• 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.

Subconsciousness and Humanity.


lol

It was irony with a pinch of sarcasm. You asking for something which you know cannot be shown, yet you ask for it anyway.
I think the whole belief system you maintain for yourself rests on that.

When you die you are 100% certain that will be the end of you.

I am no way that certain.

I find it strange too that there are so many people who want me to believe either that there is no LAD or that there is and it is going to be whatever they tell me it is.

The only thing I am sure about is that beliefs either way are a waste of my time.
 
Nav;

I'm just going to drop out because I'm not really interested in frustrating anyone, and I appear to be just causing that for you at this time.

I wasn't interested in convincing you of any position; I was more just stating that the reasons that you were giving me weren't convincing as there are many more indications leaning towards a more physical explanation than non-physical explanation.

Also, the crop circle thing wasn't a very good test as crop circles have an implied dialogue, just like bigfoot foot prints, and we are on a forum that is for the purpose of logical debate where a person is requested to inherently not just give an answer, but also their contextual reason for their position.

If you want to know my ambitions and motives, I would just say to ask; I'm not really a person who hides what I'm about.

I do leave open the possibility of your ideas, but I don't see them as convincing as the practical physical explanation since the latter is verifiable, repeatable and quantifiable, while the former doesn't really have the ability for any of these things and the anecdotal reports are non-uniform in their detailed accounts.

I don't want to shut doors of communication or damage any relation with other members, so I'll just back off and let it rest where it is.
 
You asking for something which you know cannot be shown, yet you ask for it anyway.
Just pointing out the similarity with Russell's Teapot.

I think the whole belief system you maintain for yourself rests on that.
Not really.

When you die you are 100% certain that will be the end of you.
Beyond all reasonable doubt (that's what 'death' means).

I find it strange too that there are so many people who want me to believe either that there is no LAD or that there is and it is going to be whatever they tell me it is.
You're free to believe or not believe whatever you like.
 
Nav;

I'm just going to drop out because I'm not really interested in frustrating anyone, and I appear to be just causing that for you at this time.

I wasn't interested in convincing you of any position; I was more just stating that the reasons that you were giving me weren't convincing as there are many more indications leaning towards a more physical explanation than non-physical explanation.

Also, the crop circle thing wasn't a very good test as crop circles have an implied dialogue, just like bigfoot foot prints, and we are on a forum that is for the purpose of logical debate where a person is requested to inherently not just give an answer, but also their contextual reason for their position.

If you want to know my ambitions and motives, I would just say to ask; I'm not really a person who hides what I'm about.

I do leave open the possibility of your ideas, but I don't see them as convincing as the practical physical explanation since the latter is verifiable, repeatable and quantifiable, while the former doesn't really have the ability for any of these things and the anecdotal reports are non-uniform in their detailed accounts.

I don't want to shut doors of communication or damage any relation with other members, so I'll just back off and let it rest where it is.

You are not frustrating me at all Jas. The subject of LAD is simply one that can go int circles and it seems pointless to argue for or against and I prefer the middle ground because that is where the evidence points.

The crop circle thing was adequate for the job of finding if your bias ran deeper than you claim. This forum (religion and philosophy) might be inherently (or habitually) about debate but there is little to debate about LAD when it comes to belief systems, which is really where practically all the debate in the world can be sourced – in belief systems.

So while I could (and did) take you on your word about your motives, it might be just a case that you are not so aware how strongly your beliefs motivate you, or even recognise that you have beliefs.

The anecdotal reports are non uniform because they are subject to subjective experience and interpretation and because it is apparent that there are a vast amount of different ‘universes’ but there is uniformity in enough of what is being shared to piece together what might be occurring.

As to crop formations, as usual there is a lot of debate about whether these are all made by humans with their ropes and boards and microwave equipment or something else is going on as well.

Wiki on crop formations seems to have a full time staff patrolling and editing so that anything which argues against these formations being created by anything other than humans is not included, which is a red flag in itself.

I remember in a forum years ago (which has since been deleted) I did an experiment with some others on that board where we ‘ordered up’ crop formations to see if what we requested would eventuate. We did this because we were looking into the possibility of Collective Consciousness and if this might have something to do with why crop formations were appearing.

We all agreed that you could tell the human made ones from the others – quiet obviously so.


Well anyway, it wasn’t long before we were getting hits, which piqued our curiosity.

Unfortunately it didn’t last too long because one member jumped into the thread and stated that she had found a formation which had an image of her and her little dog in it.

I and some others told her that we had a strict criteria as to what we ‘ordered’ and part of that was that the formation image had to be undeniably connectable and recognisable with what was ‘ordered’ rather than vague. The member took exception to this but we stood our ground and said that it needed to be able to withstand scientific scrutiny – then some other members who had not been participating entered the argument and said that they could ‘see’ her image and that of her dog too.


To give you some idea of what I am saying – this is a picture of what someone claims shows ‘faeries’ in it –



The persona who claims to recognize about 20 ‘Faeries’ in the image he/she links appears to be very serious about that but the picture shows nothing of the sort.

It was the same with the picture of the crop formation - no obvious image of either a woman or a dog. :boggled:

She went as far as making a yellow outline to signify where in the picture her image and that of her dog were.

For contrast, I had ‘ordered’ a Snail Crop Circle and before many days had gone by this formation appeared.

So it was these kinds of ‘hits’ that we were seeing and what could have been an interesting ongoing experiment was severely derailed when the member took exception to her ‘formation’ not been included in the evidence and then making demands that we should take what we were doing to ‘scientists’ and even claiming to have gone on scientific forums to tell them about what we were doing and including her own ‘evidence’ about the formation she believed had an image of her and her dog within it.

Then out of the blue arrived the crop formation that I asked you about.

To those on the forum this was more evidence that we were on to something as I was well known by then in regard to my Ouija interactions and they considered this to be evidence of conformation as to my sharing about those interactions.

I couldn’t argue – I didn’t see a need to, except to say that I – and none of us participating had ‘ordered’ such a formation.

Anyway, the forum member who made claims about her and her dogs image in a formation grabbed a hold of this and wouldn’t let go. It was my first major experience with the lengths individuals will go to, to disrupt and derail a thread and she succeeded.

We wanted to continue our experiment within our own circle and she wanted to ‘tell the world’ and set about doing just that and of course she was an embarrassment and hardly any nominated spokesperson – so we abandoned the whole thing.

If I was to ‘order’ a formation right now – it would be something like this:
x89e.jpg


Obviously it would be a lot more detailed and I know from experience that it would also include incidental information which serves as both confirmation and something else to ponder on – with even a hint of humor.
It also won’t be exact in that for example, the mirror may be a different shape...little subtle things like that. :)


In sharing this, I am not claiming that it will happen – but I would not be surprised if it did.

:)
 
I understand your position, but I disagree that evidence points to anything other than a physical explanation since the only evidence we really have suggests a rather physical explanation.

In stating that, I'm not interested in rehashing the same conversation, but there's some problems of communication that was going on and I still really don't grasp some of the positions, but I'll just accept the position you hold on it without really understanding the logic behind all aspects.

As to this review of my motives.
Look, honestly, I really don't appreciate the manner in which you are attempting to discern some motive out of me that allows you to just dismiss my responses on some claim of restrictive bias and anterior motive.

I don't treat you that way, and extend quite a bit of respect and interest in your views and do not assume that you discuss with anterior motives; could I be extended the same courtesy.

If you were upset or bothered by the term "ignorant", I didn't name that logical description: that's the actual name of that type of logical argument that was being made.
If it was called something else, like, "argument from 'we can't know'", then I would call it that, but it's not. It's called "ignorant", which isn't a judgement call on any persons thinking capability, but a literal use of the term meaning, "unknown".
You could just as well call it "argument from not knowing".


Also; I consider something that can be talked about in circles, to have very poor evidence in support of the proposition of the concept's validity.
That's not evidence itself, but it tends to not work very well for a given proposition if the topic can be circled around itself for the proposition and not very well rested on a finite matter of prediction, replication and validation.
 
Well Jas, my apologies for offending you. It wasn’t my intent.
Regarding your explanation about ‘ignorant be the correct term’ well I used the term “I don’t know’ quiet often in this thread, but if it were me speaking to someone fact to face and realised that they didn’t know, I wouldn’t tell them they were ignorant, I would just tell them that they didn’t know.

We don’t know, simply as that. Calling someone (or their position) ignorant nowadays isn’t regarded as polite. Maybe back when the term was first used it wasn’t something which could be misconstrued and you using it at me when I already agreed that “I (and we) don’t know” seem pointless and unnecessary.

Besides, it is not “argument from not knowing”. I know quite a bit about the subject of LAD. What I don’t know is if it is all ‘in the brain’ or not and from the evidence – unlike you and many others, I am not willing – nor do I see it as even necessary – to believe one way or the other, as you should have picked up on already. (See my comments about the ‘jury’ a few posts back.)

*That you see no logic in anyone still being unconvinced since all the physical evidence points to the possibility that when the brain dies so does the consciousness, is not something which needs to concern me *or that I find very relevant.

Also; I consider something that can be talked about in circles, to have very poor evidence in support of the proposition of the concept's validity.
That's not evidence itself, but it tends to not work very well for a given proposition if the topic can be circled around itself for the proposition and not very well rested on a finite matter of prediction, replication and validation.

^This only strengthens my point of view that you are not involved in this particular part of the thread topic to discuss but to convert.

Sorry if that offends you Jas, but the topic itself cannot be ‘argued’ from your position of belief against my position of not knowing one way or the other, without looping around for as long as you continue to argue from your position of belief.

You must have noticed that I did not actually dismiss your responses ever. What I did was suggest that the observations might not signify that what is being observed and agreed upon by those observing and agreeing, that they are correct.

This is because there is no known way in which to verify alternate universes, LAD etc.

My own experiences lead me to wonder about how much personal bias is involved in the observers agreeing together with what they observe as being ‘correct’.

“It is all in the brain.”

"Perhaps...perhaps not" – that’s what I think.
 
Last edited:
For the extreme example, DMT almost always produces ineffable experiences and DMT consumption is a chemical alteration of the way the brain processes information; like any drug.
The only real difference with DMT is the extremity of the experiences, and that DMT exists in the brain naturally.

I found this comment while perusing older threads, which is interesting:


Smokeable DMT is like literally going to another dimension and perceiving realities your brain could not possibly imagine, as well as alien entities. In those circumstances, you are unable to move and basically are asleep for all intents and purposes, unless you're drifting in and out through oral ingestion.

ETA Halfcentaur also offers more in this post in the same thread

about two thirds of the way down...

When it comes to DMT...
 
Last edited:
Crop Formations

In this post within this thread I spoke about crop formation experiments and drew a rough sketch of a crop circle I would like to see occur.

Last night I was thinking about what is being discussed in this thread and was thinking about the symbol of the eye on the American dollar bill.

I was pretty sure that I had seen crop formations which were obviously eye shaped and even one which depicted the symbol on the dollar bill so this morning I had a look and this one looks similar:

ALL%20SEEING%20EYE%20crop%20circle.jpg



So I was thinking I would like to see a crop formation which is eye shaped but has a geometric shape within the pupil area - something along the lines known impossible shapes.

images
 
In this post within this thread I spoke about crop formation experiments and drew a rough sketch of a crop circle I would like to see occur.

Last night I was thinking about what is being discussed in this thread and was thinking about the symbol of the eye on the American dollar bill.

I was pretty sure that I had seen crop formations which were obviously eye shaped and even one which depicted the symbol on the dollar bill so this morning I had a look and this one looks similar:

[qimg]http://www.reallyfree.org/ALL%20SEEING%20EYE%20crop%20circle.jpg[/qimg]


So I was thinking I would like to see a crop formation which is eye shaped but has a geometric shape within the pupil area - something along the lines known impossible shapes.

[qimg]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ76wyRILsWaCeiDBhfYtg9YD1RDl99HhTUx93_wRhRRGSDcbPsBA:www.pixeljoint.com/files/icons/full/impossible_shapes.gif[/qimg]

What the **** are you talking about?
 

Back
Top Bottom