Are any of you here a Sensitive?

[Padawanbater2]

Good thing science isnt the best tool to discover reality. Yes, I know what you have to say, you dont agree with the answers I provided, but instead of disagreeing you just say Im wrong, because science says so lol.

What is the best tool to discover reality?

(give me a straight answer, no games, no "we've been over this a million times before")

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

What is the best tool to discover reality?

(give me a straight answer, no games, no "we've been over this a million times before")

I guess its first hand experience, especially when that experience can be repeated. I think DMT is a much better tool to discover reality than science is, but experience is the best way. Yeah I know, fallible mind, us believers are so delusional, blah blah blaahh.

 

[Padawanbater2]

What evidence do you have that supports your opinion that first hand experience is a better tool to discover reality than science?

Was it first hand experience that got us to the Moon?

Was it first hand experience that enabled us to see the beginnings of the Universe?

Was it first hand experience that allows you and I to communicate from thousands of miles away?


Hands on experience is great, it allows us to test our ideas for ourselves, but saying that is the best tool we have to discover reality is simply absurd. Not only that, it's subject to mistakes, unlike the scientific method when properly applied.

If you can't see that for yourself, you will always rely on other people for correct information. A huge disadvantage in life.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

What evidence do you have that supports your opinion that first hand experience is a better tool to discover reality than science?

Was it first hand experience that got us to the Moon?

Was it first hand experience that enabled us to see the beginnings of the Universe?

Was it first hand experience that allows you and I to communicate from thousands of miles away?


Hands on experience is great, it allows us to test our ideas for ourselves, but saying that is the best tool we have to discover reality is simply absurd. Not only that, it's subject to mistakes, unlike the scientific method when properly applied.

If you can't see that for yourself, you will always rely on other people for correct information. A huge disadvantage in life.

shallow answers about tech toys lol you showed me! Science cant get its hands on the mysteries of the world yet experiences can and the best thing science can do is say that we could be wrong about those experiences.

I dont rely on peoples word alone. I research and if what I research relates to my experiences and the knowledge I gained from my experiences then I will add what ever I research to my knowledge.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Every question that's ever been answered has been answered using science.

Hows that for shallow..

 

[Beefbisquit]

shallow answers about tech toys lol you showed me! Science cant get its hands on the mysteries of the world yet experiences can and the best thing science can do is say that we could be wrong about those experiences. I dont rely on peoples word alone. I research and if what I research relates to my experiences and the knowledge I gained from my experiences then I will add what ever I research to my knowledge.

Let me get this straight; If experts opinions in their given subjects of expertise don't match up with your very narrow, limited understanding of the world, you discredit the experts opinions and not your own? Basically in order for you to accept something as knowledge it has to get the 'Chief Walkin Eagle's Experience's say this shit is legit' stamp of approval? Am I getting this correct?

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Let me get this straight; If experts opinions in their given subjects of expertise don't match up with your very narrow, limited understanding of the world, you discredit the experts opinions and not your own? Basically in order for you to accept something as knowledge it has to get the 'Chief Walkin Eagle's Experience's say this shit is legit' stamp of approval? Am I getting this correct?

Kinda sorta not really. When it comes to the base of my beliefs, the experts dont really offer much at all.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Kinda sorta not really. When it comes to the base of my beliefs, the experts dont really offer much at all.

Ok, and now I have my answer. You think you know it all, so you ignore the experts. Thanks for the honest answer.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Ok, and now I have my answer. You think you know it all, so you ignore the experts. Thanks for the honest answer.

They are still experts when talking about my spiritual beliefs? I have been seeking spiritual advice from the wrong people it seems, can you name one of these guru's? lol

 

[Beefbisquit]

They are still experts when talking about my spiritual beliefs? I have been seeking spiritual advice from the wrong people it seems, can you name one of these guru's? lol

If your spiritual beliefs are based on things in the real world, then yes there are experts on your beliefs. If your spiritual beliefs involved god telling you that penguins are aliens, but we have DNA evidence showing us they're actually closely related to species 'xyz', I would say a biologist, or geneticist would be an expert in that particular field of your spiritual beliefs.If your spiritual beliefs fall along the lines of, 'magic underwear let you chill with Jesus', that's a different story. We have to employ reasoning, and maybe a little Occam's razor to come to a conclusion that is most likely, in a scenario like that.

 

[eye exaggerate]

Experience is meaningless when speaking in scientific terms. I've told you this personally half a dozen times. That isn't an opinion

...you totally missed the point.

 

[eye exaggerate]

you will always rely on other people for correct information. A huge disadvantage in life.

...did you write every science book? Can you tell us the difference between intelligence and consciousness? (going to wait for that answer)

 

[Beefbisquit]

...did you write every science book? Can you tell us the difference between intelligence and consciousness? (going to wait for that answer)

Intelligence is the ability to understand new information, consciousness is the phenomenon which allows us to use our intelligence.

 

[eye exaggerate]

Fascinating, eye. I attempted to delineate between traditional magic and the "inner" sort, and you posit that it's a continuum (if I read you right). Do you acknowledge a delineation, and if so, how and where? I ask because I consider traditional magic to be at best unsupported by empirical observation, despite the wealth of legends (which, if you consider Jung to have a point, are retellings of and from the deep brain). The one place I will directly disagree is in your assigning a psychosomatic basis to most disease. I have one of the best candidates for a psychosomatic disease ... clinical depression ... as it doesn't have an obvious pathogen or basis in anatomical degeneration/injury. My instance at least has sovereignly resisted any attempts at attitude management, positive thinking, and (I will confess to you) several different sorts of prayer. My sisters believe in the psychosomatic basis for disease, and they use it as a bludgeon against those who are "living wrong". Imo that is nowt short of bigotry ... born of best intentions. And we all know where THAT road leads.

...hey neer, the depression bit is what I was specifically referring to. Not all illness is based in psyche, but in my case a lot of it is. I also got that 'living wrong' stuff from family, etc. Of course, positive thinking isn't the way out of depression. Depressed, there seems to be nothing positive to draw from!...now, deep brain. The road to 'there' is paved with good intentions. So, where do the aggregates reside? Yep, there. In the christian myth (allegory) Christ (Herc, in this thread) descends to that place. The center of the earth. "in the dirt we find it" Cerberus = Cerebellum = Subconscious Mind = infradimension (red / blood / satan).*stopping there for a bit...the delineation is in what magic is used for. Sense gratification, or sense clarification by way of transforming negative (usually sexual) impressions. (The other 6 impressions are those other specific 'sins' that all Holy books describe) Those 7 sins are rooted in 'hell'. To transform them into virtues, one makes the descent into their own earth and meets those 7 at their level. Ouch. Those sins are 'ours'. Sht, I need to take ownership of that stuff?

 

[eye exaggerate]

Intelligence is the ability to understand new information, consciousness is the phenomenon which allows us to use our intelligence.

...awesome. So, one is not the other? One is a part of a whole, etc.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Consciousness is a phenomenon, and intelligence is a part of that phenomenon, IMO...There seems to be many things which make up 'consciousness', including intelligence, emotions, our basic drives. etc.

 

[eye exaggerate]

Consciousness is a phenomenon, and intelligence is a part of that phenomenon, IMO...

...I like that you referred to consciousness as a phenomenon (to me, not perceptible by "solitary" natural faculty). Phenomenal (being a bit 'crazy', I see the number 5 in the word phenomenon - as a conjunction of faculties that experience a conscious reality.)

 

[Beefbisquit]

...I like that you referred to consciousness as a phenomenon (to me, not perceptible by "solitary" natural faculty). Phenomenal (being a bit 'crazy', I see the number 5 in the word phenomenon - as a conjunction of faculties that experience a conscious reality.)

I believe it's a natural phenomenon, that will eventually be explained by science. We're just not there yet....

 

[eye exaggerate]

I believe it's a natural phenomenon, that will eventually be explained by science. We're just not there yet....

...that's cool. I agree that it is natural. I think combinations are the key. ooo, that sounds so dna

 

[cannabineer]

Eye, you might like this. I've only made it to point 8 and am not sure I agree, but was struck by this sentence. cn

[7] To summarize this difficulty: if reality were mind-independent, the mind would have to be mind-independent in order to be real. A 'scientific study of consciousness' cannot imply mind-independent reality; if it does, it cannot say anything about subjective experience. Such an assumption is self-contradictory - not only for the understanding of mind but also in general. This would seem to be a fairly obvious point, but it is neglected in some recent publications on consciousness and related matters.

From

http://meta-religion.com/Philosophy/Articles/Philosophy_of_the_mind/is_the_mind_real.htm