"We have nothing with the outcast"
-
in order to have relation you have to have 2 things
The human mind which is the perceiver and the thing which is perceived.
The Human mind then is a Thing in it self and the thing perceived is a thing in itself. The result of the interaction between there two things in them selves is perception.
Perception is not the mind nor is the perception of a thing the thing itself. However there is a solid actual reality of material objective things, the brain and the object that stimulates the brain, which both exist. Where as the event of perception and awareness are only happen within the brain as information content held in the brain. Information content in the brain just like information on a computer software is also the physical arrangement of material substance that makes up the brain.
The brains interaction with itself internally, is what we call awareness and we center than awareness on a construct we call the SELF as merely part of the total brain activity. This self is mutable depending on which type of brain activity is feeding into the conscious part of the brain and which is being filtered out. The higher self refers to the physical brain actions than work to discern what type of lower selves to cerate and in what situation, which is to say the meta-programming aspect of the brain that creates program schemas that process input stimulation in different ways.
But at base of all in the physical brain that is determinately and causally inter-meshed in the physical world.
-
I have to reply to the posts in the beginning of this thread as well, because I think one thing remains to be answered, unless I've missed it, which validates a request for clarification, at least. Well then:
If a person is, like I see myself e.g., outside the herd, not finding a lot of "soul-mates" or anything like that anywhere, and therefore feels more drawn to individualistic tendencies, but am capable of handling most social situations pretty well, give a good enough appearance of "normality" that SHe gets away with not internally being one of the herd without raising eyebrows, in that situation, when one strives for greater individualistic freedom whilst on the surface moves with the herd so as to give oneself the largest possible amount of personal freedom to work with the Self or whatever, how does one differ between detrimental feelings/notions/thoughts/etc. and beneficial if the aim is that, as I understand it from the discussions in this thread, Thelemic aim to individuate oneself and discover one's True Will in the midst of the "ignorant" herd?
I.e. if I am in that situation where I can choose to participate and be "one of the guys", where I have the ability for that, but mostly don't feel the need for it because I'd rather read/study/do research than talk about sports/parties/social interactions and all kinds of update information which I find to be a waste of my time and therefore very tedious, But say there are a few types of situations in which it's hard to define what's best for me to do; worry about myself directly or think more long-term and allow others to do as they please so that in the long run cooperation benefits me personally. I guess what I'm asking is how to balance myself, and to do that I need to know what specific fundamental tenants I should choose to balance. In short, how much to follow the world and how much to fuck the world and do my-way-or-the-high-way-routine.
According to Crowley's book on astrology, this is one of my major tasks in this life, because I'm one of the Pisces who have the least focus and am drawn to every direction; interested in everything and unable to prioritize unless absolutely forced to (but I refuse to take orders, so that's paradoxical as well).I'm coming at this from the point of view where Froclown and, I believe it was beneathabloodredsky (?) argued about if it was considered to be teenage angst-conformity or pure individualism to go against the herd, and that discussion didn't quite clear these tenants, as I call them here, up for me. Do I need to clarify my question, anyone?
-
@Froclown said
"err incorect
everything is matter there is nothing else
All non-physical substance or forces or energy etc are non-science they are made up false explinations by a culture of people from a less technoloically developed time who did not know the true cause of things.ot.colorado.edu/~oddie/physic.html
see also
www.cesnur.org/2008/london_asprem.doc"
I don't speak up in these dog-fights often, but I might follow on from AvshalomBinyamin and add this:
There is no 'physical', no 'mental', no 'natural', no 'supernatural'.
These are all words. There are only impressions made upon the mind. Nothing more. To say that the physical is true or the non-physical is not true is as presumptious and even blasphemous as asserting the reverse. Words are words. They define, categorise, and fence off these impressions so that they are intelligible to our own prejudiced world-view.The ideas of the 'physical' or the 'non-physical' are human constructions. Neither are any more true than saying the moon is made of green cheese.
But from a materialist's perspective, nothing exists outside his definition of reality: his particular filing and shuffling of the impressions. Argument is useless because in this closed loop (and we continue to argue in circles) to imply a non-material substance in a material universe invalidates its own premise and- pow! Implodes.It is our semantics that hold us back and grind us down. Christ, Krishna, God, Brahman, Tao, Allah: all are but names of the nameless.
This barking of the dogs of reason distracts us from the true goal. We must go beyond this fruitless card-shuffling and focus on what we're really after. Otherwise we're just chasing our own tails.Froclown says there is no evidence of anything non-material. I challenge you to provide some unshakable 'evidence' of anything material - or any-thing at all!
Then I wouldn't have to bother with this whole Great Work thing.
-
@Froclown said
"in order to have relation you have to have 2 things
The human mind which is the perceiver and the thing which is perceived.
The Human mind then is a Thing in it self and the thing perceived is a thing in itself. The result of the interaction between there two things in them selves is perception. "
Yes, trinities are a rational construct which is based on dualistic perception in/below the abyss. Unfortunately, describing something any other way is impossible because mental constructs and language itself are limited to that which lies within or below the abyss.
@Froclown said
"Perception is not the mind nor is the perception of a thing the thing itself. However there is a solid actual reality of material objective things, the brain and the object that stimulates the brain, which both exist."
You see, that unfortunately is a unprovable (and hence unfalsifiable) assertion. (and by the methods of empiricism something must be falsifiable to be considered proveable). Materialists, in their conclusions about reality make the VERY mistakes that empiricism is against because they don't understand Kant's contribution to empiricism! They still think like the outdated David Hume, that Kant refuted.
You see, by the unfortunate fact of solipsism (eg: Descarte's demon), it cannot be proven. Just like in the movie "The Matrix" we cannot know if what we perceive is real in and of itself, or simply"thoughts" of some "Overmind" (or any other hypothesis). To posit ANY of those hypotheses in a purely intellectual discussion would be flawed because it would rely on metaphysical assertion. You can no more prove rationally (or by empiricism) that matter is some thing-in-itself nor that matter is the thoughts of an overmind, nor that matter is an illusion cast by demons.
There's a simple zen-like exercise where you can try to define matter by ever-deepening definitions. Crowley actually speaks of this in his comment on Liber AL with respect to "Becasue" and an ever-deepening sense of confusion when we evoke "Becasue".
At first glance we might say that matter is atomic particles, then we question "what are those", until we invoke sub-atomic particles or strings or quarks or waves or whatever the hell you like. Finally when you question what those are, you come up with "the smallest unit". Well, the smallest unit of what exactly? Moreover, to get us lost even further in "Because", we can now ask "what is an unit?" Well an unit is a mental construct. Hence we are now back within the realm of thoughts, a purely "mental construct" and nowhere in our journey did we even find "matter" as an independent thing-in-itself. Of course I spoiled the exercise for you by giving you the answer, but you can try it yourself. Try to define matter!
This is why the greatest intellectual thinkers like Kant and Nietzsche have warned us to refrain from positing ANYTHING metaphysical. Just be content with empiricism as a tool and don't limit your understanding of reality by making ANY metaphysical assertion about the world whatsoever.
Of course this does not stop us from making "psychological/ spiritual" assertions that are wholesome for us as Stars, ie: based on the human condition....which is exactly where Nietzsche went with his "Der Wille Zur Macht" (Will-to-power), and of course that leads us to Thelema....
-
@Froclown said
"However, this whole process is material, and it becomes more abstract with one material symbol standing in for another material object of event in space time. in short, we work our way up from Malkuth to higher abstraction with Kether the limit of ultimate abstraction where a single symbol is pregnant with symbolic information that the entire world or matter and symbol is condensed into a single abstract point."
I am curious to see how you define these notions of "standing in for" or "abstraction" (nevermind "the ultimate limit of...") or "pregnant with symbolic information" in terms of the metaphysical materialism that you espouse.
At the very least you have to grant that these concepts belong to a vocabulary that cannot ever be reduced to the vocabulary of particle physics. There is no uber-long sentence about subatomic wavicles and their interactions that is conceptually equivalent to a sentence about the meaning or reference of a word or idea. These are just fundamentally incommensurable ways of talking and thinking.
You could of course say that the vocabulary of reference, meaning, intentionality, etc. and the vocabulary of particle physics are just different ways of talking about the same thing (i.e. the world), but to the extent that in practice we need both and cannot reduce the one to the other, it simply makes no sense to me to say the vocabulary of particle physics is somehow privileged and describes the way things are "in themselves". A vocabulary can only ever be the map and not the territory. The world does not appear to us with labels indicating its materiality or immateriality. It appears only in its suchness. All ways of carving that suchness into discrete objects and patterns are only as good and as true as what we can do with them.
-
And lest anyone forget this simple scientific fact:
No atom ever touches another atom. Their electromagnetic fields interact with one another, but nothing we ever consider "physical" when looking at the structure of an atom ever touches.
Rip open a speaker, pull out the magnet, and stand a nail straight up on its point. It will be suspended straight up and down by the interaction of the fields. It looks rather miraculous until you realize that this is all that happens with "matter" - ever. The fields created by it interact.
The desk you're pounding away at is made up of much more empty space and electromagnetic field than any so-called "matter." In fact, we're still banging away at the core of those tiny things to see what's in there. What is it that we actually consider the "matter" of an atom? We are still only learning. We have never yet "seen" it, nor "touched" it. We have only ever seen and touched the energetic fields created by it.
But back to the realm of the phenomenological... Now, if you can "touch" an electromagnetic frequency pattern (field) and call the experience "matter" and "real," and you also consider thoughts as electromagnetic patterns in the brain and call them "matter" and "real," then you yourself have already equated mind and matter.
Insisting that what exists is "all ultimately matter" instead of "all ultimately mind" seems like merely continuining in the falsely contradictory semantics that are transcended in that very same realization.
-
This is one example of the reason for my question. The Will and how it applies in the environment is certainly a difficult topic:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxSoUlEfcFQ&NR=1
About 3 minutes or so should be good. Now, I assume he's pretty much the person who tells himself the same rant in his head over and over for years until nothing is true, everything is permissible as it applies to irresponsible action where the judgment is clouded by temporary outbursts and the like, but judging from the way he argues, I have a hard time judging if a J Random Thelemite would say that he is living close to his True Will or not.
-
@Malaclypse said
"The Will and how it applies in the environment is certainly a difficult topic:"
Only to the extent that you regard the environment as separate from you. The right view, I think, is that the environment is a dramatization of the pageant of the will filtered through the (clear or confused) patterns of subconsciousness.
-
First I am not claiming that Atoms as we measure them and are aware of them are "things-in-them-selves"
Ok now let us say that all we are aware of is the thoughts of a greater over-mind such as Berkley's idealism. Well the first thing we must realize is that in this case our personal local mind would be part of the over-mind, a better term would be meta-mind and thus this higher mind would be an extension of ones own mind. But a side from this, the over-mind has to be a something, and every THING is a physical thing. That this mind contains parts and element, means that it is a thing with parts, thus the transfer or information from the general to the particular occurs causally and in space-time showing it has physical properties. Therefore the definition of an external physical world even in idealism includes existing extra-ego objects and event, with properties. To have properties means to exist, to exist means to be physical. The over-mind them must actually be an OVER-BRAIN.
To use the Matrix example, if you are out of the matrix the physical world exists as the input to your brain, if you are in the matrix the Physical computer exists which pipes input into your brain.
To exist, have properties, limits, be bound by interactions between things with other limits, description, and expression in space-time is to be physical.
It is impossible for anything than does not exist, has no properties, no limits, unbound by event and interactions by other things with different limits, to be anything other than NUIT.
However NUIT is not, non-physical, but is the infinite boundless limit to transcendence, which includes all physical events in a single boundless open category without limit or specific locality.
As has been pointed out with the Atom, there is no smallest point Thing-in-it-self than is actualized.Physical is expressible symbolically as both the non-local continuous substance and the infinitesimal discrete points that make up than continuous substance.
What does to stand in for mean, it means than for example a greed triangle is not a tree, but it stands in place of a tree on a map. It is in some way similar to but not the same as a tree, the spacial relation is similar but to scale between the triangles and the actual trees.
Finally as for the outcast and unfit, That is more to do with people who feel them selves to be unfit or fail to work at fitting in, who give up on their TRUE WILL and as such become parasites and lethargic vampires supported by society or other individuals WILLs. They are best to let them die in their misery than to let them leach off of you and sublimate your energy, time, money, etc away from your own WILL.
-
@Froclown said
"First I am not claiming that Atoms as we measure them and are aware of them are "things-in-them-selves"
Ok now let us say that all we are aware of is the thoughts of a greater over-mind such as Berkley's idealism. Well the first thing we must realize is that in this case our personal local mind would be part of the over-mind, a better term would be meta-mind and thus this higher mind would be an extension of ones own mind. But a side from this, the over-mind has to be a something, and every THING is a physical thing. That this mind contains parts and element, means that it is a thing with parts, thus the transfer or information from the general to the particular occurs causally and in space-time showing it has physical properties. Therefore the definition of an external physical world even in idealism includes existing extra-ego objects and event, with properties. To have properties means to exist, to exist means to be physical. The over-mind them must actually be an OVER-BRAIN. "
I kinda like this idea. But then I would say that you are not a militant materialist in the typical sense of the term. Personally I have irrefutable evidence that let's say for example "emotional energy" can work "at a distance" (having been careful to avoid such common errors as the Forer effect, suggestion, confirmation bias etc). If you want to say this is evidence that Reality is "mind" or you want to attribute it to Electo-magnetism or call it "factor X", it's really just semantics.
The method of science...yes I agree on the skeptical approach but I have experience which indicates that militant materialism in the typical sense has many missing facets in it's hypothesis and I'm careful to buy into such dogmas (but I'm also careful to avoid the New Agey lack of critical analysis too). Any model by it's nature must be imperfect, so for me personally I keep an open mind but I guard it with a good dose of skepticism.
-
If "emotional energy" by which I assume you mean that others either recognize or harmonize their emotions with some one else without visual or auditory cues, is possible there must be a factor X, which I doubt could possibly be EMF radiation, but is more likely to be something like pheromones. However it would have to have a rational physical explanation.
You claim to have evidence than such a thing happens, then I will need to scrutinize your procedural methods and statistical analysis, because it could very well be that your personal biases accept a lower than statistically valid correlation for causation. Which is why we must have very strict controls and use math not personal feeling or intuitions or even direct personal experience as there are very susceptible to such problems as the gambler's fallacy, cognitive dissonance, many times of priming, among others.
Even with the strictest controls it is not completely certain than the causal mechanism will be found, but lack of evidence in not evidence of a lack. The curies originally believed that Radium produced a strange action at a distance with no interactions. Just as people one believed load stones exerted a magical attraction to lron and Newtons stellar orbits were based on what he considered Gravitational action at a distance with no material cause, rather it was the Divine law of God compelling the bodies to remain in orbit.
Each of there claims to a non-physical cause was one by one disproved as the physical cause was found, radioactivity, magnetic fields and the warp of space-time by massive bodies.
There is no reason to proclaim than anything exists outside the physical world. Rather the effects of magick are found to alter the workings of the physical brain, to play on the before mentioned cognitive dissonance, biases and priming of the nervous system, the semantic memory and processing of the temporal lobe, to name just a few. The physical brain creates the phenomenas awareness, thus acts of the physical body that effect the brain, distort and alter the way in which it creates the awareness of phenomena. The way personal mechanism by which the brain constructs meaning and awareness is what has been called the Paradigm, semantic map, or reality tunnel.
With one semantic map we can think of physical substance like water like all things are continuous and all the parts blur together, with another semantic map we can thin k about the physical particles or parts of the substance like the individual H20 molecules. We can take in between sized aggregates as well, like a fish is part of the whole continuous ocean, but is not a single particle nor is it the whole ocean. where we draw the lines in our perceptual reality is a matter of our internal mapping system, we can call the whole universe one continuous thing like Parmenedies and the Adventists school, we can claim it is made of innumeral atoms like the Demcratus school, we can emphasize change and say the world is like fire as Heraclitus and Buddha, or we can emphasize stability and say the world is like Earth and change is an illusion as the Hindus. Put here we are just playing with our brains and adjusting our semantic maps, if I change from the Parmenedies Unity of all substance to the Demacratus division of all into parts, I merely change by model of perspective, I change the workings and chemistry of by brain, the world out there did not change at all.
Since the brains awareness or the world is not the world it self, we are justified to use Crowley's 0=2 ontology, for the ontology the physical world itself transcends all our minds models of it. However it does remain what it is, and some models are closer to reality than others, and often we can't use just one model, one model reveals something useful and hides some other truth. The next model reveals what the other hides, but also hides what the first reveals. In all of this it is important to remember than these are models and they really are based on a solid external physical reality. Otherwise ANY MODEL is as good as any other and the Lunatic as any other. This is not the case because the lunatic has a model that is divorced from physical reality.
One might claim As Foucault does, that the lunatic is only divorced from our shared inter-subjective models and that his personal model is as good as ours, only we supress the lunatic for political reason. Which I agree in some cases may be true, such than a lone republican might be locked up as a loon in an all democratic nation. However, the man who is terrified than he might accidentally lick an envelope shut with himself inside and believes strongly that Micky Mouse is sending him death threats from the moon in a secret gnostic code only he can decipher from the new york times, is not merely socially and politically unpopular, he actually holds beliefs that are very far from Physical Reality itself.
Likewise I would add any sort of Platonism as being a mixed up understanding of ideas preceding material form, as if first an otherworldly thought appears and this then take on physical world form by reflection or harmonization. Since thought is a physical product of the one and only one world than exists. We must realize than the process starts with Physical matter, and events on the Physical world that become the physical brain. (Birth is in no way a miracle its the accumulation of food stuff by the mother that is constructed into a child in her womb, all physical) The brain then does not have thoughts in a vacuum, ideas don't just appear in the brain, nor do the come from space or another spiritual reality. The brain can not thing until some Physical object or event triggers the sense organs, and this sends physical signals to the brain making it alter its bio-chemical properties. These changes in the brain send back signals that move the body in relation to the input, Over a long period of trial and error, the events in the brain than produce not productive responses to the world die off and the ones than are productive become stronger. Thus the brain and the surrounding world via a feed back to each other, slowly start to grow, and the re-enforced activity in the brain becomes the semantic map or paradigm that models the interaction of the brain with a certain environment. The brain will eventually learn to switch between different maps as the physical environment or the goal in than environment changes.
Normally these shifts in the brain are not conscious they happen automatically and one feels as if one is Always a single mind with a single schema of awareness with one Self. But with certain practices one can became aware of the shifting schemas and that each one has its own sense of self or ego fragment, and each presents a different personality to the world. This realization I consider to be "lunar" as the moon changes phases and presents different appearances at different times. (if I'm not mistaken this in the realization that relates to Yesode and marks a Neophytes readiness to be initiated into the Grade of Zolator).
The movement of the self from the collage of schemas and appearances to the unchanging, the unknown knower that selects and tailors the schemas or moon phases, to purposely achieve its WILL then would be the Solar awareness. The point than one is aware of this inner Solar self being Knowledge and Conversation. That is awareness of the higher aspect of the brain, rooted in the unconscious that picks which schema and self to use in which situation. This being Tiphereth.
The point where one can fully merge conscious mind with the Solar Self, and engage in "Meta-programming the human bio-computer" would be the attainment of Binna, the third order. This is were one basically merges with the HGA and dissociates from the Lunar collage of identities and schemas, and chooses completely in what way to manifest oneself and what sort of perceptual schema to use.
That is about as detailed as I can express my understanding here
-
"Ok now let us say that all we are aware of is the thoughts of a greater over-mind such as Berkley's idealism. Well the first thing we must realize is that in this case our personal local mind would be part of the over-mind, a better term would be meta-mind and thus this higher mind would be an extension of ones own mind. But a side from this, the over-mind has to be a something, and every THING is a physical thing. That this mind contains parts and element, means that it is a thing with parts, thus the transfer or information from the general to the particular occurs causally and in space-time showing it has physical properties. Therefore the definition of an external physical world even in idealism includes existing extra-ego objects and event, with properties. To have properties means to exist, to exist means to be physical. The over-mind them must actually be an OVER-BRAIN.
To use the Matrix example, if you are out of the matrix the physical world exists as the input to your brain, if you are in the matrix the Physical computer exists which pipes input into your brain.
To exist, have properties, limits, be bound by interactions between things with other limits, description, and expression in space-time is to be physical.
"
One Had. One Nu. The Star Sponge...
Is it really so hard to imagine? -
@Froclown said
"If "emotional energy" by which I assume you mean that others either recognize or harmonize their emotions with some one else without visual or auditory cues, is possible there must be a factor X, which I doubt could possibly be EMF radiation, but is more likely to be something like pheromones."
Only if pheromones can travel over many kilometers. I'm not sure they can without serious dilution into the atmosphere.
@Froclown said
"However it would have to have a rational physical explanation. "
Perhaps it does. Why does it matter?
@Froclown said
" You claim to have evidence than such a thing happens, then I will need to scrutinize your procedural methods and statistical analysis, because it could very well be that your personal biases accept a lower than statistically valid correlation for causation. Which is why we must have very strict controls and use math not personal feeling or intuitions or even direct personal experience as there are very susceptible to such problems as the gambler's fallacy, cognitive dissonance, many times of priming, among others. "
No you don't need to. I've already been through that exercise, which lasted several years in fact. Bear in mind that I have spent years researching psi claims and scientific methodologies, and at one point was a complete skeptic, so I'm well aware of the roles that the Forer effect, confirmation bias, auto suggestion, the file-drawer effect etc play in the role of psi experiments. My own personal evidence is not up for scrutiny - firstly, it's too personal and secondly although I haven't implemented a completely water-tight triple blind methodology per se, being aware of the problems associated with psi methodologies mentioned above I'm able to analyse their influence in my day-to-day "psi" experiences and have satisfactorily over the years managed to rule them out.
I even have for example evidence that knowledge of the "physical plane" can be attained through OBEs. Now certainly the experiment was not performed many many times to calculate a statistical mean, however the statistical significance of the one that one single event is incalculable....for example guessing the details of a highly specific conversation held by two people right down to the very words used. Even that highly improbable statistic did not convince me initially, it was a gradual wearing down over the years where psi events just became undeniable and as I said they're too personal to mention here.
If you want to scrutinize methodologies then look at the most promising experiment done in recent years within the parapsychology fraternity which was the role of "experimenter belief" in determining the outcome of psi experiments. Unfortunately it has not yet been replicated (with little funding for psi thee days, other than the charlatans who try to sell books and use popular mediums for their publicity stunts) but the paper is available here and as you will read the methodology is water-tight. In fact parapsychological sciences are breaking methodological ground because of their past criticisms. Check the section called "experimenter effects". The paper is available at the bottom of the page in pdf:
www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/Psi.html
You know, Lionel Snell (OTO and IOT) mentions in an article that coming from a scientific background he always had issues with certain psychic phenomenon that, unlike in the magickal lives of his brethren, were not manifesting in his magical career. His conclusion was a "blockage" due to his skeptical nature. Now yes, I see the problem with confirmation bias when one changes or opens one's belief system, but the above Koestler study affirms his conclusions with the backing of a a water-tight methodology. He actually has a course at the online Arconorium College that explores this very idea - developing psychic ability for the skeptic.
Either way at the end of the day, there is little point in arguing. I've pointed out the problems associated with materialism's metaphysical assumptions and you're equally aware of the assumptions of ANY other metaphysical hypothesis. There's no intellectual way around it. I respect your knowledge of the Magickal arts and sciences and I'm certainly not here to convince you, it's no skin off my teeth.
One of the most valuable exercises I performed when I was of a New Agey kind of mindset was to psychologically evaluate WHY I believed what I did, what deep psychological need did I have to believe in God, life after death, psychic ability etc....and this process led me to materialism and skepticism, which in turn was eroded over the years as I have explained. I have noticed that materialists too have a psychological need to believe what they believe, from the gay guy that was damned by the church (and his parents) to eternal damnation to the person that needs the solidity of physicality to feel "earthed" or "secure". I'm not saying either of those apply to you (or any other materialist for that matter), but it's a well worth introspective exercise to undertake. The thing to ask is WHY one is trying to argue one's belief system - are you arguing with others, or is that simply a reflection of an internal conflict? I'm sure most of us are guilty of this, and like I said before, since our differing world views are intellectually based on metaphysical assumption, it's rather pointless arguing the subject.
-
@modernPrimitive said
"
I even have for example evidence that knowledge of the "physical plane" can be attained through OBEs. Now certainly the experiment was not performed many many times to calculate a statistical mean, however the statistical significance of the one that one single event is incalculable....for example guessing the details of a highly specific conversation held by two people right down to the very words used. Even that highly improbable statistic did not convince me initially, it was a gradual wearing down over the years where psi events just became undeniable and as I said they're too personal to mention here."Interesting post - at the risk of derailing and already-well-derailed thread even more, do you know about Susan Blakemore's case? She was a psi/OOBE researcher who kind of went from believer to skeptic over the years, but she's still kind of "friendly" to the whole thing.
The other thing is, you should work on it more re. the physical case - after all, there's a million dollar prize waiting from James Randi for the first person to demonstrate it to sceptical satisfaction!
I'm pretty sceptical, but there's still wiggle room in that psi/occult phenomena may just be very, very rare, and the kinds of experiments done so far (mostly using random people I believe) have been useless because you either have to have a (very rare) talent for it, or have occult training. It's still possible - the fat lady hasn't *quite *sung yet, wrt closing of the scientific doors to all this stuff (although she is perilously close, hovering there on the wings
). -
@gurugeorge said
"
@modernPrimitive said
"
I even have for example evidence that knowledge of the "physical plane" can be attained through OBEs. Now certainly the experiment was not performed many many times to calculate a statistical mean, however the statistical significance of the one that one single event is incalculable....for example guessing the details of a highly specific conversation held by two people right down to the very words used. Even that highly improbable statistic did not convince me initially, it was a gradual wearing down over the years where psi events just became undeniable and as I said they're too personal to mention here."Interesting post - at the risk of derailing and already-well-derailed thread even more, do you know about Susan Blakemore's case? She was a psi/OOBE researcher who kind of went from believer to skeptic over the years, but she's still kind of "friendly" to the whole thing.
The other thing is, you should work on it more re. the physical case - after all, there's a million dollar prize waiting from James Randi for the first person to demonstrate it to sceptical satisfaction!
I'm pretty sceptical, but there's still wiggle room in that psi/occult phenomena may just be very, very rare, and the kinds of experiments done so far (mostly using random people I believe) have been useless because you either have to have a (very rare) talent for it, or have occult training. It's still possible - the fat lady hasn't *quite *sung yet, wrt closing of the scientific doors to all this stuff (although she is perilously close, hovering there on the wings
)."Yes apologies for the derails...I suppose this topic deerves it's own thread.
Hey gurugeorge. Are you the same gurugeorge from IIDB / "freeratio dot org"
Well if you are, you will know that I have spent at least several years discussing these topics on that particular forum. As I said, that was my personal journey into skepticism and it was highly valuable to me.Yes I know of Susan Blackmore. People have their opinions are always will and they're welcome to them. I actually contacted James Randi's man Jeff Wagg several years ago to discuss methodologies and there are posts on "freeratio dot org" discussing these particular methodologies. In discussions with my "partner" in the matter however, developing the methodology is rather difficult. Repeatability becomes difficult due to exertion. For example we found that an etheric projection was the best method for obtaining accurate "physical clairvoyance" however not every time one OBE's is one exactly on the "lowest frequency" of the etheric. Often the physical becomes distorted for example, a cupboard is in the wrong place - it's those times that the etheric is a true representation of the physical that we score. This is exceedingly difficult to control and moreover having to perform this say 20 times in a 12 hour period is just not viable.
Also, people forget that psychic events are usually of importance to some life situation, in other words there is the factor of emotional or psychological significance....a sense of ugency or an emotional need for clairvoyant knowledge. Just look at the efficacy of a ritual void of emotional content versus that which is full of emotional content - BIG difference in result. These are the very factors that the scientific method tries to eliminate, which is a bit of a problem because in the long term if we are to get anywhere we need to find a way to **account ** for them rather than **eliminate **them - in other words our current scientific method just offers us **part **of the picture. We create a "fake, sterile" environment that does not reflect the way reality is and then we are saying that psychism is not a part of reality. Yet the sterile conditions for the scientific method are not an accurate reflection of a reality in the first place. I understand that we probably do not yet have the tools to do this. We need a new scientific method that can **account **for these factors rather than eliminate them.....and I think that time is way off in the future although brain imaging shows that we are getting there. And I agree, parapsychologists need to work with hardcore occultists rather than popular mediums. But as we know even occultists and mystics don't always develop psychic ability.
Interestingly, the topic came up yesterday with my old "psi partner", as we have just confirmed our telepathic link yet again with some new events that occurred (again of a highly personal nature). His concern with Randi is firstly the emotional pressure to perform which affects concentration, secondly he doesn't want to be a guinea pig or become famous etc...ie: It's not his will and I don't think it is mine either. Moreover Randi now only challenges famous people. He's also apparently been caught lying and cheating to secure his own ends, which considering that he has bought into his belief system so strongly, is not surprising. The man is not a scientist, he's a stage magician and I'm not certain he is trustworthy regardless of his supposed good intentions.
However, Crowley does mention scientific testing as the future "method" of the A.'.A.'. and I think there will be value if Thelemites and the other highly experienced occultists could get together perform these experiments....whether secular society should know about it or not, is another matter.....
To me, it's not particularly important whether people believe it or not.
-
"Also, people forget that psychic events are usually of importance to some life situation, in other words there is the factor of emotional or psychological significance....a sense of ugency or an emotional need for clairvoyant knowledge. Just look at the efficacy of a ritual void of emotional content versus that which is full of emotional content - BIG difference in result. These are the very factors that the scientific method tries to eliminate, which is a bit of a problem because in the long term if we are to get anywhere we need to find a way to account for them rather than eliminate them - in other words our current scientific method just offers us part of the picture. We create a "fake, sterile" environment that does not reflect the way reality is and then we are saying that psychism is not a part of reality. Yet the sterile conditions for the scientific method are not an accurate reflection of a reality in the first place. I understand that we probably do not yet have the tools to do this. We need a new scientific method that can account for these factors rather than eliminate them.....and I think that time is way off in the future although brain imaging shows that we are getting there. And I agree, parapsychologists need to work with hardcore occultists rather than popular mediums. But as we know even occultists and mystics don't always develop psychic ability. "
Yes. Precisely.
-
@modernPrimitive said
"
@gurugeorge said
"
@modernPrimitive said
"
I even have for example evidence that knowledge of the "physical plane" can be attained through OBEs. Now certainly the experiment was not performed many many times to calculate a statistical mean, however the statistical significance of the one that one single event is incalculable....for example guessing the details of a highly specific conversation held by two people right down to the very words used. Even that highly improbable statistic did not convince me initially, it was a gradual wearing down over the years where psi events just became undeniable and as I said they're too personal to mention here."Interesting post - at the risk of derailing and already-well-derailed thread even more, do you know about Susan Blakemore's case? She was a psi/OOBE researcher who kind of went from believer to skeptic over the years, but she's still kind of "friendly" to the whole thing.
The other thing is, you should work on it more re. the physical case - after all, there's a million dollar prize waiting from James Randi for the first person to demonstrate it to sceptical satisfaction!
I'm pretty sceptical, but there's still wiggle room in that psi/occult phenomena may just be very, very rare, and the kinds of experiments done so far (mostly using random people I believe) have been useless because you either have to have a (very rare) talent for it, or have occult training. It's still possible - the fat lady hasn't *quite *sung yet, wrt closing of the scientific doors to all this stuff (although she is perilously close, hovering there on the wings
)."Yes apologies for the derails...I suppose this topic deerves it's own thread.
Hey gurugeorge. Are you the same gurugeorge from IIDB / freeratio.org?
Well if you are, you will know that I have spent at least several years discussing these topics on that particular forum. As I said, that was my personal journey into skepticism and it was highly valuable to me.Yes I know of Susan Blackmore. People have their opinions are always will and they're welcome to them. I actually contacted James Randi's man Jeff Wagg several years ago to discuss methodologies and there are posts on freeratio.org discussing these particular methodologies. In discussions with my "partner" in the matter however, developing the methodology is rather difficult. Repeatability becomes difficult due to exertion. For example we found that an etheric projection was the best method for obtaining accurate "physical clairvoyance" however not every time one OBE's is one exactly on the "lowest frequency" of the etheric. Often the physical becomes distorted for example, a cupboard is in the wrong place - it's those times that the etheric is a true representation of the physical that we score. This is exceedingly difficult to control and moreover having to perform this say 20 times in a 12 hour period is just not viable.
Also, people forget that psychic events are usually of importance to some life situation, in other words there is the factor of emotional or psychological significance....a sense of ugency or an emotional need for clairvoyant knowledge. Just look at the efficacy of a ritual void of emotional content versus that which is full of emotional content - BIG difference in result. These are the very factors that the scientific method tries to eliminate, which is a bit of a problem because in the long term if we are to get anywhere we need to find a way to **account ** for them rather than **eliminate **them - in other words our current scientific method just offers us **part **of the picture. We create a "fake, sterile" environment that does not reflect the way reality is and then we are saying that psychism is not a part of reality. Yet the sterile conditions for the scientific method are not an accurate reflection of a reality in the first place. I understand that we probably do not yet have the tools to do this. We need a new scientific method that can **account **for these factors rather than eliminate them.....and I think that time is way off in the future although brain imaging shows that we are getting there. And I agree, parapsychologists need to work with hardcore occultists rather than popular mediums. But as we know even occultists and mystics don't always develop psychic ability.
Interestingly, the topic came up yesterday with my old "psi partner", as we have just confirmed our telepathic link yet again with some new events that occurred (again of a highly personal nature). His concern with Randi is firstly the emotional pressure to perform which affects concentration, secondly he doesn't want to be a guinea pig or become famous etc...ie: It's not his will and I don't think it is mine either. Moreover Randi now only challenges famous people. He's also apparently been caught lying and cheating to secure his own ends, which considering that he has bought into his belief system so strongly, is not surprising. The man is not a scientist, he's a stage magician and I'm not certain he is trustworthy regardless of his supposed good intentions.
However, Crowley does mention scientific testing as the future "method" of the A.'.A.'. and I think there will be value if Thelemites and the other highly experienced occultists could get together perform these experiments....whether secular society should know about it or not, is another matter.....
To me, it's not particularly important whether people believe it or not."
Great post. Re. experiments - perhaps virtual reality (game engines) could be used to simulate, in a controlled way, the emotional charge, in experiments?
Recently I played a great CRPG called Dragon Age: Origins. That's the first game that I've reacted to like a great film (i.e. cried in a weepy bit). These things are getting better and better. Perhaps at some point they could be used as initiation tools, on the one hand, and as experimental tools, on the other. You could create a "mod" (modification of the game using the game's tools, made by fans) for this sort of experiment in a game like Dragon Age (or other games like Oblivion and Fallout 3, which are also moddable).
As a tool of initiation, it would, curiously enough, be a return to the truly ancient way of doing this - real rituals that are secret to the aspirant, that evoke strong feelings in being lived-through.
But even before that, which I think still has a bit of time to come, you could use game engines in the kinds of experiments you are talking about.
Thinking further on this: imagine you are in a 6-person virtual "party" of dragon-slayers (i.e. 6 of you are controlling fighting avatars, and you can communicate with each other), and another experimenter is the GM (game master). You've fought your way through some monsters, so your adrenaline is up. To get past the final "seal" on the door to the dragon's lair, you all have to guess the correct symbol out of a bunch of proferred symbols (this correct symbol is the one the GM is thinking about). Each time you get it wrong, a bit of your health diminishes, and you have less chance of beating the game. (Winning in-game could be tied to a sizeable "treat" irl.)
That might get the juices flowing enough to charge the psychic meter up; yet it's still all totally controlled in a scientific manner.
-
There is nothing in the scientific method that prevents the participants in the ritual from experiencing intense emotions, however impartiality is necessary on the part of the observer, and the instruments used must not be influenced or interpreted falsely via emotional biases.
If you are trying to demonstrate than a particular ritual has the ability to stir emotions in a particular way that effects the biases and psychology producing inaccurate observations, which may include the stimulation of the sense of meaning, profundity, and other such feelings and psychological states that create the illusion of certainty, then I will agree 100% that this is possible. It is also falsifiable and can be experimentally verified.
That ritual creates these distortions of psychology that effect general perception and cognition, not just in the interpretation of experimental data but is life experience in general, and especially the illusion of certainty can and does have an effect on beliefs and behavior. That when these sorts of psychological states are active it is very hard to dissuade the individual that their personal feelings are accurate.
Take the Gambler who has never learned statistics, he will believe die hard and dead on that after 20 loses on the same bet, the odds are finally in his favor and ups the ante. No matter how hard you try to tell him, the odds are the same every round, he will not believe. Show him the evidence and he will either refuse to accept it, or will believe the evidence but back on the casino floor will continue his bad habits despite the evidence. This is because just knowing the information, is not enough for it to really sink in, the brain is hard wired for the gamblers fallacy, and it takes work to change it. You have to actually write down what bets to make win, and do the math, if you rely on your gut, you will always make the fallacy.
The same is true with rituals but where as a casino if a ritual environment designed to manipulate and profit form the Gamblers fallacy and others like this, the magick ritual stimulates other perceptual and cognitive fallacies and errors to produce illusions, and incorrect conclusions, and other unusual mental phenomena. The effects of magick can be amazing, can stimulate feelings of meaning and certainty, etc. But it is best to think of the ritual trance state as an intoxication, and just as you would not believe in the pink elephants of a drunk, so too should one be highly skeptical of the anecdotal evidence provided by magicians.
Unless the ritual is closely observed by an observer with instruments that are not aroused by the emotions and states stimulated by the ritual behavior, one can not take anything gleaned by the participants for fact.
-
@Froclown said
"There is nothing in the scientific method that prevents the participants in the ritual from experiencing intense emotions, however impartiality is necessary on the part of the observer, and the instruments used must not be influenced or interpreted falsely via emotional biases.
"For the most part the controls create an emotionally / psychically sterile environment for the subjects. Those based on emotional content, such as one study which analysed the ECG's of people who were shown images that induced an emotional response have been more successful than the "guess the picture on the card" type of experiments. Failure of parapsychologists and the general public to understand psi as having a strong emotional component is to blame for this. I know in my own personal experience that it is far easier to sense emotions than guess a symbol or number. (Kabalistically we want something as close to Assiah as possible, "thoughts" are too fleeting, emotions are far more viable a test).
Moreover, how do you remove the belief system of the experimenter? Methodologists are assuming that because the necessary controls are in place, the experimenter's / judge's, sponsor's and even public's beliefs cannot influence the outcome of the experiment - and that's based on blind acceptance of materialistic assumption. This is a form of confirmation bias and that is not proper science / skepticism.
This is why we have to create control groups to account for the placebo effect, which scientists have made little headway in explaining. Why is the placebo effect even there in the first place if the proper controls are in place...well obviously belief has something to do with it.
Did you even read the paper I posted?
-
@gurugeorge said
"Great post. Re. experiments - perhaps virtual reality (game engines) could be used to simulate, in a controlled way, the emotional charge, in experiments?
Recently I played a great CRPG called Dragon Age: Origins. That's the first game that I've reacted to like a great film (i.e. cried in a weepy bit). These things are getting better and better. Perhaps at some point they could be used as initiation tools, on the one hand, and as experimental tools, on the other. You could create a "mod" (modification of the game using the game's tools, made by fans) for this sort of experiment in a game like Dragon Age (or other games like Oblivion and Fallout 3, which are also moddable).
As a tool of initiation, it would, curiously enough, be a return to the truly ancient way of doing this - real rituals that are secret to the aspirant, that evoke strong feelings in being lived-through.
But even before that, which I think still has a bit of time to come, you could use game engines in the kinds of experiments you are talking about.
Thinking further on this: imagine you are in a 6-person virtual "party" of dragon-slayers (i.e. 6 of you are controlling fighting avatars, and you can communicate with each other), and another experimenter is the GM (game master). You've fought your way through some monsters, so your adrenaline is up. To get past the final "seal" on the door to the dragon's lair, you all have to guess the correct symbol out of a bunch of proferred symbols (this correct symbol is the one the GM is thinking about). Each time you get it wrong, a bit of your health diminishes, and you have less chance of beating the game. (Winning in-game could be tied to a sizeable "treat" irl.)
That might get the juices flowing enough to charge the psychic meter up; yet it's still all totally controlled in a scientific manner."
Interesting ideas!
I was thinking more along the lines, for starters, of measuring the correlation of brain activity (MRIs) with psi "hits" vs "misses".
Baselines of emotional states of participants, are they anxious today, preoccupied etc, and how has that affected their performance?