Chaos Magic

[Dancing David]

It was a really intense and awesome experience, but you don't need to feel bad for me. I still got a lot out of it even though I don't think it was a supernatural in nature.

Similar path here, same conclusion.

 

[Limbo]

Dancing David, are you trying to get my attention? lol

You know you are on my ignore list, right? Why do you bother posting in my threads? (rhetorical question)

 

[Dancing David]

Would you be hungry, had you not had your beautiful experience? You say you got a lot out of it.

One may visit the doctor as needed Limbo, that does not mean you should live in their office.

 

[Limbo]

Would someone who is not on my ignore list please give me the gist of DDs posts in this thread? I get the feeling that maybe the guy is desperate to tell me something. Probably that I'm a dumb-ass crazy woo-woo, right?

 

[Dancing David]

Yeah, but you aren't your average agnostic skeptic.

I believe that there are many people out there suffering in ways that you are not, and its due to the fact that a paradigm with no mysticism dominates modern culture. The result is rampant 'soul loss', to put it in shamanic terms.

I know there are people like you who are not hungry for spiritual food, and are tolerant of those who are. I have no problem with that. Its the people who are not hungry and are not tolerant of those who are that I have a problem with.

Um, no.

There are more people who waste their time fretting about the spiritual world and imagined ills rather than creating balance and harmony. You can feed your spirit in meaningful ways everyday, you need to understand the true nature of your hunger and bring it into balance. All the traditions will tell you how to do this, pray for others, not yourself and work bhavana in private and without feeding your ego.

There is no 'soul loss' that is just silly and another sign that you need better teachers. You can not loose the soul or spirit, how strange your statement is Limbo.

 

[Dancing David]

Guys, guys. Can't we just get beyond Thunderdome?

We don't need another hero...

 

[AkuManiMani]

IMO, it isn't so much that there is a distinctly objective reality; the objective and the subjective are just two interdependent aspects of one reality. Each exists within the other and neither exists absent the other.

I can't agree with that. There's plenty of objective evidence that the universe existed long before consciousness did. I'll agree that consciousness is dependent on the existence of the universe, but I can't agree that the universe is dependent on the existence of consciousness. It's just not supported by evidence.

You assume that what most people consider the 'universe' is the extent of reality. The implications of cutting edge theoretical physics suggests that reality extends beyond the 3D spacetime we live in. In any case, even if one assumes that consciousness as we know it could only develop after organic life evolved on this planet the [meta]physical requisites of the subjective had to already exist, elsewise conscious awareness would not be possible.

One can have a science of the 'internal' subjective world, just as theres a body of scientific knowledge concerning the 'external' world.

Then why haven't we? Science, as it's now known, has been around for a couple of hundred years. The idea of falsifiability has been key for less than a hundred. Many of the early scientists believed the beliefs of their time and did experiments in order to prove things like the existence of the soul. It took many years, but they eventually abandoned the idea of the existence of the soul because they could only find evidence to the contrary. Science reaches a consensus on the matters its investigating. It doesn't do so quickly, it doesn't do so without different theories fighting it out with each other, but it does do so.

The spiritual, paranormal, mystical - whatever you want to call it - on the other hand, has been around throughout all of human history. Going by the studies into such things as superstition in birds, it's probably not unreasonable to say that it's been around since before mankind was what we would recognise today as mankind. And yet there's not one single consensus amongst believers about anything. If there were a science of the "inner", then wouldn't there be a consensus?

And, of course, any time science has been applied to spiritual matters in good experiments, applying the same standards as to testing reality, the results have come up negative. Unfailingly.

How can one hold a "superstition" concerning something they have first hand experience of? The failed "experiments" you speak of make about as much sense as trying to identify and study your own body from a WoW server. If you want proof of your own subjective existence, you need look no further than your own consciousness. Introspection is as empirical as extrospection [yea, a made up word -- deal with it! ].

Things that don't appear to act in accordance with the apparent laws of physics as we know them we call paranormal or supernatural. In reality, all it really is is just weird **** beyond our current ken. The work of science is never complete

Science has thus far not discovered anything paranormal or supernatural at all. Nothing of that kind has ever been shown to exist. Ever.

Again, that depends on what one defines as "supernatural".

 

[Dancing David]

Dimethyltryptamine, LSD, psilocybin,... these substances and more have all revealed many things to me in the 15 years I've dabbled with them. They have exposed the limits of the placebo effect connected to all spiritual experiences. Awe and wonder and beauty are worth living for, for their aesthetics alone. All meaning is subjective, absolute purpose is an illusion, merely a frame of reference by which we've learned to make sense of the sensory input our very physical and material minds are able to sense. There is an infinitely awe inspiring quality to the universe, right there waiting for us to appreciate it at all times. The trouble is we need to be reminded of it periodically through various means. But we're no more capable of altering the physical world through incorporeal means than a rabbit or a grasshopper or a turtle is. Or a stone or a tree. The miracle is that an object in the universe has developed the capability to be aware of itself and the universe it is a part of. Why people are starving for more than that knowledge alone is a tragedy. You don't need to spice things up pretending to be a magician. You're a walking conglomeration of billions and trillions of improbabilities, and this isn't enough?

As Uncle Al once said "You can shout the Secrets of the Universe from the roof tops and people will not listen."

 

[Dancing David]

A point of agreement! But fear not, there are no good "mystics."

It really depends upon the sauce one uses... they should not be overcooked.

 

[Dancing David]

Dancing David, are you trying to get my attention? lol

You know you are on my ignore list, right? Why do you bother posting in my threads? (rhetorical question)

Funny Limbo!

Why should I not post in your threads, does the world revolve around you?

I must have missed the part of the MA that said 'Dancing David shall not post in Limbo's threads.'

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You assume that what most people consider the 'universe' is the extent of reality. The implications of cutting edge theoretical physics suggests that reality extends beyond the 3D spacetime we live in.

There is no contradiction between these two sentences. And it's a huge, huge, huge leap from "the implications of cutting edge theoretical physics suggests that reality extends beyond the 3D spacetime we live in" to "consciousness exists outside the individual head" or "consciousness is necessary for the universe to exist". The latter two statements have nothing whatsoever to do with any science, cutting edge theoretical physics or not.

In any case, even if one assumes that consciousness as we know it could only develop after organic life evolved on this planet the [meta]physical requisites of the subjective had to already exist, elsewise conscious awareness would not be possible.

What do you mean by "metaphysical requisites of the subjective"? Certainly, there is no evidence whatsoever that anything other than a brain is required for consciousness to exist. And you can't have a subjective perspective without a conscious mind.

How can one hold a "superstition" concerning something they have first hand experience of?

I didn't say they could.

However, it's certainly demonstrably the case that you can have subjective experiences which are not objective truth. Too much is known about the workings of the brain and how it consistently responds under various stimuli for this to be denied.

The failed "experiments" you speak of make about as much sense as trying to identify and study your own body from a WoW server.

The experiments on birds about superstition are not failed, they are very highly-regarded and the theory is accepted by the scientific community.

I have no idea what you mean by your WoW analogy, but it looks like you're completely ignoring the point I was making about scientific consensus. Whether that is because you didn't understand the point or don't want to address it for one reason or another I don't know, but it's not conducive to honest debate.

If you want proof of your own subjective existence, you need look no further than your own consciousness. Introspection is as empirical as extrospection [yea, a made up word -- deal with it! ].

I know I have a subjective existence. What I was arguing against was your assertion that there is a science of the internal world which you seem to deem synonymous with that which is classified as paranormal or supernatural.

Again, that depends on what one defines as "supernatural".

So how do you define it, and can you provide examples of supernatural things that there is a science of?

 

[Sledge]

Would someone who is not on my ignore list please give me the gist of DDs posts in this thread?

Nope. You'll have to read his posts and respond to them or be revealed as a coward. I'd prefer you took option 2.

 

[Resume]

You know you are on my ignore list, right? Why do you bother posting in my threads? (rhetorical question)

You mean your "PSI" doesn't inform you of such things. Sucky PSI then.

 

[Dancing David]

Would someone who is not on my ignore list please give me the gist of DDs posts in this thread? I get the feeling that maybe the guy is desperate to tell me something. Probably that I'm a dumb-ass crazy woo-woo, right?

Even funnier!

 

[Moss]

Would someone who is not on my ignore list please give me the gist of DDs posts in this thread? I get the feeling that maybe the guy is desperate to tell me something. Probably that I'm a dumb-ass crazy woo-woo, right?

Actually: no. David is pretty willing to discuss.

 

[Limbo]

Are we talking about the same Dancing David? Someone must have kidnapped him and hijacked his account... >.<

 

[sadhatter]

Maybe theres another method to his madness?

No i have been around long enough to realize that he is simply getting kicks from drawing stuff out. His posts never have any content , and it is obvious to even the most casual observer that he is just trying to waste people's time.

So i have to ask, what is your stake in this? Anyone can tell , by a browse of his post history , that he is simply playing a game of virtual keep away. SOme people may reply in order to provide an example to people of a similar belief that see the thread, and others may simply enjoy pointing out how obvious it is that he is just trollin'

So i have to ask, what , exactly about his posts would indicate to you that he is being legitimate? And what explanation would you have for the fact that he rather consistently posts literal nonsense ( as in responses that do no make any kind of sense to the question received.) , that is put into a grammatically anarchistic from? We are not talking the odd joke here we are talking about something specifically made in order to not have any content, but take as long as possible to figure that out.

 

[sadhatter]

Are we talking about the same Dancing David? Someone must have kidnapped him and hijacked his account... >.<

I always thought it was against TOS to taunt someone on your ignore list?

It seems if you wanted to ignore them, you would be...ignoring them.

But, on the other hand if your goal was to get people angry, it would seem like a worthwhile tactic to try " HAHA can't hear you".

 

[AkuManiMani]

You assume that what most people consider the 'universe' is the extent of reality. The implications of cutting edge theoretical physics suggests that reality extends beyond the 3D spacetime we live in.

There is no contradiction between these two sentences. And it's a huge, huge, huge leap from "the implications of cutting edge theoretical physics suggests that reality extends beyond the 3D spacetime we live in" to "consciousness exists outside the individual head" or "consciousness is necessary for the universe to exist". The latter two statements have nothing whatsoever to do with any science, cutting edge theoretical physics or not.

My original statement was that the subjective and the objective are two interdependent aspects of reality. Subjects are objectively real and objects are subjectively sensible. A subject that has no objective reality, by definition, does not exist as such, and the same goes for objects that are not subjectively sensible. I think we can agree that brains and physical universes that are not observable do not exist.

In any case, even if one assumes that consciousness as we know it could only develop after organic life evolved on this planet the [meta]physical requisites of the subjective had to already exist, elsewise conscious awareness would not be possible.

What do you mean by "metaphysical requisites of the subjective"? Certainly, there is no evidence whatsoever that anything other than a brain is required for consciousness to exist. And you can't have a subjective perspective without a conscious mind.

No evidence that YOU have personally experienced. You're taking the claims of other people that there is no evidence on faith. I've communicated and interacted with conscious entities that did not have material brains -- at least none that were present during our interactions. I've all the evidence -I- need to convince me of the falsity of your "no evidence" hypothesis.

How can one hold a "superstition" concerning something they have first hand experience of?

I didn't say they could.

Then "spirits" without material bodies are not superstitions.

However, it's certainly demonstrably the case that you can have subjective experiences which are not objective truth. Too much is known about the workings of the brain and how it consistently responds under various stimuli for this to be denied.

Yet I've gained objective veridical knowledge from such encounters. All I'm getting from you is hearsay that such things are not possible.

The failed "experiments" you speak of make about as much sense as trying to identify and study your own body from a WoW server.

I have no idea what you mean by your WoW analogy, but it looks like you're completely ignoring the point I was making about scientific consensus. Whether that is because you didn't understand the point or don't want to address it for one reason or another I don't know, but it's not conducive to honest debate.

I mean the 'external' world that modern science currently studies is analogous to WoW and "souls"/"spirits" are analogous to the material bodies of the users. The bodies do not exist within the frame of the VR world so searching for them there or trying to explain them purely in terms of the physics of that world is a futile exercise.

If you want proof of your own subjective existence, you need look no further than your own consciousness. Introspection is as empirical as extrospection [yea, a made up word -- deal with it! ].

I know I have a subjective existence. What I was arguing against was your assertion that there is a science of the internal world which you seem to deem synonymous with that which is classified as paranormal or supernatural.

My point was just as how one can accumulate a body of scientific knowledge concerning the 'external' world thru our sensory organs one can also do the same for the 'interior' world via introspection -- i.e. studying consciousness from the 'inside'.

Again, that depends on what one defines as "supernatural".

So how do you define it, and can you provide examples of supernatural things that there is a science of?

Like I mentioned earlier, "supernatural" is just a relative term for anything that seems to operate outside the bounds of what one considers physically possible; like a slight of hand trick it violates an individual's sense of reality, only in a much more radical way. I, and many other people, have experienced things that, according to your conception of what is possible, should not be. To you those things are "supernatural" anecdotes. To me they are empirical proof that our scientific models of reality are woefully incomplete.

 

[AkuManiMani]

No i have been around long enough to realize that he is simply getting kicks from drawing stuff out. His posts never have any content , and it is obvious to even the most casual observer that he is just trying to waste people's time.

So i have to ask, what is your stake in this? Anyone can tell , by a browse of his post history , that he is simply playing a game of virtual keep away. SOme people may reply in order to provide an example to people of a similar belief that see the thread, and others may simply enjoy pointing out how obvious it is that he is just trollin'

So i have to ask, what , exactly about his posts would indicate to you that he is being legitimate? And what explanation would you have for the fact that he rather consistently posts literal nonsense ( as in responses that do no make any kind of sense to the question received.) , that is put into a grammatically anarchistic from? We are not talking the odd joke here we are talking about something specifically made in order to not have any content, but take as long as possible to figure that out.

I think what hes posting is legitimately his POV; its just that hes using the wrong communication methods with the wrong crowd.

[Limbo, if you're reading this, I suggest you adapt your language to fit your audience's mode of thinking ]