Secret Chiefs and attainment
-
I've already begun.
First, do you accept the evidence from the Ganzfeld Experiments? I've brought them up to you in threads at least 3 times, but you haven't responded yet.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"First, do you accept the evidence from the Ganzfeld Experiments? I've brought them up to you in threads at least 3 times, but you haven't responded yet."
I finally looked these up, and they sure do seem like utter and complete BS. The fact that the existence of "psi" is not accepted by anywhere close to a consensus of the body of experts who study science strongly suggests that my impression that the whole thing is total nonsense (and pretty laughable, too) is right on the money.
But even if I granted that "psi" exists -- and that it's actually possible to make guesses at slightly above random chance under the right conditions -- that gets you not even a single step closer to demonstrating that "Secret Chiefs" exist who control the universe.
-
The fact remains that the experiments, over decades, have shown consistent results that are not attributable to chance. That increasing controls have not changed the results.
Whether it sounds silly or not is irrelevant.
"I've already said exactly what it would take to make me change my mind: someone scoring a hit (and then repeating it,to confirm) in an experiment with controls as strict as the ones I put in place. I would change my mind, admit I'm wrong, and probably become a passionate advocate for the "other side" of this debate, and that's all it would take."
There have been thousands of hits with stricter controls than you suggested.
"But even if I granted that "psi" exists -- and that it's actually possible to make guesses at slightly above random chance under the right conditions -- that gets you not even a single step closer to demonstrating that "Secret Chiefs" exist who control the universe."
The odds against these results happening from chance are tens-of-thousands-to-1.
It's a first step. There would be no point in producing more evidence, if you reject the evidence I present with offhand remarks like "they sure do seem like utter and complete BS".
The data requires an explanation. It's can't be an anomaly, since it's been repeated extensively. It doesn't fit your model for the universe. I'm not going to proceed unless I have evidence of your good faith in the discussion. It would be pointless.
It is important to the argument about Secret Chiefs. A cursory investigation of Crowley's writing on the subject should make that obvious to anyone.
-
@Los said
"
The statement "onions taste bad" isn't a factual claim, so it can't be said to be true or false. It's just an expression of the values of the person making the statement.On the other hand, the statement "Frater 639 doesn't like onions" is a factual claim, and it happens to be true."
You didn't answer the question. Is it true from my perspective?
Moving a observation from first to third person doesn't make the statement factual, it simply moves the perspective and point of observation. Unless you mean something else.
Also notice -- that both statements still involve an observation.
"
There's no such thing as "true for you." A factual claim is either true or false (unless it's unintelligible or self-contradictory); a values statement ("Onions taste bad") is just an expression of preference."Here we disagree. A values statement is not necessarily an expression of preference. I have pain in my leg is an observation that has nothing to do with preference -- unless we're talking some BDSM, etc.
But there is such a thing as "true for you" and it involves a subjective assessment. See the Crowley quote below for more on this. IMHO, it is important that something "true for you" should also be useful to you. Something being useful to someone personally has value. Is this what you mean by "factual claim" below?
"
Observations aren't factual claims, so they can't be said to be true or false. They're just observations. One can build factual claims on the back of observations ("Invoking Venus tends to produce such-and-such feelings"), but the observations themselves have no truth value."Which would still involve an observation of the "factual claim." This has to do with perspective, which would directly affect the usefulness of the "factual claim."
Now, I think we agree mostly here -- and, to make my point, it is up to one to adopt the POV that is most beneficial, which leads me to the next statement...
@Frater 639 said
"Belief in Secret Chiefs can have benefits for some"
@Los said
"Like what? Give a concrete example of what you're talking about."
If it is an aspect of your True Will to believe in them. I am intentionally going to ignore the neuroscience behind contemplating potential and infinite power through suspension of disbelief (which can be considered a form of bhakti yoga) since it doesn't seem to interest you.
Do you mean that a "factual claim" can be built on observations of what a person finds to be in accordance with their True Will? Then I agree completely, and that is closer to my definition of truth. But, it is "true for me" as my True Will is unique to a certain extent -- that's what I mean here. It is not necessarily true for Los...
The true, the final test, of the Truth of one's visions is their Value. The most glorious experience on the Astral plane, let it dazzle and thrill as it may, is not necessarily in accordance with the True Will of the seer; if not, though it be never so true objectively,* it is not true for him, because not useful for him.** (Said we not a while ago that Truth was no more than the Most Convenient Manner of Statement?) *
Now, real quick so we're on the same page:
I'm not arguing for or against the material existence of Secret Chiefs -- even though I'm not quite sure that anyone ever said they were corporal. I am reserving rational judgment for reasons that would involve another essay. But let's analyze:
1.) I totally agree with you -- there is no published scientific evidence that supports it -- that being said, I'm not sure it could be measured quantitatively since there is no real qualities that can be agreed on! It's like trying to find out if a zebra is real without being able to describe one accurately. Doesn't mean that they don't exist -- and I'm sure you agree that science is fallible.
2.) Based on the material evidence we do have, whether they are "real" or not doesn't affect my perspective of them. Can't really say I think about them all that much -- then again, I like to fuck, I don't like to sit around and theorize about if fucking is real or not. I love bad bitches and its a f*ckin' problem.
But to go a bit further, just like a Genii of the Carcer -- whether it is real or not doesn't matter -- calling it an "Intelligence" is just a matter of convenience. You've read Notes for an Astral Atlas, so I'm assuming you know what I mean.
3.) Perspectives do not always involve what is "real." In fact, one could argue that all "factual claims" are perspectives -- and there are a million perspectives. Some statements are more true for certain people than others -- just as I can see Polaris at night but my gay Aussie friend cannot. It depends where we are at in the world to see certain stars in a vast sky. But it would be great to see both skies at the same time, but that would take a different, more all-inclusive perspective...
Sure, some statements are more plausible materially speaking, but in the end, it is the Value (the "benefit") that has to be figured out by the "seer," regardless if science backs it or not. Who cares if someone is batshit crazy in the eyes of the populace, like your friend Blake. Value should be assessed in light of the True Will -- which is unique for everyone. Hopefully one can "play with their perspectives" sufficiently to adopt the most useful POV for their unique True Will.
In short, if someone's True Will involves belief in the Secret Chiefs, then far be it from me to even want to judge or put limits on their True Will. And I think we both agree that living in accordance with one's True Will is beneficial.
You may disagree -- but your disagreement could be an aspect of your True Will. I may have a Goblin that whispers the secrets of the Universe into my brain, but who really cares? I'm not trying to tell someone else to believe in my Goblin, so why try to talk someone out of it? It's when someone else tries to tell me what I should be doing or believing or whatever -- that's when I take issue...
Let us fuck who we want to fuck, let us drink as we want to drink, let us believe how we want to believe. If one wants to start a cult of Thelemic Skeptics, let them start one. I'm kidding.
Verily and amen.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"The fact remains that the experiments, over decades, have shown consistent results that are not attributable to chance."
That's not the case at all. If it were, the scientific community -- which is like a pack of ravenous dogs that chase new evidence to overturn our previous assumptions about the universe -- would swarm all over parapsychology, trying to get grants to study this amazing phenomenon.
We don't see that happening, and that's because the vast majority of people who professionally study science don't see anything there. That all by itself is a pretty strong reason to suspect that the whole thing is BS, and that's without even bothering to look at the "tests" and laugh at how stupid they are.
"
@Los said
"I've already said exactly what it would take to make me change my mind: someone scoring a hit (and then repeating it,to confirm) in an experiment with controls as strict as the ones I put in place. I would change my mind, admit I'm wrong, and probably become a passionate advocate for the "other side" of this debate, and that's all it would take."
There have been thousands of hits with stricter controls than you suggested."
No, there haven't. For example, these experiments that you made me waste my time looking up involved people describing scenes they see in their imaginations and then experimenters trying to match the descriptions with objects with multiple components (like videos), bolstering the chances that some piece of babble from the "receivers" would match something in the object.
Why not do this experiment with four numbers? Or why not ten numbers or twenty numbers? Guess the number. If this is a real superpower, then the test subjects should be able to do that to a statistically significant degree.
[By the way, you notice that you quoted me above explaining what it would take for me to change my mind, when just a few posts ago you said that I claimed that nothing would change my mind...I trust you'll be retracting that false statement of yours]
"[The existence of "psi" is] a first step."
No, it's not. It's utterly unconnected to the claim that superbeings control the universe.
"The data requires an explanation. It's can't be an anomaly, since it's been repeated extensively."
Like I said, it sure seems like BS. It's a bunch of fruitloops babbling about visions and then experimenters trying to match up their babblings with objects that are way too complicated for these sorts of tests.
Get them to guess one number out of twenty, and get them to do it consistently enough to make real scientists sit up, take notice, and scramble to get grants to study this stuff. Until then, reasonable people are more than justified in concluding that this stuff is just a bunch of wankery.
" I'm not going to proceed unless I have evidence of your good faith in the discussion. It would be pointless."
I can assure you that I'm proceeding in perfectly good faith, but if you're not satisfied, then go do something else. It's of no concern to me. I think the point has been adequately made regardless.
-
@Frater 639 said
"You didn't answer the question. Is it true from my perspective?"
I didn't answer it because it's a poorly conceived question, as I explained. There's no such thing as "true from my perspective." Factual claims are either true or false. Value claims, on the other hand, don't have a truth value, since they're expressions of preferences and not facts.
"A values statement is not necessarily an expression of preference. I have pain in my leg is an observation that has nothing to do with preference"
"I have a pain in my leg" is a factual claim, not a values statement.
Here's an example of a values claim: "It sucks that I have a pain in my leg."
"
@Frater 639 said
"Belief in Secret Chiefs can have benefits for some"@Los said
"Like what? Give a concrete example of what you're talking about."
If it is an aspect of your True Will to believe in them."
The True Will deals with actions, not with the process of accepting claims.
"there is no published scientific evidence that supports [the claim that Secret Chiefs exist]"
Not just "published scientific evidence." There's not any good evidence whatsoever, including the experiences of nutbars who mistakenly think they've encountered Secret Chiefs.
" Doesn't mean that they don't exist -- and I'm sure you agree that science is fallible."
Obviously, the utter lack of evidence doesn't conclusively demonstrate that Secret Chiefs don't exist, just like the utter lack of evidence doesn't conclusively demonstrate that Jesus Christ isn't the One True God, and just like the utter lack of evidence doesn't conclusively demonstrate that gremlins aren't stealing your socks and won't keep doing so until you build a shrine to them and leave them cookies.
But I don't see you giving your life to Christ or crumbling cookies on a magic gremlin altar, and you know why not? Because "You can't totally prove it's wrong!" isn't anywhere close to a reason to accept a claim as true, as your refusal to accept those claims about Christ and gremlins clearly shows.
"Based on the material evidence we do have, whether they are "real" or not doesn't affect my perspective of them. Can't really say I think about them all that much -- then again, I like to {}, I don't like to sit around and theorize about if {**} is real or not. I love bad bitches and its a fckin' problem."
Assuming I'm reading you clearly through the ridiculous and unnecessary filters on this board, obviously p__sy is real or you wouldn't be f__ing it. In contrast, the Secret Chiefs aren't real, so nobody's actually talking to them. They're just making believe that they are.
"whether it is real or not doesn't matter"
It matters a great deal to people who care about reality. [And, accordingly, not BSing themselves]
"Some statements are more true for certain people than others -- just as I can see Polaris at night but my gay Aussie friend cannot. It depends where we are at in the world to see certain stars in a vast sky."
You're mixing yourself up again. "Polaris is up there in the sky" is a factual statement, just like "I can see Polaris from this position on earth" is a factual statement and "I cannot see Polaris from this other position on earth" is a factual statement. There's absolutely no conflict with all of those factual statements being true, which they are.
Similarly, "There are Secret Chiefs" is an unsubstantiated factual claim. "My friend pretends to talk to Secret Chiefs" or "My friend pretends that his daydreams are communications from the Secret Chiefs" are substantiated factual claims.
"In short, if someone's True Will involves belief in the Secret Chiefs, then far be it from me to even want to judge or put limits on their True Will."
Again, True Will is about action, not belief. What you've just said makes as little sense as saying, "If someone's True Will involves believing that they can fly under their own power, then far be it from me to judge or put limits on their True Will."
It's not "putting limits on their True Will" to inform them that the claim that they can fly under their own power is factually unsupported, just like it's not putting limits on anybody's True Will to inform them that it's factually unsupported that ooky-spookies control the universe.
Stop pretending that it's oppression for people to tell you that you don't really have invisible super friends. Honestly, you need to get out more if you're not used to other people laughing at these kinds of beliefs all the time.
-
-
@Los said
""I have a pain in my leg" is a factual claim, not a values statement.Here's an example of a values claim: "It sucks that I have a pain in my leg.""
No. You are wrong again.
They are both qualitative measurements. This is where your admitted lack of education in science is betraying your reason.
I'm not going to move much beyond this to look at the rest of your subjective beliefs and opinions, all of which are based on your OBSERVATIONS. We need to first establish use of scientifically accepted terms for measurement.
The terms you prefer to use are about as illusory and imaginative as Goblins in "real" science.
I lifted the following from a quick Google search -- it is very oversimplified. Since your scientific research background is admittedly limited (which I appreciate your honesty) it should be easy to follow for you:
"Quantitative measurements are those which involve the collection of numbers. It is the opposite of qualitative data which are observations."
Your pain examples are both qualitative. And then you move on to more confused statements, which I can't believe you even wrote down...
@Los said
"Similarly, "There are Secret Chiefs" is an unsubstantiated factual claim. "My friend pretends to talk to Secret Chiefs" or "My friend pretends that his daydreams are communications from the Secret Chiefs" are substantiated factual claims."
Which brings us to the next step in Los' science lesson plan...
Unsubstantiated and substantiated: quantitative measurement and how it works.
-
Well, Los' concern is only what may or may not be said to be concretely real. Under those demands, for the Secret Chiefs to be real, they would have to be actual living humans. For their powers to be real, they would have to submit them to the "show and tell" of hard science for verification.
And you know, if there are Secret Chiefs who are actual living people, I just don't seem them as willing to perform tricks for those who have no interest in them except to confirm their existence or not. It doesn't really line up with the idea of someone who actually has such powers living according to the necessities of their Will. It assumes they'd feel the need for otherwise unconcerned people to believe in them for some reason, and I can think of no reason except to affirm their own egos in some way, which would beg the question of the level of their development to that of Secret Chief.
But even if you loosen the demands on what may be said to be "real" to include phenomena, as in "the phenomena of experiencing the Secret Chiefs is real," then there is no reason that completely healthy, sane, rational people should not be interested in investigating such phenomena, especially if such phenomena have in the past been reported to provide beneficial and intelligent instruction and guidance in accordance with one's own True Will.
In short, I find no adequate reason to discontinue the working hypothesis, as I am content with either extreme of manifestation and have primarily found the writings and instructions of those who report their influence to be among the most beneficial and intelligent things ever written.
-
@Legis said
"And you know, if there are Secret Chiefs who are actual living people, I just don't seem them as willing to perform tricks for those who have no interest in them except to confirm their existence or not."
If they're "real" but they don't affect the world in any detectable ways, then they're indistinguishable from being not real, and no one therefore has any good reason to think that they're real.
-
@Los said
"
@Legis said
"And you know, if there are Secret Chiefs who are actual living people, I just don't seem them as willing to perform tricks for those who have no interest in them except to confirm their existence or not."If they're "real" but they don't affect the world in any detectable ways, then they're indistinguishable from being not real, and no one therefore has any good reason to think that they're real."
You're default tautology. You define "real" as measurable. So, only the measurable is measurable.
It's amazing how many stars suddenly became real when we launched the hubble telescope.
-
@Takamba said
"
@Los said
"
@Takamba said
""[T]here are no facts, only interpretations." - Friedrich Nietzche."And is that a fact or an interpretation?"
It's a quote."
I don't really have to spell this out, do I?
If the statement "There are no facts, only interpretations" is a fact, then the statement is demonstrated to be false (since there would actually be a fact, in contradiction to the statement).
If the statement "There are no facts, only interpretations" is an interpretation, then it's just somebody's arbitrary way of looking at things: it's not a fact, and nobody has any reason to think it's correct.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"You're default tautology. You define "real" as measurable. So, only the measurable is measurable."
I said detectable. Real things manifest in detectable ways. If something is "real" but doesn't manifest in any detectable ways, then it's functionally equivalent to being not real and nobody has any reason to think that it exists.
Name something real that doesn't manifest in any detectable way.
"It's amazing how many stars suddenly became real when we launched the hubble telescope."
They didn't "become real" -- we became aware of them (and thus had reason to accept that they existed) because we were able to detect them.
They were always real -- always capable of being detected -- but we didn't know that they were real until we actually did detect them.
In the case of these Secret Buddies of yours, no one's ever detected them, and therefore nobody has any reason to think that they're real. If ever humanity does detect them, then we'll have reason to accept that they exist.
-
You want me to name something detectable that's not detectable?
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"You want me to name something detectable that's not detectable?"
No, I want you to name something that you consider real that is not detectable in any way.
The reason for my question is that you seem to disagree with the idea that "real" means "manifesting in some detectable way." So, in order to get a grasp on what you think "real" means, I'm asking you to point to something undetectable that you consider real.
-
Everything we haven't discovered yet.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Everything we haven't discovered yet."
Things we haven't discovered yet -- with the implication that we could possibly discover them -- are detectable (otherwise, we wouldn't have the possibility of discovering them).
I asked you to name something you consider real that's not detectable (i.e. not capable of being detected, at all, ever).