Evidence

[Rolling_Stone]

When are you theists going to learn that experiences of awakened awareness are simply explained by how easily one's mind is tricked. Take a look at False Memories, which is one of many examples of how wrong one's mind is on a regular basis.

Absolutely correct that they can be so explained, but there comes a point where healthy skepticism begins to look foolish.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Absolutely correct that they can be so explained, but there comes a point where healthy skepticism begins to look foolish.

And where gullibility begins to look irresponsible.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

And where gullibility begins to look irresponsible.

Indeed. So what is the measure?

Reality does not end where the skin begins. Its inevitable corollary is equally true: life does not end where the skin ends. We can, with practice, see the world from the perspective of energy without boundaries. And as much as people might rail against this unconventional perspective, it is much more consistent with modern science than the dominant worldview: that of a universe composed of relatively isolated yet interacting bits and pieces.

 

[Willamena]

But what if I were to say that it is possible for you to have a shift in consciousness that, from your perspective, recreates reality along the lines of a higher continuum? Now, that's just plain nuts! Yet, history is full of examples, so many it's just as nuts to dismiss all of them.

Would this "higher continuum" not still be reality?

Reality does not end where the skin begins.

I agree. I would say it ends where I begin.

 

[rojse]

That's like a blindman asking if he should be skeptical of color being an experiential reality.

So he should be, if you said that different objects have different colours.

But if you talked about wavelengths of light, and refraction, and a few other things, that might make more of a legitimate case than the simple assertation that objects have colours.

You might want to ask if you have tools adequate to the task.

But no one that is religous wants to propose a concrete assertation that can be checked with tools that either exist, or can be developed.

LOL My reaction exactly!

I agree. But what if I were to say that it is possible for you to have a shift in consciousness that, from your perspective, recreates reality along the lines of a higher continuum? Now, that's just plain nuts! Yet, history is full of examples, so many it's just as nuts to dismiss all of them.

Although people might experience this phenomena, perhaps there are other explanations that I could propose. Some people could fake the situation for the attention, although this does not explain all of the occurences. It could be a hallucination experienced under certain physical and psychological conditions. Just because these people experience the event, does not make it real.

 

[Sunstone]

When are you theists going to learn that experiences of awakened awareness are simply explained by how easily one's mind is tricked. Take a look at False Memories, which is one of many examples of how wrong one's mind is on a regular basis.

That must be why the Zen monks were so ineffective in teaching the art of the sword.

 

[Willamena]

But no one that is religous wants to propose a concrete assertation that can be checked with tools that either exist, or can be developed.

LIke the mind?

 

[rojse]

LIke the mind?

What is an MRI scan for, then? What about all of the Roscharch inkblot tests and all of that? What about IQ tests?

 

[Willamena]

What is an MRI scan for, then? What about all of the Roscharch inkblot tests and all of that? What about IQ tests?

It's my understanding that MRI shows patterns of electrical impuses in the brain, and that the Rorschach test is an evaluation of personality. IQ is a measure of intellgence. What's your point?

 

[rojse]

It's my understanding that MRI shows patterns of electrical impuses in the brain, and that the Rorschach test is an evaluation of personality. IQ is a measure of intellgence. What's your point?

Don't they all show the workings of the mind, or are you using a more mystical meaning when you mention the word mind?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

The dominant worldview [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]mimics what we find at the subatomic level, where an object can be said to exist only upon being measured. Similarly, the only reality we are taught to be aware of are those aspects that can be measured and quantified. We are conditioned to believe that the flickering images on the screen of our consciousness are the whole of reality, little imagining what we see is an infinitesimal part of the whole. Thus limited, we can never really be at home in the universe, much less understand the nature of the whole. Not until we reach the saturation point of disillusionment, disappointment and suffering do we set off to look for something more.[/FONT]

Early in our journey, we discover, sometimes without realizing it, that reality does not end where the skin begins. Soon after, we find that its inevitable corollary is equally true: life does not end where the skin ends. As much as those around us might rail against this unconventional perspective, our own experience is far more significant proof of what it is so than platitudes of logic that others have learned to parrot, and against which our reality is often measured--even though this way of seeing is much more consistent with modern science than the dominant worldview: that the universe is composed of relatively isolated yet interacting bits and pieces.

“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, until he sees all things through the narrow chinks of his cavern.” (William Blake) [/FONT]If we dare, we can, with practice, see the world from the perspective of energy without boundaries. [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]As[/FONT] we cultivate our conscious relationship with the cosmos by monitoring our responses to life's situations rather than just reacting to them, we begin to see patterns and correlations between our mind-state and our reality. We find that the essence of nature is not ‘things,’ but interconnections: relationships. A ‘thing’ is only an approximation, a metaphor, a thought-form. [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Ultimately, like it or not, we find we are part of one, inseparable web of relationships. [/FONT]And as the veil lifts, we become painfully aware of the connection between our thinking and our experiences: between cause and effect. Our physical perceptions become increasingly superfluous as we begin to see ‘things’ as thought-forms and time—the movement between the birth of an idea and its fulfillment—as a soft cushion protecting us from ourselves.

As you read the posts in this thread, it is easy to see that time’s mercy protects us all.

 

[rojse]

The dominant worldview [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]mimics what we find at the subatomic level, where an object can be said to exist only upon being measured. Similarly, the only reality we are taught to be aware of are those aspects that can be measured and quantified. We are conditioned to believe that the flickering images on the screen of our consciousness are the whole of reality, little imagining what we see is an infinitesimal part of the whole. Thus limited, we can never really be at home in the universe, much less understand the nature of the whole. Not until we reach the saturation point of disillusionment, disappointment and suffering do we set off to look for something more.[/FONT]

I think that we have managed to get extremely far by assuming that everything must be able to be quantified.

To be honest, I would rather be driving a vehicle when the manufacturer either measures or calculates every potential force that my vehicle undergoes. I would rather use a machine that is tested and measured, rather than the manufacturer hoping that things "turn out for the best."

As it is, I have not seen any event that demands that I step out of the worldview that events cannot be objectively quantified, nor have you presented any that demand this outside of this thread.

Early in our journey, we discover, sometimes without realizing it, that reality does not end where the skin begins. Soon after, we find that its inevitable corollary is equally true: life does not end where the skin ends. As much as those around us might rail against this unconventional perspective, our own experience is far more significant proof of what it is so than platitudes of logic that others have learned to parrot, and against which our reality is often measured--even though this way of seeing is much more consistent with modern science than the dominant worldview: that the universe is composed of relatively isolated yet interacting bits and pieces.

This is rubbish. I am usually not that dismissive of what someone says, but it really is.

I don't think that anyone has said that reality ends where the skin begins. After all, we have doctors that work beneath the skin, do we not? Doctors at work in there with scalpels and staples and tubes is reality.

Experience is so far from proof that I laugh when you try and use it in that manner. Ask two people what they remember of an event, for example. If they are on different sides of an argument, they will have completely different recollections. Even if they are on the same side, they will remember different details, place more emphasis on different aspects, give different timeframes, if they do not collaborate together first.

Experiences of an event are based on your previous experiences, your emotions, and a whole bunch of different subjective opinions. They have their own motives in relating a story to me or to others. I would hardly rely on someone else's experience in any argument, because it is being relayed to me by someone that I could never completely trust in what they are saying.

I do not understand why you are so dismissive of logic. It teaches us to examine arguments, find illogicities in ideas, and understand thought processes. I certainly have found that after studying, I can examine ideas far more critically, and see how the speaker has erred in their statements. I might not always be correct, but I am certainly far more astute because of this.

“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, until he sees all things through the narrow chinks of his cavern.” (William Blake) [/FONT]If we dare, we can, with practice, see the world from the perspective of energy without boundaries. [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]As[/FONT] we cultivate our conscious relationship with the cosmos by monitoring our responses to life's situations rather than just reacting to them, we begin to see patterns and correlations between our mind-state and our reality. We find that the essence of nature is not ‘things,’ but interconnections: relationships. A ‘thing’ is only an approximation, a metaphor, a thought-form. [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Ultimately, like it or not, we find we are part of one, inseparable web of relationships. [/FONT]And as the veil lifts, we become painfully aware of the connection between our thinking and our experiences: between cause and effect. Our physical perceptions become increasingly superfluous as we begin to see ‘things’ as thought-forms and time—the movement between the birth of an idea and its fulfillment—as a soft cushion protecting us from ourselves.

As you read the posts in this thread, it is easy to see that time’s mercy protects us all.

I am quite skeptical of your web. How does this web remember how I feel about all of the people that I have met in this web, and how all of them feels about me? How does it remember why I like/dislike/hate these people, considering that I develop a complex and long list of reasons why I like or dislike somone? Where is this information stored?

And, considering that we are all things, how does this web remember who I am, and all of the connections that I have with everyone that I have ever met, even those I have sighted briefly in a crowd?

 

[Willamena]

Don't they all show the workings of the mind, or are you using a more mystical meaning when you mention the word mind?

No; but those things indicate a mind. I'm just talking about the one you know (and I know, and he knows and she knows). Our minds.

 

[autonomous1one1]

....Someone may claim a spiritual experience but the knowledge can be communicated. Then we have to decide if it really was a real experience or just a misinterpreted observation.

....all I get is a sense that you are simply experiencing something akin to being high on mind altering drugs and putting it across as some connection with a higher plane of existance. ....

When are you theists going to learn that experiences of awakened awareness are simply explained by how easily one's mind is tricked. ....

...Although people might experience this phenomena, perhaps there are other explanations that I could propose. Some people could fake the situation for the attention, although this does not explain all of the occurences. It could be a hallucination experienced under certain physical and psychological conditions....

Greetings guys. Do you really believe that any of these reasons explain the kind of experience that we are referring to? If so, it would seem that you have a significant barrier to understanding what we are talking about, but, of course, you are welcome to dismiss anything said on whatever basis you wish. For others, who may be more open to comprehending this experience, permit me to offer that nothing I say or do, or have said or done, relates in any way to the use of drugs (except aspirin when talking to atheists - just kidding). Also, the other bolded explanations above seem to be false conjectures inapplicable to the many cases of awakened individuals that some of us have examined.

Of course, these are my opinions and any one of you (Quath, frg001, Rioku, or rojse) may be qualified and prove me wrong. Have any of you concluded your 'explanation' after acquiring a PhD in psychiatry or psychology and after studying some of the notable 'awakened' humans including visiting and discussing them and their teachings with followers? If not, you and others may find the writings of Roger Walsh (e.g., "Essential Spirituality") who has acquired several such degrees, is a Professor at the University of California, and has conducted study of such awakening.

Best Wishes,
a..1

 

[Rioku]

Of course, these are my opinions and any one of you ([/COLOR]Quath, frg001, Rioku, or rojse) may be qualified and prove me wrong. Have any of you concluded your 'explanation' after acquiring a PhD in psychiatry or psychology and after studying some of the notable 'awakened' humans including visiting and discussing them and their teachings with followers? If not, you and others may find the writings of Roger Walsh (e.g., "Essential Spirituality") who has acquired several such degrees, is a Professor at the University of California, and has conducted study of such awakening.

Best Wishes,
a..1

Did he conduct any experiments worthy of noting? To stop you before you try; if he had conducted any experiments at least one of the four of us would know about them. Although my bachelors is psychology is not a PHD I did learn enough to know that talking to people is of no significance when it comes to proving a hypothesis. The only significance it might have is providing a direction to start research.

What you are attempting to do is use what is called the great man argument, and combining it with claim that his research is valid. First it does not matter who does the study, be it a high school dropout or a person with multiple PHD's as long as the study is valid. In the case of high school dropout there is a huge probability that they will not mess up the experiment and vise versa for the person with the PHD. Because I would have to spend many lifetimes keeping up with these claims of a educated person studying something related to religion I am not about to spend my money and time reading a book by him. On the other hand I do try to spend time reading some of the more significant works, so if you have a website that documents his methodology and findings then I am more then happy to read through that.

 

[sandandfoam]

[/font]


As it is, I have not seen any event that demands that I step out of the worldview that events cannot be objectively quantified, nor have you presented any that demand this outside of this thread.




Experience is so far from proof that I laugh when you try and use it in that manner. Ask two people what they remember of an event, for example. If they are on different sides of an argument, they will have completely different recollections. Even if they are on the same side, they will remember different details, place more emphasis on different aspects, give different timeframes, if they do not collaborate together first.

Experiences of an event are based on your previous experiences, your emotions, and a whole bunch of different subjective opinions. They have their own motives in relating a story to me or to others. I would hardly rely on someone else's experience in any argument, because it is being relayed to me by someone that I could never completely trust in what they are saying.

Did Kant not disprove the Principle of Sufficient Reason (that nothing is true that has no sufficient explanation) by showing how the Principle could not be proved 'without relation to sensible intuition' and that all objective knowledge rests on experience?
If I understand this correctly (and I don't know that I do, if I'm wrong please point out where) then it appears that the experience which the objectivity you speak of rests on cannot itself be objectively quantified. ?

 

[Quath]

Of course, these are my opinions and any one of you (Quath, frg001, Rioku, or rojse) may be qualified and prove me wrong. Have any of you concluded your 'explanation' after acquiring a PhD in psychiatry or psychology and after studying some of the notable 'awakened' humans including visiting and discussing them and their teachings with followers? If not, you and others may find the writings of Roger Walsh (e.g., "Essential Spirituality") who has acquired several such degrees, is a Professor at the University of California, and has conducted study of such awakening.

I have a PhD in science, not not psychology. So I do understand the science used in psychology and I have a lot of experience talking to religious people. I dated several women who were New-Agers who talked about levitating crystals and other such stuff. I talked to one pagan woman who said that the goddess Diana visited her at night sometimes. I have read many accounts of near deat experiences.

These were all claims I looked at as open minded as I could. I could never get my ex-girlfriend to levitate a crystal for me. This doesn't disprove her claim, but her claims requires a good evidence to be believed. The simpliest explanation is that she tricked herself or was under the influence.

The pagan woman was interesting. If I did accept her claim as being real, then I would have to accept other such claims as well. However, other people who have seen God, aliens and Bigfoot would also have to be believed. The problem is that such accounts usually contradict other peoples religious accounts.

So there are either several contradictory "truths" out there or these people have not seen reality in these experiences.

It doesn't take a PhD in psychology to figure this kind of stuff out. For example, you can get a thousand Christians who believe that God answers prayer. Give them a script of questions to ask God when praying and see if agree or not. Questions like "If you are once saved, are you always saved?" "Is the Iraq War a just war?" "Do miscarried babies go to heaven?" "Annilihation or eternal torment in hell?" And other such tough questions. I would bet you will get many, many contradictory answers. So it would mean that at least some people who talk to God are really deluding themself (or else God lies to people.) If some people are deluded, then we know that deluded religious experiences are common.

 

[rojse]

Did Kant not disprove the Principle of Sufficient Reason (that nothing is true that has no sufficient explanation) by showing how the Principle could not be proved 'without relation to sensible intuition' and that all objective knowledge rests on experience?
If I understand this correctly (and I don't know that I do, if I'm wrong please point out where) then it appears that the experience which the objectivity you speak of rests on cannot itself be objectively quantified. ?

I am unfamiliar with the work of Kant, or the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Would you care to explain this further?

 

[Rioku]

It doesn't take a PhD in psychology to figure this kind of stuff out. For example, you can get a thousand Christians who believe that God answers prayer. Give them a script of questions to ask God when praying and see if agree or not. Questions like "If you are once saved, are you always saved?" "Is the Iraq War a just war?" "Do miscarried babies go to heaven?" "Annilihation or eternal torment in hell?" And other such tough questions. I would bet you will get many, many contradictory answers. So it would mean that at least some people who talk to God are really deluding themself (or else God lies to people.) If some people are deluded, then we know that deluded religious experiences are common.

I like that idea, but I bet one of the reasons why there are only a chosen few who talk to god is so that such a study can not be done. In the end like all studies conducted on religion not matter what is shown theists will just brush it off as god acting is ways that man can never understand or something meaningless like that.

 

[rojse]

Greetings guys. Do you really believe that any of these reasons explain the kind of experience that we are referring to? If so, it would seem that you have a significant barrier to understanding what we are talking about, but, of course, you are welcome to dismiss anything said on whatever basis you wish. For others, who may be more open to comprehending this experience, permit me to offer that nothing I say or do, or have said or done, relates in any way to the use of drugs (except aspirin when talking to atheists - just kidding). Also, the other bolded explanations above seem to be false conjectures inapplicable to the many cases of awakened individuals that some of us have examined.

Of course, these are my opinions and any one of you (Quath, frg001, Rioku, or rojse) may be qualified and prove me wrong. Have any of you concluded your 'explanation' after acquiring a PhD in psychiatry or psychology and after studying some of the notable 'awakened' humans including visiting and discussing them and their teachings with followers? If not, you and others may find the writings of Roger Walsh (e.g., "Essential Spirituality") who has acquired several such degrees, is a Professor at the University of California, and has conducted study of such awakening.

Best Wishes,
a..1

Firstly, let me make it clear that I am sorry if anything that I have said has been construed by you to be an insult, and I certainly did not mean it that way. Apologies.

However, I certainly do believe that my explanation regarding hallucinations is a logical, rational explanation. I do not mean hallucinations that occur after taking drugs or depriving yourself of nutrition or other such silly things that some might do. I do not mean to use it as an insult, merely as "seeing things that are not truly there".

What I am saying is that perhaps there may be natural phenomena that some people's brains interpret differently to the actual event that occurs in the real world. I am certainly not saying that anyone that receives such an experience is somehow mentally deficient - I might be, for not being able to experience it myself. Although there is no scientific evidence that agrees with my idea, it does explain why some people say that they receive visions from God, and get many experiences throughout their lives, and others get nothing their whole lives.

Hope this clarifies my idea.