beyond simply proving their possibility in principle. As a matter of fact, the last "spirit" that spoke to me actually advised me -against- even mentioning the encounter to people and she was generally cryptic in answering certain questions. I'm not sure such entities are exactly the ideal subjects for something like the MDC.

In anycase, if I could prove their reality to the general public I'd settle for a Nobel Prize instead

In any case, you never told me what YOU consider to be 'supernatural' and why it cannot exist.

That's actually a bigger question than it at first appears. It's nearly 2 in the morning here. Can I get back to you on that one tomorrow?

Sure thing

I thought we were talking about a body of knowledge, gained via introspection, concerning spiritual matters. I've already told you what my position on the 'supernatural' is.

If you want to phrase it that way, yes. But "a body of knowledge" isn't what you started out claiming. You were claiming a science of the spiritual, comparable to scientific consensus for naturalistic things. This does not describe Buddhism.

My usage of 'empirical' is perfectly consistent with every sense of the word

But it's not the same as how the word is used in reference to empirical data in science.

You seem to think that in order for a discipline to be scientific, it must necessarily be experimental and follow laboratory protocols. Would you rule out such fields as archeology, history, psychology, sociology, taxonomy, or theoretical physics?

In anycase, I'd say that at the heart of all sciences lies two basic processes:

1) Acquisition of experiential data [knowledge], and 2) the formulation and refinement of theories used frame and explain that knowledge [understanding].

The objects of investigation and the methods employed may vary, but as long as those twin processes are being used its still science. Various schools of Buddhism very much fall within this definition, so far as mental and spiritual investigation goes.

 

[BoogieWoogieWookie]

I've no idea how I'd go about proving such things, beyond simply proving their possibility in principle. As a matter of fact, the last "spirit" that spoke to me actually advised me -against- even mentioning the encounter to people and she was generally cryptic in answering certain questions. I'm not sure such entities are exactly the ideal subjects for something like the MDC.

Could you please give some details about this spirit contact? Did you actually hear her voice and/or see an image of her? Or did you sense her thoughts like telepathy? If anyone else were there would they have seen/heard/sensed the same things that you did?

 

[slingblade]

A little of this, a little of that. There are some cool people here. You, for instance. You aren't too far gone to teach. And, this place makes me laugh. Skeptics really do have a great sense of humor. Must be all the cynicism.

And, I try to understand what its like to be skeptical, through JREF. I never really had that option, what with having the paranormal shoved in my face all my life and all.

Skepticism can be distilled to one question, really:

Am I sure about that?

Of course, that's very simplistic, and not extremely useful, but that's pretty much what it boils down to: a willingness to examine what you think you know.

Many people claim skeptics are closed-minded. And some are, to be sure. But mostly, skeptics are very open-minded, and willing to examine various claims and evidence for soundness and validity.

Now, once they've done this for a while, there are subjects about which they can say, "Yes, I've looked at that, and determined it is true; or false; or as yet undetermined."

It isn't necessary to examine and re-examine every single thought put to us as if each one is brand new. You can form a body of knowledge to use for related topics.

After the 20th person comes in to tell us about this particular thing he and he alone has experienced, we don't need to examine his claim as if it were entirely new. We can compare his claim with others we have examined and unless he's also brought in some brand-new and compelling evidence, it's possible to say, "I've seen that before, and found it doesn't jibe with reality, physics, biology," or whatever.

That's not cynicism. It's simply experience.

But if you want to grow your skepticism, I've something you can use.
A Baloney Detection Kit:

http://therelativelyinterestingblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/carl-sagans-baloney-detection-kit.html

This page features a long excerpt from Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World. It's very much worth a read. But the kit itself is about halfway down the page, where all the bolded bullet points start.

 

[Dancing David]

You're not getting what I'm saying. Empiricism is turning ones awareness toward external stimuli. Introspection is simply turning one's awareness 'inward'. The only difference between the two are the objects of observation. There IS no empiricism sans subjective experience. Period.

Yes and no AMM, the issue is that most people study the phenomenology don't like it when you talk about protocols and controls, they also want to say that the phenomena of the mental set are equatable to the external set with no evidence of the validity of that assertion.

Phenomena brought us the waste of time the is freudian and 'long term' therapy, empiricism brought us CBT.

Data can be recorded and sorted with no mental activities involved, interpretation is a mental act.

 

[Dancing David]

What hes saying is that if you don't like his language and are unwilling to meet him where he is then you should politely excuse yourself from the discussion HE started instead of jeering and mocking. I think it is a reasonable request.

And when he asks you to leave when you are not jeering and mocking?

Either is unreasonable, this is an open forum.