Galileo - Descartes - Newton - Darwin - The Quantum mechanics - Bohr/Einstein - ?

[Pete Tar]

Yes...
The natural, and manufactured, psychedelics.
A large collection of the books of Timothy Leary, Robert Anton Wilson, LSD and the search for God (a great book), Stanislov Grof, John C. Lilly, Charles Tart.
I think the 'movement' definitely toppled over from the weight of it's own naive enthusiasm, but it's an enthusiasm I can understand from first hand experience. I just think it's conclusions were wrong or at least premature. I was certainly led astray by my own mind for a while.
I believe psychonaut is a valid and useful past-time, with the right discipline. It's a shame that because of the naive excesses of the past it's legislated against and valid research is illegal.
A more grounded reliable way to expansion of consciousness is that found in secular zen/vipassana meditation, and one that still does not need to lead one to any conclusions that science would dispute. It's more a 'cleaning of consciousness'.
I believe you can have a so-called expanded conciousness and still be a materialist.
After all, isn't non-duality fundamentally materialism?

 

[Dan Wilson]

what do you think on the quasi religious nature of science as it is? Or that we've started out with a mystical assumption? It's certainly what is classified as unfalsifiable.

I've learned the hard way that science and religion is separate. Some try to merge the two in some way but a true scientist leaves the beliefs at the door and looks at nature. Easier said than done, but easier as a collaborative effort with multiple perspectives. I gladly go by what the evidence says. As a whole, I think science does work this way. What are you referring to as "unfalsifiable?"

 

[Cairenn]

I have never fallen prey to the lure of drugs. I want to have my mind available and fully on line as I learn more

 

[Pete Tar]

I have never fallen prey to the lure of drugs. I want to have my mind available and fully on line as I learn more

I think you may have fallen prey to the lure of a selective view of drugs - the psychedelic ones at least.
They do not necessarily teach you about any ultimate 'reality', but they do teach you about your mind and how it processes that reality. They are especially useful for examining the relationship of a sentient being with the universe of which it is but a part.
They don't degrade your mind if you are sufficiently prepared.
I think the danger is in the initial feeling of liberation being misinterpreted and held on to.
In a more enlightened and rational world, they would definitely warrant further research, with practical caution.

 

[Jazzy]

All this is internal to the mind, and the mind is an artifact of our construction - our brain. There is nothing with meaning "out there". All "meaning" is internal to the mind.

If "out there" seems big to you, then that's because our brains are big, or "small" is "big" to you. Either way, it's just you. You'll never get out of being you while you live. If you want something to happen, then you have the kit. But the "kit" is your physical body. Prayer doesn't work.

Other animals dream too.

 

[lee h oswald]

Indeed.

I try to expand my consciousness every day...just by living life.

...but yes, I have traveled with Don Juan...more partial to fungi then lab material.

I also know- not every person will react with giddiness of silly soldier or be amazed at the technicolor as a 50s housewife.

I have seen people who wished they never crossed that threshold and others who never quite made it all the way back.

Cheers!

Not so easy to really expand consciousness, SR, in my day to day environmental input (ie. the daily grind), don't know your environment exactly. One needs to put aside time, I think.

Fungi good! But can be a bit nausea inducing (depending on var.). My motto, SR, is try everything once - except incest and Morris dancing. It's the only way to go.

Silly soldier giddiness and technicolor 50s housewife? You're right, there are casualties. But they really are few and far between. I can honestly say I don't know any. The soldiers laughing a lot is just the first effects of lsd coming on, as commonyl experienced by most partakers, and it's great! - but there is one guy having a 'bad' time. And they show it. I'm sure he was fine - poor sod! 'Bad' and 'good' don't quite have the same meaning in this realm, quite often, bad is better than good. The 50's housewife? For all we know, in the previous two hours she got naked, resolved to leave her husband, raped Dr Cohen multiple times (he looks pretty smug!) and only after they managed to persuade her to put her clothes back on, did she attempt to explain the technicolor language she wished to speak - a great idea in itself, no?

Crossing thresholds and not making it back? Liminal. At the crossing point, but one foot in each reality. 50's housewife says it - something she probably never thought she could say - This is reality - there is no me - everything is alive; it's common experience, and it's usually a positive thing - almost overwhelmingly.

Thanks for the candid reply - and it obviously did you no harm! About time for a third-eye squeegee?

 

[lee h oswald]

No . . . it was frowned upon by my employer of 30 plus years . . . In fact, he would put you in jail and throw away the keys if you did . . . or of course if he did it to you that was OK (just for experimental reasons of course) . . . I occasionally would dip into the Southern Comfort for a trip into never, never land . . . I am sure it isn't the same . .

Sorry, G! Stupid question!

You're right, SC ain't the same.

It's never too late, G. No time like the present. I can't recommend it enough. And that's an order!!! Lol!


But seriously though, G; no orders from me (imagine!!?), but grist for the mill.

 

[SR1419]

Cheers!

Not so easy to really expand consciousness, SR, in my day to day environmental input (ie. the daily grind), don't know your environment exactly. One needs to put aside time, I think.

Fungi good! But can be a bit nausea inducing (depending on var.). My motto, SR, is try everything once - except incest and Morris dancing. It's the only way to go.

Silly soldier giddiness and technicolor 50s housewife? You're right, there are casualties. But they really are few and far between. I can honestly say I don't know any. The soldiers laughing a lot is just the first effects of lsd coming on, as commonyl experienced by most partakers, and it's great! - but there is one guy having a 'bad' time. And they show it. I'm sure he was fine - poor sod! 'Bad' and 'good' don't quite have the same meaning in this realm, quite often, bad is better than good. The 50's housewife? For all we know, in the previous two hours she got naked, resolved to leave her husband, raped Dr Cohen multiple times (he looks pretty smug!) and only after they managed to persuade her to put her clothes back on, did she attempt to explain the technicolor language she wished to speak - a great idea in itself, no?

Crossing thresholds and not making it back? Liminal. At the crossing point, but one foot in each reality. 50's housewife says it - something she probably never thought she could say - This is reality - there is no me - everything is alive; it's common experience, and it's usually a positive thing - almost overwhelmingly.

Thanks for the candid reply - and it obviously did you no harm! About time for a third-eye squeegee?

I agree it is hard on a day to day basis to expand your consciousnesses. "real" life has way of getting in the way...but its doable...it just takes effort. can be as minimal as a few moments of contemplative self-reflection or walk in the woods or hours of meditation. The third eye is always open whether you can see through it or not...or need glasses such as LSD or psilocybin.

I have personally known casualties- some just "bad trips" others more profound long-term disengagement with "reality".

Of course, quality control is always a factor

http://www.hark.com/clips/ygmhswwswk-brown-acid-warning

 

[lee h oswald]

I have. Unfortunately, psychedelics have little effect on me. LSD and 'shrooms produce nothing but a nice buzz. DMX knocks me out. Salvia does produce a complete disassociation from reality, but only for about a minute and it tastes like shit. My only true hallucinogenic experience was over 30 years ago on just marijuana. It was great, but nothing revelatory. I do look forward to trying peyote someday, but I'm afraid that I will be disappointed, once again.

Wow, R! No-one can doubt your dedication!

Bad luck! Do you think that's physiological or psychological? Presuming your doses are high enough?

And, R, I'm presuming you mean DXM (rather than DMT)? Very different animals, those.

 

[George B]

Sorry, G! Stupid question!

You're right, SC ain't the same.

It's never too late, G. No time like the present. I can't recommend it enough. And that's an order!!! Lol!


But seriously though, G; no orders from me (imagine!!?), but grist for the mill.

Lee, I have engaged in hang gliding, white water canoeing, high speed driving, hiking in the Alaskan bear country without weapons not to mention other risky crap while in the military . . . so I am not averse to risk taking . . . however, I classify all drugs . . . including prescription drugs as beyond my risk threshold . . . so when it comes to medicated transcendental trips I am a wimp . . . LOL!!!

 

[lee h oswald]

Yes...
The natural, and manufactured, psychedelics.
A large collection of the books of Timothy Leary, Robert Anton Wilson, LSD and the search for God (a great book), Stanislov Grof, John C. Lilly, Charles Tart.
I think the 'movement' definitely toppled over from the weight of it's own naive enthusiasm, but it's an enthusiasm I can understand from first hand experience. I just think it's conclusions were wrong or at least premature. I was certainly led astray by my own mind for a while.
I believe psychonaut is a valid and useful past-time, with the right discipline. It's a shame that because of the naive excesses of the past it's legislated against and valid research is illegal.
A more grounded reliable way to expansion of consciousness is that found in secular zen/vipassana meditation, and one that still does not need to lead one to any conclusions that science would dispute. It's more a 'cleaning of consciousness'.
I believe you can have a so-called expanded conciousness and still be a materialist.
After all, isn't non-duality fundamentally materialism?

Man, this is taking forever!! My computer is being run by a team of incompetent mosquitoes.

Thanks, P. Indeed, psychonaut is valid.

But also interesting is that you are the only respondent who mentions other methods of consciousness expansion - without the cheaty bit - the drugs! Tom brushes over the drug issue and says it's possible to go places, but hard to collect data, as you're not in control. Which rings true, to me.

And, P, going back to your first post (sometimes it takes a while to register fully!), asking what difference would it make to my day to day life to know or believe what Tom says? None, of course, is the answer. But, none in the same way that it would make no difference to someone who believed the earth was flat, to be educated that it was not.

 

[lee h oswald]

I've learned the hard way that science and religion is separate. Some try to merge the two in some way but a true scientist leaves the beliefs at the door and looks at nature. Easier said than done, but easier as a collaborative effort with multiple perspectives. I gladly go by what the evidence says. As a whole, I think science does work this way. What are you referring to as "unfalsifiable?"

Cheers for coming back, D. Sounds like there's a story there.

As for the 'unfalsifiable' bit, that was up the board. It's an interesting question, I think - that where science 'begins' (in a sense) is with the Big Bang. The axiom is - There was this ball of energy and it started to rapidly expand, creating the universe. Which is by all definitons, unfalsifiable. In exactly the same way that reindeer can't fly. It's mystical.

Thanks

 

[lee h oswald]

I think you may have fallen prey to the lure of a selective view of drugs - the psychedelic ones at least.
They do not necessarily teach you about any ultimate 'reality', but they do teach you about your mind and how it processes that reality. They are especially useful for examining the relationship of a sentient being with the universe of which it is but a part.
They don't degrade your mind if you are sufficiently prepared.
I think the danger is in the initial feeling of liberation being misinterpreted and held on to.
In a more enlightened and rational world, they would definitely warrant further research, with practical caution.

Amen. Not so much caution, though.

 

[Cairenn]

So George you refuse to use any prescription drug? for any purpose?

 

[lee h oswald]

All this is internal to the mind, and the mind is an artifact of our construction - our brain. There is nothing with meaning "out there". All "meaning" is internal to the mind.

If "out there" seems big to you, then that's because our brains are big, or "small" is "big" to you. Either way, it's just you. You'll never get out of being you while you live. If you want something to happen, then you have the kit. But the "kit" is your physical body. Prayer doesn't work.

Other animals dream too.

Oh man! It's Mr J's go - - - a typically gnostic view from the volcano - I have to say, J, you look pretty cool - but even more of a scorpione behind the piano (or is it clarinet/sax?) with a fat cigar.

Btw, J, your first bit -

There is nothing with meaning "out there". All "meaning" is internal to the mind.

Is contrary to P's tag-line of Pratchett's - that the truth may be out there - but the lies are in your head; I agree with what you said (I think) that the truth (meaning) is in your head.

Not trying to promote discord, just debate.

 

[Mick West]

lee, is any of this theory actually physically demonstrable, or is it only verifiable in your head after meditating or taking mind altering drugs?

How exactly do you know it's not all in your head, if there's no way of demonstrating it outside your head?

 

[lee h oswald]

Lee, I have engaged in hang gliding, white water canoeing, high speed driving, hiking in the Alaskan bear country without weapons not to mention other risky crap while in the military . . . so I am not averse to risk taking . . . however, I classify all drugs . . . including prescription drugs as beyond my risk threshold . . . so when it comes to medicated transcendental trips I am a wimp . . . LOL!!!

No risk, really. I reckon you're quite young, mid-fifties? You would find a great deal of positives. You're wise enough to get the most you could from it - twenty times more than a twenty-year-old could! If you've done the white water stuff and all that, then this is just an extension, and a truly valuable and valid one - never too late, G, at least stick in your mill and twist it about a bit. (I reckon you'd love it!!)

 

[George B]

So George you refuse to use any prescription drug? for any purpose?

I did not say that . . . but I understand the biochemical complexity of pharmaceuticals and other foreign substance introduced artificially into the body . . . people IMO use them frivolously . . . I don't advocate the use of any unless absolutely necessary . . . especially blood products . . . if I remember correctly 33 percent of all hospitalizations in the US were due to drug interaction induced crisis . . . one of my areas of specialty is immunohematology (blood banking) and I have seen too much crap to be comfortable with the way most people use drugs . . .

 

[Jazzy]

Not trying to promote discord, just debate.

You seem a little fey to me.

Insofar as you "feel" you are in touch with "reality" with hallucinogenic material, you are still only in touch with your mind, and "reality" remains out of reach. It's good to realize how filtered and illusory "normal" experience is. I think learning that should be a part of a child's education, as should self-discovery in general.

I don't hold with drug legislation, except on the grounds of maintaining quality control. Like alcohol or fast cars, there's danger involved. Darwin Awards await the foolish. May they earn them.

 

[lee h oswald]

lee, is any of this theory actually physically demonstrable, or is it only verifiable in your head after meditating or taking mind altering drugs?

How exactly do you know it's not all in your head, if there's no way of demonstrating it outside your head?

it's hard to demonstrate something which is common but subjective, ultimately. Physically demonstrable? Yes. Take 15 fresh grammes of psylocibe semilanceata and you can tell me all about the physical demonstration. Come on, everyone else asked gave there answer one way or the other on my question, but you just ask me another - Have you ever had so much as a mushroom?

and I'd be very interested to know how you cope with the knowledge that the Big Bang is nothing more than a mystical assumption?

 

[lee h oswald]

You seem a little fey to me.

Insofar as you "feel" you are in touch with "reality" with hallucinogenic material, you are still only in touch with your mind, and "reality" remains out of reach. It's good to realize how filtered and illusory "normal" experience is. I think learning that should be a part of a child's education, as should self-discovery in general.

I don't hold with drug legislation, except on the grounds of maintaining quality control. Like alcohol or fast cars, there's danger involved. Darwin Awards await the foolish. May they earn them.

I wish a spirit of reconciliation.

Begs the question - what is reality? It's a big 'un. On legiislation, absolutely.

 

[Mick West]

it's hard to demonstrate something which is common but subjective, ultimately. Physically demonstrable? Yes. Take 15 fresh grammes of psylocibe semilanceata and you can tell me all about the physical demonstration. Come on, everyone else asked gave there answer one way or the other on my question, but you just ask me another - Have you ever had so much as a mushroom?

and I'd be very interested to know how you cope with the knowledge that the Big Bang is nothing more than a mystical assumption?

I've not taken anything more mind altering than marijuana.

If something is just in in your head, then it's very hard to say it's anything other than chemicals altering your brain. You and Marshall seem to claim that that's a larger reality that we can become aware of, but how do you know it's not just the mushrooms talking?

Marshall makes very specific claims that should be testable. Yet they have not been tested. This makes me doubt his claims.

You hint that I'll understand if I too take magic mushrooms. But what will I understand, that brain altering chemicals change the way you think? I know "you should not dismiss it unless you try it", but I'm having quite a nice time expanding my consciousness in the usual way (like today I spent several hours hurtling recklessly down a ski slope, then did some work, then I'm going to do some debunking, watch a movie, read a book). I'm sure it's quite possible I could be convinced I had achieved a measure of enlightenment if I took some drugs. But how would I know it wasn't just the drugs?

What's the evidence it's not just the drugs messing with your brain? Making you think you are enlightened.

The Big Bang has a lot of evidence indicating it happened. Why it happened is a different issue, but not likely to be practically answerable, chemically enhanced brain or no.

 

[Jazzy]

what is reality?

My definition is a working one: that part of the unknown which we are able to perceive and interpret correctly.

It's a big 'un.

We pass on a single trajectory through three-dimensional space equipped with our short-ranged senses. It's easy to miss things.

On legiislation, absolutely.

I would prefer the culture to understand itself first. But it is fearful and corrupt.

PSHE and Civics didn't feature in my education a half-century ago. If they don't feature in today's education curricula, together with Reason and Logic, it's going to be more of a disaster than a cause for regret later.

 

[RustyShackleford]

When I first heard about quantum mechanics applied on this larger scale, a lot of things clicked for me. From my limited understanding, it appears to be saying that the material world is only possibility or indeterminateness. Wasn't it Aristotle that first said that? That it isn't determined until a consciousness observes it. Science has got it backwards...matter isn't the ultimate and you can not get consciousness from any combination of matter. Consciousness is actually the ultimate, and you can't have matter without consciousness observing it. I believe this to be true.

Now apply this to the origin of the universe or the Big Bang. The first particle, whatever it was, must have been observed by a consciousness or it could not exist. A consciousness existing before time/space was created. So a timeless / spaceless consciousness that created the universe in a flash, effortlessly, simply by observing. Sounds like Christian orthodoxy.

I also have a hard time believing that the wall behind me does not exist until I turn around and observe it. This creates all sorts of problems. If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to observe it, this theory tells us that the tree and forest do not even exist because nobody is around. If there is a consciousness that created the first particle by observing it, it would also be holding everything in existence by continuing to observe the universe. That is also Christian orthodoxy...that God is holding everything in existence by observing, not because God needs to but because he can. Or out of kindness.

It's also interesting to apply the idea of appealing to this consciousness, or "prayer", to this idea. The idea of free will and prayer is tricky. With this theory, it would be possible for this consciousness to change or allow things to be changed, if nobody was actively observing them. By observing something, we destroy all possibilities except for the one that now exists. There was infinite possibility until we observed it. If nobody is observing it, then this greater consciousness or God has infinite possibilities and can do whatever he wants. So God / higher consciousness can work in the shadows, but won't work before our very eyes because it would trample on our free will. This seems to be what religious people report regarding prayers being answered. God works through things seen as random, and doesn't leave absolute proof that he did anything at all.

Interesting that science and religion seem to be coinciding in this area.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

You hint that I'll understand if I too take magic mushrooms... What's the evidence it's not just the drugs messing with your brain? Making you think you are enlightened.

Further to that point... It's revealing when the following morning you find out that the the deep understanding and incredible insights into reality and the universe you've written down the night before turn out to be pure gibberish.

 

[George B]

I did not say that . . . but I understand the biochemical complexity of pharmaceuticals and other foreign substance introduced artificially into the body . . . people IMO use them frivolously . . . I don't advocate the use of any unless absolutely necessary . . . especially blood products . . . if I remember correctly 33 percent of all hospitalizations in the US were due to drug interaction induced crisis . . . one of my areas of specialty is immunohematology (blood banking) and I have seen too much crap to be comfortable with the way most people use drugs . . .

I don't know how it is in the rest of the world but in the good ole US of A. . . every other TV ad seems to be a commercial to convince someone they have some medical condition (some I have never heard of before) that needs a prescription drug . . .so please ask your physician about your need for this drug . . . .seems big Pharma won't be satisfied until every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth is part of their customer base. . . .and these conditions are long term chronic, never ending things that need medication for the rest of your terrible symptom laden lives. . . .

 

[lee h oswald]

I've not taken anything more mind altering than marijuana.

If something is just in in your head, then it's very hard to say it's anything other than chemicals altering your brain. You and Marshall seem to claim that that's a larger reality that we can become aware of, but how do you know it's not just the mushrooms talking?

Marshall makes very specific claims that should be testable. Yet they have not been tested. This makes me doubt his claims.

You hint that I'll understand if I too take magic mushrooms. But what will I understand, that brain altering chemicals change the way you think? I know "you should not dismiss it unless you try it", but I'm having quite a nice time expanding my consciousness in the usual way (like today I spent several hours hurtling recklessly down a ski slope, then did some work, then I'm going to do some debunking, watch a movie, read a book). I'm sure it's quite possible I could be convinced I had achieved a measure of enlightenment if I took some drugs. But how would I know it wasn't just the drugs?

What's the evidence it's not just the drugs messing with your brain? Making you think you are enlightened.

The Big Bang has a lot of evidence indicating it happened. Why it happened is a different issue, but not likely to be practically answerable, chemically enhanced brain or no.

If something is just in in your head, then it's very hard to say it's anything other than chemicals altering your brain. You and Marshall seem to claim that that's a larger reality that we can become aware of, but how do you know it's not just the mushrooms talking?

Ok. The thread has become dominated with talk of psychedelics. I brought it up as an example of an OOBE; it's kind of a cheat (the drug route), and isn't anything to do with Tom's theory; like I said, he does brush over the drugs issue but that's not his method - and again, the OOBE is just a very small part of the whole.

Marshall makes very specific claims that should be testable. Yet they have not been tested. This makes me doubt his claims.

[Campbell!]

Always wise to be sceptical, so long as you apply an equal dose of open-mindeness. I think OOBE has been around a long time, and part of the issue, as Tom explains, is that it's subjective, which makes measuring nigh on impossible. I don't think that's any chicanery by Tom, but simply the truth. Part of the Toe postulates that our 'objective' reality is a data stream, and we all recognise a commonality between objects and their appearance mainly because we have the same faculties for sensing, the same kit, eyeballs, ears etc. But as you know, ask 5 different people for their account of something that happens right in front of them and you'll likely get 5 similar but different answers. Where does 'reality' fall then? God help us all if we need a lawyer to interpret it!

You hint that I'll understand if I too take magic mushrooms. But what will I understand, that brain altering chemicals change the way you think? I know "you should not dismiss it unless you try it", but I'm having quite a nice time expanding my consciousness in the usual way (like today I spent several hours hurtling recklessly down a ski slope, then did some work, then I'm going to do some debunking, watch a movie, read a book). I'm sure it's quite possible I could be convinced I had achieved a measure of enlightenment if I took some drugs. But how would I know it wasn't just the drugs?

It's not that you'll necessarily 'understand' everything, or anything for that matter - other than that an OOBE is possible (maybe?). I do recommend it if you haven't tried it - it's an experience most find highly positive. The drugs chat should probably be another thread, but it doesn't matter; Terence McKenna (sp?) is the man to listen to on this subject. Sadly no longer with us, but an advocate and activist (and botanist) for the proper scientific exploration of these substances, interaction with which he said were part of what makes us human. Indeed, he went further and said that if you don't interact with these substances, you're only half human. Which is a very strong position to take, granted, but if you spend any time listening to him talk about it, you might be pleasantly surprised at his eloquence and reasoning.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same expansion of consciousness in reading a book, watching a movie, etc - although those activities might be more expanding intellect, or knowledge - objective knowledge; skiing down a mountain, now that's another story - communing with nature, being purely physical and (if you can) emptying the mind of the endless clatter and chatter of the normal routine -- now you're getting closer --

I'm sure it's quite possible I could be convinced I had achieved a measure of enlightenment if I took some drugs. But how would I know it wasn't just the drugs?

You won't reach 'enlightenment' taking drugs. It could give you a boot in that direction though. How would you know if it wasn't just the drugs? Well, it is the drugs - and you, in tandem. I think it's about each person's subjective interaction (with many commonalities with others' experiences) with the substance. There's really only one way round that question - and that's to suck it and see! And, M, if you were to be 'convinced' - then it's real, isn't it?

Huxley, in his last novel, Island, described a society isolated from the rest of the world, where the people had, for one hundred years, built their society on the synthesis of western science and eastern mysticism. The book is the antithesis of Brave New World. Part of the culture is to use mushrooms to enhance understanding of the self -- Huxley describes his character taking the moksha medicine -- it goes on for a few pages (a brilliant description of a 'trip').

Near the beginning:

'Luminous Bliss'. From the shallows of his mind the words rose like bubbles, came to the surface and vanished into the infinite spaces of living light that now pulsed and breathed behind his eyelids. 'Luminous bliss.' That was as near as one could come to it. But it - this timeless and yet ever changing Event - was something that words could only caricature and diminish, never convey. It was not only bliss, it was also understanding. Understanding of everything, but without knowledge of anything. Knowledge involved a knower and all the infinite diversity of known and knowable things. But here, behind his closed lids, there was neither spectacle nor spectator,. There was only this experienced fact of being blissfully one with oneness.

Understanding without knowledge - that's a good way of putting it.

The Big Bang has a lot of evidence indicating it happened

Yes, but it's still a mystical assumption - and you'd never get a conviction based on the evidence!

 

[lee h oswald]

My definition is a working one: that part of the unknown which we are able to perceive and interpret correctly.


We pass on a single trajectory through three-dimensional space equipped with our short-ranged senses. It's easy to miss things.


I would prefer the culture to understand itself first. But it is fearful and corrupt.

PSHE and Civics didn't feature in my education a half-century ago. If they don't feature in today's education curricula, together with Reason and Logic, it's going to be more of a disaster than a cause for regret later.

My definition is a working one: that part of the unknown which we are able to perceive and interpret correctly.

Trouble is - isn't our perception more subjective than anything else - what else can we compare it to - for objectivity?

We pass on a single trajectory through three-dimensional space equipped with our short-ranged senses. It's easy to miss things.

Agreed - until we step outside of that paradigm by the use of mind altering substances or meditation - then 'things' become non-linear - dimensions abound - and the senses multiplied - so much more to see --

I would prefer the culture to understand itself first. But it is fearful and corrupt.

Perhaps one route away from 'fearful and corrupt' might be an expansion of the consciousness?

'Education', generally, is appalling. Radical re-think required, but won't happen while we have people crippled by odious doctrines running the show.

 

[Mick West]

I think OOBE has been around a long time, and part of the issue, as Tom explains, is that it's subjective, which makes measuring nigh on impossible. I don't think that's any chicanery by Tom, but simply the truth.

No, he makes a very specific claim that people can share OOBE, and that they can exchange information. He claims this was one of the very first things he did, and a tape recording were made that proved it.

So he's claiming something that should easily be repeatable with 100% certainty, Nobel Prize, $1,000,000, and would change science forever. Since he does not repeat it (and nobody else has), I think he's either lying, or has fooled himself.

 

[lee h oswald]

I don't know how it is in the rest of the world but in the good ole US of A. . . every other TV ad seems to be a commercial to convince someone they have some medical condition (some I have never heard of before) that needs a prescription drug . . .so please ask your physician about your need for this drug . . . .seems big Pharma won't be satisfied until every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth is part of their customer base. . . .and these conditions are long term chronic, never ending things that need medication for the rest of your terrible symptom laden lives. . . .

It's pretty chronic all over I think, G. But I guess even more so over in the home of capitalism on steroids (I wonder which make they take?). People are far too easily persuaded to take what 'society' says are 'good drugs' and get all self-righteous when it comes to the other drugs - the ones there's a 'war' against (the really good ones). It's totally schizophrenic. And plain stupid. And will likely cause as many, if not more, problems as it helps.
The whole mass marketing of conditions as well as the supposed cure is a wrong turn, obviously. When it's profit over health - then you've got a big problem. And we have.

And don't forget:

Q: What do you call the person who came bottom of their medical class?

A: Doctor

 

[George B]

It's pretty chronic all over I think, G. But I guess even more so over in the home of capitalism on steroids (I wonder which make they take?). People are far too easily persuaded to take what 'society' says are 'good drugs' and get all self-righteous when it comes to the other drugs - the ones there's a 'war' against (the really good ones). It's totally schizophrenic. And plain stupid. And will likely cause as many, if not more, problems as it helps.
The whole mass marketing of conditions as well as the supposed cure is a wrong turn, obviously. When it's profit over health - then you've got a big problem. And we have.

And don't forget:

Q: What do you call the person who came bottom of their medical class?

A: Doctor

As they say when one wants to be patronizing and appear unbiased toward the lower and less fortunate class . . . some of my best friends are doctors . . . and seems they are just as gullible as the rest of us . . . LOL!!!!

 

[lee h oswald]

No, he makes a very specific claim that people can share OOBE, and that they can exchange information. He claims this was one of the very first things he did, and a tape recording were made that proved it. So he's claiming something that should easily be repeatable with 100% certainty, Nobel Prize, $1,000,000, and would change science forever. Since he does not repeat it (and nobody else has), I think he's either lying, or has fooled himself.

Well, I think you've only taken in a few minutes of the whole - why don't you ask Tom? He's very approachable, and I'm sure he'd answer your email if you asked him about that. I can't speak for him, obviously. (I doubt he's particularly interested in Randi's million bucks! btw) Fair enough if you want to write something off, but it couldn't do any harm to do a little empirical stuff of your own. No big effort required, just an inquiring mind. Consciousness exists and evolution happens. We (and every other conscious thing), through our consciousness make choices in order to evolve or devolve. Devolving is not an option, if you devolve you fall out of the game - each choice we make evolves us - - towards what though? Do you think you are a body of mass or a consciousness? What makes you? When it 'dies', does your mass (body) disappear? Does your consciousness disappear?

 

[Pete Tar]

What makes you? When it 'dies', does your mass (body) disappear? Does your consciousness disappear?

'ME' is a learned social construct - I am taught early on that I am an entity, and language is designed to facilitate this idea. It's a useful illusion.
There is no entity within this entity. When I die, consciousness has nothing to refer to, and nothing to give rise to it. The phenomenon of consciouosness continues in others, but the temporary reference point 'I' that language and memes give existance to will disappear.

 

[Pete Tar]

...
Science has got it backwards...matter isn't the ultimate and you can not get consciousness from any combination of matter. Consciousness is actually the ultimate, and you can't have matter without consciousness observing it. I believe this to be true.

Now apply this to the origin of the universe or the Big Bang. The first particle, whatever it was, must have been observed by a consciousness or it could not exist. A consciousness existing before time/space was created. So a timeless / spaceless consciousness that created the universe in a flash, effortlessly, simply by observing. Sounds like Christian orthodoxy.

The consciousness that you propose is not part of material reality, so how does something that is not matter, create or influence matter in any way? Matter can only react to matter. And 'quantum' is still matter.

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to observe it, this theory tells us that the tree and forest do not even exist because nobody is around.

What about all the insects that live in the tree?

God works through things seen as random, and doesn't leave absolute proof that he did anything at all.

Then why assume that he did do anything?

Interesting that science and religion seem to be coinciding in this area.

*seem* is the operative word. I don't think they are.

 

[lee h oswald]

'ME' is a learned social construct - I am taught early on that I am an entity, and language is designed to facilitate this idea. It's a useful illusion. There is no entity within this entity. When I die, consciousness has nothing to refer to, and nothing to give rise to it. The phenomenon of consciouosness continues in others, but the temporary reference point 'I' that language and memes give existance to will disappear.

You are consciousness. How can that just disappear?

 

[Pete Tar]

Death.
I am also an illusion. 'I' don't really exist. I do not 'own' myself. There is life, perceptions, granted by a working body. When that ceases, so does all phenomena associated with it, all temporary illusions will cease.

 

[lee h oswald]

The consciousness that you propose is not part of material reality, so how does something that is not matter, create or influence matter in any way? Matter can only react to matter. And 'quantum' is still matter.



What about all the insects that live in the tree?



Then why assume that he did do anything?



*seem* is the operative word. I don't think they are.

Blimey! Never saw that post. Site's very fractious again.

I think God should read, 'God'.

Matter can only react to matter. And 'quantum' is still matter.

But, P - that's not right - is electricity 'matter'? Is heat matter? Is music matter? No!

Quantum is still 'matter' - because everything is either matter or not matter, the point is, P, it has no mass! So how can you build mass from no mass?

What about all the insects that live in the tree?

Exactly! And the rabbits, foxes, birds, etc - all individuated units of consciousness (IUOC) 'taking measurements'.

Then why assume that he did do anything?

No assumptions is better. But what about the Big Bang, P? That's a pretty big one.

*seem* is the operative word. I don't think they are.

Subsets of a much bigger picture?

 

[lee h oswald]

Death.
I am also an illusion. 'I' don't really exist. I do not 'own' myself. There is life, perceptions, granted by a working body. When that ceases, so does all phenomena associated with it, all temporary illusions will cease.

Really! No! But consciousness exists, yes? Do you agree?

 

[Pete Tar]

yes? Well, something seems like it does.
I have not experienced consciousness as anything other than myself in this body, therefore I have no reason to assume it exists beyond that.

I might be persuaded there's a field of awareness in an eco-system that is the sum of all the individual living things within it.
But I have no reason to assume it's anything like the consciousness I experience as a human being.

 

[Dan Wilson]

Cheers for coming back, D. Sounds like there's a story there.

As for the 'unfalsifiable' bit, that was up the board. It's an interesting question, I think - that where science 'begins' (in a sense) is with the Big Bang. The axiom is - There was this ball of energy and it started to rapidly expand, creating the universe. Which is by all definitons, unfalsifiable. In exactly the same way that reindeer can't fly. It's mystical.

Thanks

There is a story, I used to believe a lot of conspiracy theories and metaphysical stuff.

With all due respect, any theory is falsifiable. Theories like evolution and the big bang are, for all practical purposes, considered facts, which can be interpreted as unfalsifiable, because all of the evidence supports the ideas. If, however, good evidence and data supporting the opposite comes to light, the theory would have to be revised. That is highly unlikely though because well-established theories have been rigorously and continuously tested.