"This place is dangerous for trying to find truth"

[Saltmeister]

Yet, you simply conclude that possessed drop-outs "could not possibly know" something? How do you know what anybody knows or doesn't know? Your requirement for "conclusive and absolute" proof has transformed into accepting your feelings and assumptions.

Firstly, I reckon it's a far stronger test than the one Tao mentioned. Tao is basing his claims on a far weaker test than I.

The drop-out's life will be deeply examined. He will be tested in school and his abilities and unlikely abilities will be well-known.

The example also opens up the possibility that both you and the drop-out are wrong. If, for example, you claimed, "The drop-out went into a trance and began speaking in perfect French!" It's quite possible that they were just babbling and you, no expert in french, mistakenly believed they had knowledge and ability when in fact, they did not.

The person will then be tested by an expert in French. Why would I do all the testing myself? I would employ the right people! There is a big difference between articulately expressed French and babble and all you have to do is ask an expert in French if he understands the French that is spoken!

If you were to get stimuli externally to what we consider the normal methods of information transfer where is the proof? Every claim either turns out to be fraud, misinterpretation or flounders in ambiguity. No one has ever provided the proof.

I used to believe that I could remember a past life. In that delusion I was a minor landowner in Greece who met his end in a peasants revolt. I had lots of proof's to validate this. I constructed a firm case for my belief. When I eventually gave it up I saw just how I came to believe the evidence and how I fitted it together to be coherent.

I do not believe in souls because there is no reason and no proof to show they exist.

Well, I haven't seen the proof that it doesn't exist. An MMRI would certainly have been inadequate for the kind of task I was proposing in post #127. I think you're making claims not based on absolute proof. I think your claims are too strong and should be weakened.

To track every single electrical signal and every single chemical reaction you would need something far more powerful than an MMRI. The goal is (which I hope you understand) to prove with absolute certainty that every single atom, molecule and electron is following the laws of physics and chemistry and that the emergence of all thoughts and thought patterns is completely natural. The result will be unambiguous and will support a substantially stronger argument than that which can come from an MMRI because an MMRI is not powerful enough to give absolute proof.

The subject will be a high-school drop-out with low grades, low IQ and poor cognitive abilities, but who has been possessed by a supernatural agent with high intelligence for the purpose of the experiment. The subject is to demonstrate that it has temporarily acquired abilities that it did not and could not demonstrate in his/her normal state of being.

The subject will be restrained and locked up in a chamber and subjected to a device more powerful than an MMRI. This device will be able to monitor every single atom, molecule and electron and track every single electrical signal and chemical reaction.

The point of such a meticulous experiment is to prove that what is happening inside the subject conforms absolutely to chemical and physical laws and that there is no interaction with entities external to the universe we know, let alone another plane of existence.

The subject will be asked a number of intellectually challenging questions during which he/she must give either the right answers (as in the case of mathematics or logic) or demonstrate extraordinary abilities (as in the case of art/philosophy/politics), abilities that the original individual could not possibly have possessed.

The answer will be either yes or no. All chemical and physical processes will either confirm to all known physical and chemical laws or they will not. To conform that the result is not a fluke, the experiment will be performed on 100 other people, as well as the subject himself when he is not possessed or under a trance.

At the end of the experiment, an exorcist will expel the supernatural agent. The subject will come out of his trance and will be back to normal.

 

[Saltmeister]

What I'm proposing is a kind of "Turing test" for the existence of the supernatural.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Well, Tao, I believe the term he would tend to use would be "altered state" as opposed to "abnormal" state. Though, I'd suspect the brain is functioning differently when such states occur. At the same time, the experiences one has in altered states may or may not reflect a verdical reality, but, obviously, one cannot blythly dismiss such "unusual" experiences as being suggestive of actual realities simply because there would be associated neurochemical changes relating to such states as there are specific neurochemical patterns associated with any brain state. But, then you predictably would as that is your standard fare. By the way Tao, is your DNA solely responsible for your predictable responses? earl

Earl I only want to understand what is really going on. I have no exotic theory to prop up. A large body of recent research using new non invasive technologies has opened up new areas of understanding that really can be measured by analysis of the brain in its normal waking, sleeping and anaesthetised states. If you can grasp that I give more credence to them than another Timothy Leary you might see where I'm coming from.

My DNA is the most important factor determining who I am, yes. The fine tuning is what we call life experience.

 

[citizenzen]

At the end of the experiment, an exorcist will expel the supernatural agent. The subject will come out of his trance and will be back to normal.

The End.

Roll credits.

 

[Tao_Equus]

What I'm proposing is a kind of "Turing test" for the existence of the supernatural.

I think you have been taking the toking test

 

[the breeze]

I am not a Dawkinite. In life I cannot always escape our shared human weaknesses. But I can try to be objective when analysing the complex issues under discussion. You chagrin speaks to me that I do so with some success.

Okay, you are not a Dawkinite so stop talking about memes - Dawkins' unverifiable theory of how and why religious (and other) ideas spread.

By the way my chagrin exists only in your head. I'm not so much talking about your conclusions as how you arrive at them. You are not objective, not even close, you are comfortable with some conclusions, uncomfortable with others. How does an experiment that shows unconscious pathways in the brain fire before conscious pathways prove we are just physical beings? It doesn't. If you had said without your customary certainty that this experiment may indicate certain conclusions I could take what you say seriously. But as it is you come across as just another Jehovah's Witness.

You say there's proof that the higher self doesn't exist and when I ask for the proof you are evasive and sarcastic.

It's typical debating technique. The Grof article has a lot of interesting evidence and argument but you dismiss it because it doesn't fit your subjective agenda.

I really can't find a reason to take you seriously.

 

[earl]

Okay, you are not a Dawkinite so stop talking about memes - Dawkins' unverifiable theory of how and why religious (and other) ideas spread.

By the way my chagrin exists only in your head. I'm not so much talking about your conclusions as how you arrive at them. You are not objective, not even close, you are comfortable with some conclusions, uncomfortable with others. How does an experiment that shows unconscious pathways in the brain fire before conscious pathways prove we are just physical beings? It doesn't. If you had said without your customary certainty that this experiment may indicate certain conclusions I could take what you say seriously. But as it is you come across as just another Jehovah's Witness.

You say there's proof that the higher self doesn't exist and when I ask for the proof you are evasive and sarcastic.

It's typical debating technique. The Grof article has a lot of interesting evidence and argument but you dismiss it because it doesn't fit your subjective agenda.

I really can't find a reason to take you seriously.

What Tao has never grasped-though Path of one used to go to great pains more patiently than me to point it out to him-is that he, indeed, very much holds to a view of what reality is. A truly open-minded individual, when confronted with experiences emerging from a variety of altered states, including near death experiences, (often overlapping in their perceptions despite varying methods of inducing them), would have an inquiring attitude of wondering if such perceptions may have some accuracy as opposed to automatically dismissing them. Of course, ultimately, whether one interprets such experiences as possibly true depends on the theories of reality one holds. One who staunchly-dare I say fundamentalistically-adheres to a view that all phenomena can be explained by and only by material interactions wouldn't dream of entertaining such perceptions as verdical anymore than a fundamentalist Christian would question their belief system. earl

 

[the breeze]

What Tao has never grasped-though Path of one used to go to great pains more patiently than me to point it out to him-is that he, indeed, very much holds to a view of what reality is. A truly open-minded individual, when confronted with experiences emerging from a variety of altered states, including near death experiences, (often overlapping in their perceptions despite varying methods of inducing them), would have an inquiring attitude of wondering if such perceptions may have some accuracy as opposed to automatically dismissing them. Of course, ultimately, whether one interprets such experiences as possibly true depends on the theories of reality one holds. One who staunchly-dare I say fundamentalistically-adheres to a view that all phenomena can be explained by and only by material interactions wouldn't dream of entertaining such perceptions as verdical anymore than a fundamentalist Christian would question their belief system. earl

Absolutely Earl, the closed mind is closed whatever its starting point. Our greatest enemy is complete certainty.

 

[Janz]

I really have enjoyed your posts the breeze, you are a breath of fresh air.

 

[citizenzen]

I really have enjoyed your posts the breeze, you are a breath of fresh air.

And such a snappy dresser.

 

[Avi]

Absolutely Earl, the closed mind is closed whatever its starting point. Our greatest enemy is complete certainty.

Not that I want to break up this love feast, for the breeze , and the last thing that I want to do is be on the same side of the issue as Tao , but, the breeze, one of issues that one needs to understand is that there are things about which we can be "completely certain". It is through transcendent knowledge that we are able to determine which things were are certain and which we are uncertain about.

By the way, on another topic, the breeze, why did you not enter the forum from the "Introduction" sub-forum ? That way we would have determined whose alias you are using !! You seem to be quite cozy with Earl, any relation, by chance ?

 

[citizenzen]

Not that I want to break up this love feast...

Oh, I completely agree Avi. I just didn't want to be the one to have to say it... again.

I wish we could dispel with this notion of certainty and closed-mindedness. I will go out on a limb and state that given enough evidence, we are all capable of changing our minds and adopting new perspectives.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Okay, you are not a Dawkinite so stop talking about memes - Dawkins' unverifiable theory of how and why religious (and other) ideas spread.

The idea of a meme may have been popularised by Dawkins but the principle is much older. If you think there is no evidence for meme transfer through societies then you are wilfully blind. I am not a great fan of everything Dawkins says but in the case of laying out meme theory he did well. When you get over your own prejudiced certainties that Dawkins is incapable of fleshing out a good proposition then you wont just be a good baiter but one with at least some substance behind his words.

I'm not so much talking about your conclusions as how you arrive at them. You are not objective, not even close, you are comfortable with some conclusions, uncomfortable with others. How does an experiment that shows unconscious pathways in the brain fire before conscious pathways prove we are just physical beings? It doesn't. If you had said without your customary certainty that this experiment may indicate certain conclusions I could take what you say seriously. But as it is you come across as just another Jehovah's Witness.

You are entitled to your opinion but as you have already demonstrated you yourself are incapable of objectivity how would you recognise it? There is a difference between having certainties in belief and holding a best hypothesis. As I have been at pains to concede there may be factors we cannot or are unable to measure that you studiously ignore I can only conclude you are not interested in doing anything but jumping on the populist, yet delusional, side of the argument for the sake of argument alone. There is no evidence, none, zilch, zero...you get the idea? that there is anything left of mind on brain death. If there was it would be a biggest story in the news ever. After so many people making claims and doing their failed experiments it is reasonable to conclude that a better way to try and understand is to go to these scientists that actually produce information of value. I do not indulge your request to spend my time and effort going and hunting down links for you because I am giving MY opinion gleaned from many sources and then distilled and evolved, added to and deleted, over the course of my life. And I am tired of people here always attempting to demand a level of evidence they never ever provide as a diversion from answering very simple questions. The nature of this site of course means that most of its members have a heavy investment in a banal if well established meme or two and then seek out and interpret so called information to prop this up. As these memes infect the vast majority of people alive today it is not difficult for them to find some writer or pseudo-researcher to say something that supports them. I have already illustrated, with enough information to follow up if you really want to understand, my argument, (not belief), that mind is product of physical and social evolution and language. There is stacks of evidence out there to support that but not a single shred that says a soul is something that somehow infects a foetus then leaves when the flesh is worn out. So put up or shut up. You demonstrate to me the mechanism where by a foetus is invaded or by which method self or soul then carries on after apparent death. Its crap. Nonsense. And so obviously another ludicrously desperate effort to prop up some central tenets of the lies religious memes peddle.

you are evasive and sarcastic.

I nurture and encourage my childishness which is why you see me respond in kind to you.

It's typical debating technique. The Grof article has a lot of interesting evidence and argument but you dismiss it because it doesn't fit your subjective agenda.

Erm....this is a debate...you had not noticed?
Grof is of a class of researcher that was at one time populist and apparently avante gard but in retrospect has to be taken only as a curiosity. Perhaps you should also try Carlos Castanenda or whatever other trip you can find. I speak for myself from my filtering from many sources. I state that mind is the product of a living brain and does not exist without one. That what we think of as conciousness is largely illusory. So in a way I am saying everybody has little free will. Which on a site full of people infected with a meme that demands they will to their beliefs is like someone yanking on the rug (or perhaps comfort blanket) of their certainties. But dont worry for them. These memes are big and fat, I stand no chance of toppling them.

I really can't find a reason to take you seriously.

Then don't. Then you might escape the need to accuse me of what you yourself are writing.

Peanuts? Dog? Lionfish? Some strange smell around here.

[Admin edit by I, Brian - removed first sentence - abuse]

 

[Saltmeister]

I think you have been taking the toking test

Then don't. Then you might escape the need to accuse me of what you yourself are writing.

In that case, who really cares?

I suggested an experiment that could give scientists a stronger argument because the results of an MRI scan would not have been enough to convince me of the non-existence of the supernatural. This experiment would monitor and track all electrical signals and chemical processes in the subject, confirming that there is absolutely no interference in natural cognitive processes from entities in another plane of existence.

But obviously you don't really care. This is all a joke, a game to you. You're obviously not here to debate anything because you know you won't be changing your opinion. You're not interested in discussing what kind of experiment will prove, once and for all, the non-existence of the supernatural, or even the question of whether your idea of using MRI scans is a strong enough test. If you were, you wouldn't have started talking about the Toking Test. You would have given me your opinion on the experiment.

This discussion is getting boring already. The only interesting part is the Toking Test. You found another word starting with "T" and ending with "ing." Yeah ha ha really funny. You had us all for fools.

Fair enough. I would rather be discussing gun politics with CZ, wil, good-old Mort and Janz. Although it's true that one is bit of a joke as well, it's one that I can both take seriously as well as play with.

In that case, I'm waiting for others to treat this thread like a joke just like the one on gun politics. If I had known that I was taking a toking test I would have approached this in a totally different way.

 

[Tao_Equus]

!! LMAO... you really expected me to take your suggestions seriously !

Salty you remain an enigma to me.

 

[Saltmeister]

!! LMAO... you really expected me to take your suggestions seriously !

Salty you remain an enigma to me.

What do you take seriously then?

Why would you not have taken my suggestion seriously? What do you want? What are you looking for?

 

[Janz]

Oh, I completely agree Avi. I just didn't want to be the one to have to say it... again.

I wish we could dispel with this notion of certainty and closed-mindedness. I will go out on a limb and state that given enough evidence, we are all capable of changing our minds and adopting new perspectives.

Actually, when it comes to spiritual issues, given enough EXPERIENCE and Uncertainity, makes me more open to new possibilities. Don't have much time now but will return later.

 

[Saltmeister]

!! LMAO... you really expected me to take your suggestions seriously !

Salty you remain an enigma to me.

You didn't even give me a reason why you didn't take me seriously. You said this was a debate in post #153, but if it's a debate you should give me a reason why you're not going to take my suggestions seriously.

I have already illustrated, with enough information to follow up if you really want to understand, my argument, (not belief), that mind is product of physical and social evolution and language. There is stacks of evidence out there to support that.

We already know that. Don't you get it? Are you telling you've never been interested in what else might be out there? UFOs? Extraterrestrials. Are you going to tell me that extraterrestrials can't possibly exist because we have never seen them and that there is no evidence of them ever existing?

If we are all just a bunch of atoms and molecules that follow mathematical laws, that would be pretty boring.

Seriously, I think there is something you really don't understand about religion.

Why don't you stop telling us what we already know? If we want to believe in something else out there that is our business. A kid who wants to find extraterrestrials will not be deterred no matter how much you try to suppress the desire. This is what we want. This is our life and we have a right to pursue it the way we want. It is not your job to censor our thoughts and tell us what is rational when we deliberately chose to promote, in our minds, those thoughts.

The theory of memes is great but let it be damned when we want to seek our own individuality. Any theory that says I am a slave of my environment is an abomination when I just want to do what I want to do.

So stop shoving these theories into our heads as if we really have to believe that all we can ever be is machines without creativity and imagination because that is where our soul is.

That's what makes this theory of memes just as abominable as any religion. It is scientists making theories about how humans work. Screw them. I don't want to hear, read or listen to any more theories about how humans work. Stop scrutinising us. This is a desecration of all it means to be human, to be studied and examined under a microscope. I refuse to be a test subject in any laboratory. I would rather burn the place down. I demand to be treated like a human being, not to be demoted to a common animal. I wish people would stop the business of trying to figure out how humans work and instead focus on better ways of living.

 

[Tao_Equus]

You didn't even give me a reason why you didn't take me seriously. You said this was a debate in post #153, but if it's a debate you should give me a reason why you're not going to take my suggestions seriously.

Because this is a debate not a research program. And because your idea was stupid.

We already know that. Don't you get it? Are you telling you've never been interested in what else might be out there? UFOs? Extraterrestrials. Are you going to tell me that extraterrestrials can't possibly exist because we have never seen them and that there is no evidence of them ever existing?

I suspect there are untold zillions of extraterrestrials. But I doubt very much if anyone has ever seen one. Perhaps you would have me believe in the tooth fairy? Peter Pan? Donald Duck?

If we are all just a bunch of atoms and molecules that follow mathematical laws, that would be pretty boring.

Well we are. Get over it.

Seriously, I think there is something you really don't understand about religion.

I understand it perfectly well. I have a good idea how it evolved, why it evolved and how it perpetuates itself. But to the nuance of your statement I do not need a placebo to not be scared of the real world.

Why don't you stop telling us what we already know? If we want to believe in something else out there that is our business. A kid who wants to find extraterrestrials will not be deterred no matter how much you try to suppress the desire. This is what we want. This is our life and we have a right to pursue it the way we want. It is not your job to censor our thoughts and tell us what is rational when we deliberately chose to promote, in our minds, those thoughts.

But it is your job to censor mine! If you do not like reading dont read it. Or just maintain your current hypocrisy. The choice is yours.

The theory of memes is great but let it be damned when we want to seek our own individuality. Any theory that says I am a slave of my environment is an abomination when I just want to do what I want to do.

Ok do not be a slave to your environment. Dont breath its air, drink its water nor consume its resources. Go live in a bubble some where with your individuality.

So stop shoving these theories into our heads as if we really have to believe that all we can ever be is machines without creativity and imagination because that is where our soul is.

What...and deprive you of hypocrisy, indignation and really bad ideas?

That's what makes this theory of memes just as abominable as any religion. It is scientists making theories about how humans work. Screw them. I don't want to hear, read or listen to any more theories about how humans work. Stop scrutinising us. This is a desecration of all it means to be human, to be studied and examined under a microscope. I refuse to be a test subject in any laboratory. I would rather burn the place down. I demand to be treated like a human being, not to be demoted to a common animal. I wish people would stop the business of trying to figure out how humans work and instead focus on better ways of living.

lmao, you want to be a test subject of some fictitious god but not to know how things 'observably' work. Priceless! Your dissonance knows no bounds!

 

[Avi]

If we are all just a bunch of atoms and molecules that follow mathematical laws, that would be pretty boring.

Actually, it is not boring at all, in fact, quite the opposite, it is rather amazing. Starting with a relatively few, small molecules, like methane (CH4), water (H2O) and some heat and light, and billions of years, we have evolved into a species that can throw vessels into space at multiples of the speed of sound. It takes some creativity to imagine what we will be able to do in a few thousand years, if we do not annihilate each other first.