Dimensions of Reality

[YmirGF]

Science has learnt so much by carefully collecting evidence and continually testing its theories. Religion doesnt do that so i see no reason why it can aid our knowledge of th universe.

Hence my argument about the Dr. Jekyll's of the world having to look into their Mr. Hyde s subjectively and document their findings. Personally their findings would have little impact on me, but I am confident saying that such findings would, after some time, bear fruit in the form of evidence that could be duplicated by independent researchers. The unfortunate reality is that so-called "mystical" experience cannot be studied in a petri dish.

That being said, I agree that generally speaking religion will have little to offer scientists although a scientific analysis of some Buddhist/Zen meditations might yield interesting results. Those results might help to form a baseline of a sorts.

Thrills exist in the mind , if your claiming chakras only exist in your mind, I have no probelm with that . Claim they have an external reality then im going to ask you for your evidence.

I have, of course, been aware of the concept of so-called "chakras" for decades however, even with my extensive experience in states of consciousness from a subjective standpoint I have little personal evidence to support continued belief in the chakra hypothesis. They have simply never been obvious to me, if they do, in fact, exist. You will never hear me discussing them, as a rule, because of this fact.

The only two so-called "chakras" of which I have had any experience are the "third eye" or Ajna chakra and the crown/1000 petaled lotus/Sahasrara chakra. You must appreciate that I do not think of them AS being chakras. The only point in bringing it up is because I have sensed "something" in these two areas, but do not see my experience as validation of the concept of chakras. (I hope that makes some sense.)

Thrills do have physioloigcal reposnes that we can measure. so we do have plenty of evidence of them, We can measure heart rate and adrenaline, we could probably do an MRI for a thrills although not for skydiving. They also have excellent biological plausibility, evolution is likely to mould an organism to have elevated responses when scared. None of the same can be said for chakras, you cant measure or detect them and they have no prior plausibility. If you accept all subjective experience then you must conclude that all fatasies by all deranged people as true.

Not necessarily so, SkydivePhilly. Perhaps what is needed is for some meaningful long term research to be done. The cost of such a project would be substantial. My suggestion is to study the electromagnetic variations in the central nervous system under a variety of conditions. Granted machines would have to be designed to detect minute variations in electromagnetic activity, and I mean minute, as there is likely little other physical evidence. It is also my guess that we simply do not have either the computer horsepower available to assimilate the data, the financial backing for such projects and the political will to launch the investigations as of yet.

 

[YmirGF]

But if peole are claiming they can heel (and they are ) based on something that may not exist outside of their mind then we have a serious situation.

Personally, I do agree. People should utilize extreme caution with this form of "healing". What isn't understood by many folks is the importance that belief plays on health. The placebo effect is a very well documented phenomenon that has wide ranging implications. If, for example, I implicitly believed that Ultraviolet could heal me of some condition and she implicitly believed that she could heal me, there is a meeting of mind that occurs that could indirectly promote a "cure".

Now, I don't think that UV would attempt to heal a broken arm, simply by touching it and singing softly, but for other non-life threatening illnesses and maladies, this type of healing can provide some solace. In all fairness I see these so-called "healing" methods as the placebo effect with fanciful overtones and little else. (Hopefully that opinion will not tick off the "healers" too much.)

That aside, I have never been interested in "healing", per se and prefer to consult my physician for all issues -- so I am more than a bit biased. Personally, I would never consider going to a "healer" who had not received a medical degree from an accredited medical school -- but that's just me. I'm a modern mystic; not crazy.

 

[YmirGF]

Atotalstranger said that he had practiced meditation for 15 years and didn't consider it to be anything mystical. This is just as acceptable (in my eyes) as somebody who claims it IS mystical. After all, it doesn't matter what the tool is called so long as you know how to use it.

An important point to remember is that one could meditate their entire life and not gain much from the process. Meditation does tend to promote "mystical growth" but there are no absolute guarantees that it will. Theoretically, one could skim the surface -- indefinitely.

 

[zenzero]

Friend YmirGF,

I'm a modern mystic; not crazy.

Modern is related to time which is eternal, however as part of speech for communicating on that plane is acceptable and correct.
Full marks!
Personally time is dynamic and static both at the same moment. Allow the perceiver to perceive his own stand point.
Love & rgds

 

[YmirGF]

Friend YmirGF,



Modern is related to time which is eternal, however as part of speech for communicating on that plane is acceptable and correct.
Full marks!
Personally time is dynamic and static both at the same moment. Allow the perceiver to perceive his own stand point.
Love & rgds

Taken from the "multidimensional perspective" one can perceive as many senses of time as one wishes. It's all gravy.

 

[skydivephil]

Personally, I do agree. People should utilize extreme caution with this form of "healing". What isn't understood by many folks is the importance that belief plays on health. The placebo effect is a very well documented phenomenon that has wide ranging implications. If, for example, I implicitly believed that Ultraviolet could heal me of some condition and she implicitly believed that she could heal me, there is a meeting of mind that occurs that could indirectly promote a "cure".

Now, I don't think that UV would attempt to heal a broken arm, simply by touching it and singing softly, but for other non-life threatening illnesses and maladies, this type of healing can provide some solace. In all fairness I see these so-called "healing" methods as the placebo effect with fanciful overtones and little else. (Hopefully that opinion will not tick off the "healers" too much.)

That aside, I have never been interested in "healing", per se and prefer to consult my physician for all issues -- so I am more than a bit biased. Personally, I would never consider going to a "healer" who had not received a medical degree from an accredited medical school -- but that's just me. I'm a modern mystic; not crazy.

I hope Im not misreading your implication, If I am I apologise. But I think you exxagerate the placebo effect. we have a pretty good understanding of it and that is the brain can be tricked to produce natural opiates. So placeboas are likely to reduce symptons of disease but unlikley to cure any disease. How do we know this? There is a drug called naloxone that can block the bodies production of natural opiates. When taken this drug also switches off the placebo effect. Thats why placebos can reduce ailments but can't, as you correctly observe, mend a broken arm. Ironically this is the exacpt opposite of many alternative health gurus who say they treatment the cause not the sympton, in reality they are treating the sympton not the cause.

there have infact been many studies on meditation, they are not as expensive as you might think and they have prodcued some positive reports. They do back moderate claims about meditation, it can reduce stress and help other related ailments. They dont support any mystical interpretation of the meditative experince. Something im sure you wont be suprised at.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Well yes, if you don't use scientific , how will you avoid falling for cognitive biases?
Cognitive bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

avoid? why through repetition....

verification through repetition...

as YmirGf si saying...there's nothing really special about this...

through practice you can soon eliminate instances of mickey mouse appearing in your concsciousness
that really is the trick, practice makes perfect...that is all it is.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Likewise. I have practiced meditation for 15 years, and there is no compelling reason to think the various states I've experienced are anything other than natural mental states based on brain physiology, and the shifts in perspective that go along with them. Although, I can understand why some people have a tendency to perceive or interpret those states as something "mystical."

well there are many ways to skin a cat....

and many ways to meditate
and many results that may occur....

but I dont know you're meditative activities...
but we can see in the modern world, meditation is used as haelth benefit...

"mystical" meditation practises or hogwash as you have called them in the passed
are simple to distinguish from mental projections or cognitive bias,,,, how? They really are beyond anythign you'd expect..... of course we add to what we see due to who we are, but arguably this goes for ordinary consciousness as well...

 

[Mr Cheese]

But if peole are claiming they can heel (and they are ) based on something that may not exist outside of their mind then we have a serious situation.

what is clear if one taps into such things is that the vehicle that is man, interprests and gives shape to things...

It is not so much that chakras do not exist, they do exist...
however they dont exist as we perceive them, we color them through our perception.

But then we do this with physical objects made out of matter...
"Skeptics" of course tend to forget that this occurs....

to simplifiy, when we see a tree, we see a tree, we dont however see with our eyes, any deeper level of the trees being, the ants that possibly live inside it, the atoms that make the bark....

this is exactly the same for spiritual or mystical (or hogwash) experiences....

This is all because, we need a filter in order to comprehenad things, be that the retina, the mind, human consciousness or whatever....

In Kabbalah we can look to the relationship between Chockmah (wisdom) and Binah (understanding)... Chockmah is like a message, let us argue our message is water...

Binah, understanding... tries to understand and interpret the message of water. Water is water though, it will flow anywhere. In order to understand water, we need to contain it, be it in our mouths, in our hands, in a cup, bottles or pipes. Binah is the vessel, the container........

Thus Binah, acting as the container of the water is like chakras. Chakras themselves do NOT exist, this is why there are many versions of chakras besides the "Hindu" one which most are familiar with. Chakras are like thw water pipe that directs and holds the water, enabling us to understand the water. The underlying water behind the chakras themselves of course do exist. So chakras themselves, do not (at least they do exist at some level)exist, ultimatly they are a map, a medium to UNDERSTAND the WISDOM of the "message" they are conveying......

Again this is NO different to how people perceive the physical world....skeptics just tend to think it is....

 

[skydivephil]

avoid? why through repetition....

verification through repetition...

as YmirGf si saying...there's nothing really special about this...

through practice you can soon eliminate instances of mickey mouse appearing in your concsciousness
that really is the trick, practice makes perfect...that is all it is.

what evidence do you have that repetition allows you to overcome say for example, the post hoc fallacy? why would it?

 

[skydivephil]

what is clear if one taps into such things is that the vehicle that is man, interprests and gives shape to things...

It is not so much that chakras do not exist, they do exist...
however they dont exist as we perceive them, we color them through our perception.

But then we do this with physical objects made out of matter...
"Skeptics" of course tend to forget that this occurs....

to simplifiy, when we see a tree, we see a tree, we dont however see with our eyes, any deeper level of the trees being, the ants that possibly live inside it, the atoms that make the bark....

this is exactly the same for spiritual or mystical (or hogwash) experiences....

This is all because, we need a filter in order to comprehenad things, be that the retina, the mind, human consciousness or whatever....

In Kabbalah we can look to the relationship between Chockmah (wisdom) and Binah (understanding)... Chockmah is like a message, let us argue our message is water...

Binah, understanding... tries to understand and interpret the message of water. Water is water though, it will flow anywhere. In order to understand water, we need to contain it, be it in our mouths, in our hands, in a cup, bottles or pipes. Binah is the vessel, the container........

Thus Binah, acting as the container of the water is like chakras. Chakras themselves do NOT exist, this is why there are many versions of chakras besides the "Hindu" one which most are familiar with. Chakras are like thw water pipe that directs and holds the water, enabling us to understand the water. The underlying water behind the chakras themselves of course do exist. So chakras themselves, do not (at least they do exist at some level)exist, ultimatly they are a map, a medium to UNDERSTAND the WISDOM of the "message" they are conveying......

Again this is NO different to how people perceive the physical world....skeptics just tend to think it is....

The analogy you make between the atoms in the tree and a mystical experience in false. We can verify that atoms inside the tree exist, you cant say the asme with chakras or auras or anyhting like that.

 

[Mr Cheese]

what evidence do you have that repetition allows you to overcome say for example, the post hoc fallacy? why would it?

please see my kabbalistic intepretation of chakras

 

[Mr Cheese]

The analogy you make between the atoms in the tree and a mystical experience in false. We can verify that atoms inside the tree exist, you cant say the asme with chakras or auras or anyhting like that.

Really?

Please show me a picture of 5 atoms...

You're falling into the trap of thinking your MAP is the only valid one

but that tends to occur with skeptics

...

" One of the most remarkable features of atomic theory is that even today, after hundreds of years of research, no one has yet seen a single atom. Some of the very best have produced images of groups of atoms, but no actual picture of an atom yet exists. How, then, can scientists be so confidently certain of the existence of atoms and of the models they have created for them? The answer is that models of the atom, like other scientific models, can be tested by experimentation. Those models that pass the test of experimentation survive, while those that do not are abandoned. The model of atoms that scientists use today has survived and been modified by untold numbers of experiments and will be subjected to other such tests in the future."

Do Atoms Really Exist?

Dr.Badruddin Khan teaches Chemistry in the University of Kashmir, Srinagar, India.

 

[Mr Cheese]

The analogy you make between the atoms in the tree and a mystical experience in false. We can verify that atoms inside the tree exist, you cant say the asme with chakras or auras or anyhting like that.

also of course....

I was discussing seeing a tree with my eyes...

can you see atoms with your eyes, without the use of a device?

the same goes for chakras...it is like looking at the body with eyes...

same "level" of looking, so to speak

 

[skydivephil]

Really?

Please show me a picture of 5 atoms...

You're falling into the trap of thinking your MAP is the only valid one

but that tends to occur with skeptics

...

" One of the most remarkable features of atomic theory is that even today, after hundreds of years of research, no one has yet seen a single atom. Some of the very best have produced images of groups of atoms, but no actual picture of an atom yet exists. How, then, can scientists be so confidently certain of the existence of atoms and of the models they have created for them? The answer is that models of the atom, like other scientific models, can be tested by experimentation. Those models that pass the test of experimentation survive, while those that do not are abandoned. The model of atoms that scientists use today has survived and been modified by untold numbers of experiments and will be subjected to other such tests in the future."

Do Atoms Really Exist?

Dr.Badruddin Khan teaches Chemistry in the University of Kashmir, Srinagar, India.

Your making a straw man argument , I never said you can directly see atoms I said you can verify they exist. We do this by checking the predictions of the atomic theory of matter with observable data , they match remarkably well hence the theory that atoms exist is verified. How owuld you explain electronics if there are no electrons? You have a very naieve view of science if you think we verify things purely by direct sight.
However in the case of atoms we can now view image them via a tunneling electron microscope. To quote the worlds most presitgious scientific jounral:Nature:

SINCE its invention in the early 1980s by Binnig and Rohrer1,2, the scanning tunnelling microscope (STM) has provided images of surfaces and adsorbed atoms and molecules with unprecedented resolution
You can see such images here:
Scanning Tunneling Microscopy
subsequent to the STm weve also seen remarkable images from atomic force microscopes and more amazingly the first video of an electron has now been publsihed:
Electron Gets Film Debut In First-ever Video Of Its Kind

 

[Mr Cheese]

Your making a straw man argument , I never said you can directly see atoms I said you can verify they exist. We do this by checking the predictions of the atomic theory of matter with observable data , they match remarkably well hence the theory that atoms exist is verified. How owuld you explain electronics if there are no electrons? You have a very naieve view of science if you think we verify things purely by direct sight.
However in the case of atoms we can now view image them via a tunneling electron microscope. To quote the worlds most presitgious scientific jounral:Nature:

SINCE its invention in the early 1980s by Binnig and Rohrer1,2, the scanning tunnelling microscope (STM) has provided images of surfaces and adsorbed atoms and molecules with unprecedented resolution
You can see such images here:
Scanning Tunneling Microscopy
subsequent to the STm weve also seen remarkable images from atomic force microscopes and more amazingly the first video of an electron has now been publsihed:
Electron Gets Film Debut In First-ever Video Of Its Kind

also of course....

I was discussing seeing a tree with my eyes...

can you see atoms with your eyes, without the use of a device?

the same goes for chakras...it is like looking at the body with eyes...

same "level" of looking, so to speak

.........................

 

[YmirGF]

I hope Im not misreading your implication, If I am I apologise. But I think you exxagerate the placebo effect. we have a pretty good understanding of it and that is the brain can be tricked to produce natural opiates. So placeboas are likely to reduce symptons of disease but unlikley to cure any disease. How do we know this? There is a drug called naloxone that can block the bodies production of natural opiates. When taken this drug also switches off the placebo effect. Thats why placebos can reduce ailments but can't, as you correctly observe, mend a broken arm.

Well, I don't believe I am exaggerating the effect, but I felt it illustrated how beliefs affect individuals rather well. That was my point; not the placebo effect itself.

Ironically this is the exacpt opposite of many alternative health gurus who say they treatment the cause not the sympton, in reality they are treating the sympton not the cause.

You see, Sky, I don't really give a damn what the so-called heath guru's are saying. I trust doctors, not ducks a quacking.

there have infact been many studies on meditation, they are not as expensive as you might think and they have prodcued some positive reports. They do back moderate claims about meditation, it can reduce stress and help other related ailments. They dont support any mystical interpretation of the meditative experince. Something im sure you wont be suprised at.

I know, I know. What I am implying is that those studies were not near as intensive a look as is needed to crack this nut. What I am proposing would likely be VERY expensive - along the lines of a Manhattan Project -- into the uncharted areas of the psyche. Again, the key would be in detecting minute shifts of electromagnetic properties.

 

[skydivephil]

.........................

But why is seeing with your own eyes without an imaging device a relevant criteria? We have very strong evidence for the existence of atoms, we dont have any evidence for the existence of chakras or auras or any other mystic field.

 

[Mr Cheese]

But why is seeing with your own eyes without an imaging device a relevant criteria? We have very strong evidence for the existence of atoms, we dont have any evidence for the existence of chakras or auras or any other mystic field.

well evidence...

again you're looking for evidence of somethign that is beyond the sciope of the scientific method.

In fact the closest we have IS the chakra system

again, chakras themselves and the attributions and system itself is garbage...
It is a map... this is why there are other systems of such things.
What are chakras, well as I am sure you already know, they are like non corporeal "soul organs" again this is just a map also....

So what we have is a system called chakras that is used to map the territory of something that is seen through the invisible eye...although some can see the invisible with the visible eye.... this often takes practice, although some homosapiens can simply see them.

So as much as you do not like it, thousands of years of invisble exploration has led to things such as the chakra system, for that what it is, a system, a map of something.... chakras themselves dont exist they are representations of a deeper truth....

I understand that the fact we cant get a test tube or a bar chart..that it upsets you....

But thats life

 

[Mr Cheese]

I know, I know. What I am implying is that those studies were not near as intensive a look as is needed to crack this nut. What I am proposing would likely be VERY expensive - along the lines of a Manhattan Project -- into the uncharted areas of the psyche. Again, the key would be in detecting minute shifts of electromagnetic properties.

very true

or we could stare at goats like george clooney....