Problem of Universals

[blü 2]

Couldn't breathing and dying be part of the illusion? How can we know that it's not?

Who'd bother to stage such an elaborate intricate hugely repetitive pointless boring illusion?

A racist feels exactly the same way. Once he accepts his superiority as the truth, he finds proof of it everywhere he looks.

It's not just a question of feeling, it's a question of constant affirmation of the premise, wherever and whatever your senses can inform you of.

You have a choice between my assumption, which you employ all the time, and which works, and your assumption, which you avow far more than you act in accordance with, and which gets you nowhere.

Of course it got nowhere. There has never been any known medium or mechanism to study.

But in your case it's the creature of your imagination, not the creature of your information, and you accept nearly all of your sensory input ─ information ─ all day every day anyway.

Until we can figure out how to investigate it, it remains a mystery. Your silly dismissal not withstanding.

Nothing silly about my dismissal ─ it's based on a reasonable look at the data, ESP is just another kind of wishing well. There isn't even a testable hypothesis about how it all could work anyway, let alone results that would justify a repeat of the expenditures and blank results of the 1950s and 1960s. James Randi's unclaimed million bucks tells you whether anything positive has emerged since the null results back then.

I mean, golly, you accuse me of wishful thinking and yet you believe in the ESP shtick!

 

[Ostronomos]

No. It rests on then-enormous sums which the US military (and the Soviet military and no doubt others) spent in vain on the subject in the 1950s and early 1960s, on the ultimate failure of academe to validate the "findings" of Rhine at Duke University, on the steady disclosure of fakes (leading Martin Gardner to add that statistical proof of ESP is overwhelming statistical proof of fraud), on the failure of anyone to claim the prizes of various value up to $1m offered by James Randi for a single persuasive exhibition of ESP under controlled circumstances, on the great list of frauds like Uri Geller, on the absence of any credible exhibition let alone repeatable experiment to this day.

Do not be fooled by the findings of unsuccessful attempts by the government and corporations. There is valid evidence of extrasensory perception. I, for one, occasionally activate the part of my brain responsible for it. Whereby I have an overwhelming awareness of the unseen. This is due to entanglement between my brain and the external reality.

The fact that an atheist seems bent on proving the contrary is telling.

The human brain is capable of much more than an atheist is aware.

I am not talking about reading people's thoughts. I am taking about the entanglement between two individuals and the ability to sense demonic forces and God. These are facts which elude atheists.

To be real is to exist in the world external to the self which we know about through our senses. And we've never found so much as a single confirmed instance of a supernatural event.

This is because the supernatural is only possible when we enter a higher dimension.

The higher dimension contains the separation, effecting the non-separation.

As the only person in the world capable of expanding his consciousness and achieving new heights of genius temporarily, I can say unequivocally that the supernatural can only be interacted with once every few generations or so.

(I freely acknowledge that humans can get the creeps, having experienced them myself on one notable occasion, but that's an evolved response to the threat of the unknown in the dark, the tiger, or wolf, or thief, or enemy tribe, or jealous husband, or whatever.)

Those "creeps" are not limited to the imagination. Since they exist in the mind, they can manifest in the external world due to the influence of the mind on reality. But typically only in the higher dimension.

The atheist falls prey to a certain type of logic that exists in the material matrix and cannot conceive of anything beyond their limited senses.

Appearances can be deceiving.

We can observe the workings of the brain to a greater degree than ever, though of course not yet perfectly. But don't underestimate the advances and increasing sophistication and value of brain research. We now have better maps of the brain, and a better understanding of the manner in which, and purpose for which, the parts communicate with each other, than ever before and getting better. It's a huge task but the rewards for our understanding will be equally huge.

Yes, and as we further our quest for knowledge we will uncover the supernatural and spiritual. Do not scoff at the facts simply because they do not fit your current worldview.

Be open-minded to new possibilities.

I'm an igtheist, not an atheist. If you can tell me what thing with objective existence a "god" is, such that if I find a real suspect I can determine whether it's a god or not, and what the real quality of "godness" is that a real god has and a real superscientist who can create universes and raise the dead and travel in time &c lacks, then I'll know at last what I'm supposed to believe, or not believe, exists in this case.

Very well. I applaud your efforts on taking a more open-minded stance.

You're welcome to your beliefs. They make no sense to me, but I accept that from your point of view, that's not the test.

It is in fact you who has beliefs, not I. I have experimented with the "matrix" over the last 15 years (since "The Dark Knight" film) and haven't looked back since.

 

[Koldo]

Do not be fooled by the findings of unsuccessful attempts by the government and corporations. There is valid evidence of extrasensory perception. I, for one, occasionally activate the part of my brain responsible for it. Whereby I have an overwhelming awareness of the unseen. This is due to entanglement between my brain and the external reality.

The fact that an atheist seems bent on proving the contrary is telling.

The human brain is capable of much more than an atheist is aware.

I am not talking about reading people's thoughts. I am taking about the entanglement between two individuals and the ability to sense demonic forces and God. These are facts which elude atheists.



This is because the supernatural is only possible when we enter a higher dimension.

The higher dimension contains the separation, effecting the non-separation.

As the only person in the world capable of expanding his consciousness and achieving new heights of genius temporarily, I can say unequivocally that the supernatural can only be interacted with once every few generations or so.

Those "creeps" are not limited to the imagination. Since they exist in the mind, they can manifest in the external world due to the influence of the mind on reality. But typically only in the higher dimension.

The atheist falls prey to a certain type of logic that exists in the material matrix and cannot conceive of anything beyond their limited senses.

Appearances can be deceiving.


Yes, and as we further our quest for knowledge we will uncover the supernatural and spiritual. Do not scoff at the facts simply because they do not fit your current worldview.

Be open-minded to new possibilities.

Very well. I applaud your efforts on taking a more open-minded stance.

It is in fact you who has beliefs, not I. I have experimented with the "matrix" over the last 15 years (since "The Dark Knight" film) and haven't looked back since.

Have you had the chance to talk about your experiences with a psychologist and/or a psyquiatrist?

 

[Heyo]

Science would not be constantly changing theory, if we lived in a state of realism. As new data appears and theory needs to change, so what was considered real, changes.

Theory, like the randomness assumption of statistical theory can create it own reality. For example, risk analysis may apply to the average, however the average is more like a fuzzy placeholder than any tangible person. Yet too many people will assume the placeholder applies to them; get scared, even though there is no hard proof it applied to them; faux realism. Based on the fear within this alternate reality, people in power will impose alternate reality solutions, that may not apply; fuzzy dice nominalism creating faux realism.

This is why I don't think any random approach should be connected to science, unless an alternate reality is good enough for the realists.

Free business advice: you should open an insurance company. Insurance is all about statistical theory. If you have a better theory than that one used by your competitors, you could become immensely rich.

 

[blü 2]

There is valid evidence of extrasensory perception.

Where was it when Randi's million bucks was on the table?

Where is it now, today, in the science news?

I, for one, occasionally activate the part of my brain responsible for it. Whereby I have an overwhelming awareness of the unseen. This is due to entanglement between my brain and the external reality.

Then it should be easy for you to tell me the title of the one book on the floor behind me right now. I'll leave it there, with the title visible to mortal onlookers, and you can impress me bigtime with the right answer.

The fact that an atheist seems bent on proving the contrary is telling.

I'm not an atheist, simply an unbeliever, and I'm not bent on proving or disproving anything about ESP, just describing it as all the evidence indicates. You're the one with the power to win this argument, and then you'll be front-page news around the world and if you play your cards right, maybe even a Nobel prize (other than the fiction prize, of course).

The human brain is capable of much more than an atheist is aware.

If you can't tell me the title of that book on my floor then I think you'll find science is the only show in town with any substance to it.

I am not talking about reading people's thoughts. I am taking about the entanglement between two individuals and the ability to sense demonic forces and God. These are facts which elude atheists.

What being with objective existence do you intend to denote when you say "God"? Or do you mean a being that exists solely as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain?

This is because the supernatural is only possible when we enter a higher dimension.

The higher dimension contains the separation, effecting the non-separation.

Then why can't you demonstrate its reality to the satisfaction of impartial enquirers?

 

[Ostronomos]

Have you had the chance to talk about your experiences with a psychologist and/or a psyquiatrist?

No.

 

[Ostronomos]

Where was it when Randi's million bucks was on the table?

Where is it now, today, in the science news?


Then it should be easy for you to tell me the title of the one book on the floor behind me right now. I'll leave it there, with the title visible to mortal onlookers, and you can impress me bigtime with the right answer.


I'm not an atheist, simply an unbeliever, and I'm not bent on proving or disproving anything about ESP, just describing it as all the evidence indicates. You're the one with the power to win this argument, and then you'll be front-page news around the world and if you play your cards right, maybe even a Nobel prize (other than the fiction prize, of course).


If you can't tell me the title of that book on my floor then I think you'll find science is the only show in town with any substance to it.


What being with objective existence do you intend to denote when you say "God"? Or do you mean a being that exists solely as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain?


Then why can't you demonstrate its reality to the satisfaction of impartial enquirers?

All I will say is this: extrasensory perception does not work by gaining knowledge of inanimate objects or thoughts from a remote location.

 

[Bthoth]

If somone shoots someone for no reason, do you believe the perpetrator ought to face justice?

Why? Justice is a concept, not something we can test scientifically.

You could say society has invented the concept of justice, but that still means that justice isn't strictly 'real', just a useful fiction.

I don't think I can vote.

What am I if I posit that what is physical, observable, and measurable isn't "real?"

Measurements to terms and numbers are man made constructs (abstracts).
What is universal is the best starting point.
Life.

Each of us live within the universe aware of itself........ conscious life.

Then what is life? That is where the benchmark should begin and requires objective reasoning/rational combined with honesty and practical application.

 

[blü 2]

All I will say is this: extrasensory perception does not work by gaining knowledge of inanimate objects or thoughts from a remote location.

What do you say extrasensory perception actually perceives then?

 

[Ostronomos]

What do you say extrasensory perception actually perceives then?

extra-dimensional beings.

Much like perception works when dreaming, esp perceives the higher dimensional realm that working physicists theorize about.

 

[blü 2]

extra-dimensional beings.

Much like perception works when dreaming, esp perceives the higher dimensional realm that working physicists theorize about.

The rules out any test for truth, any objective standard by which they could be shown to exist in the world external to the self, ie be real,

Please correct me if that's wrong and you have an objective test to determine their reality.

 

[Ostronomos]

The rules out any test for truth, any objective standard by which they could be shown to exist in the world external to the self, ie be real,

Please correct me if that's wrong and you have an objective test to determine their reality.

A test would conveniently serve to satisfy even the most stubborn of atheists, yes. Unfortunately, it is inaccessible to the vast majority. I can only provide logic.

Recall that God is not apparent in the matter we perceive.

When I sense these forces I immediately ward them off with the Bible. Specifically Psalms, which contains Biblical utterances against evil.

You must know it is not an interaction with the physical senses. It is an interaction with the 6th "mind-like" sense. It comes from an unknown source of reality.

It is more real than the mundane reality that many believe is all there is. Rather than dismissing it as an imaginary thing, learn from the present data we have on these phenomenon. Namely, CTMU wiki.

I'll say it yet again, Mind=reality=language. Where language is the content common to both.

 

[blü 2]

A test would conveniently serve to satisfy even the most stubborn of atheists, yes. Unfortunately, it is inaccessible to the vast majority. I can only provide logic.

Recall that God is not apparent in the matter we perceive.

Recall that the only manner in which gods ─ indeed the whole supernatural zoo, Gandalf and all ─ are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined, in individual brains. They're never found in the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

When I sense these forces I immediately ward them off with the Bible. Specifically Psalms, which contains Biblical utterances against evil.

Serious question ─ why not the Qur'an? Wicca? The Book of Souls? King James' Daemonologie? The Book of the Dead?

You must know it is not an interaction with the physical senses. It is an interaction with the 6th "mind-like" sense. It comes from an unknown source of reality.

Ah, there you point to a deep difference in our worldviews.

It is more real than the mundane reality that many believe is all there is. Rather than dismissing it as an imaginary thing, learn from the present data we have on these phenomenon. Namely, CTMU wiki.

I'll say it yet again, Mind=reality=language. Where language is the content common to both.

Mr Langan and I don't share a common starting point.

For example, "mind" is a loose term for a variable bundle of brain functions.

Still, if it appeals to you, well, I trust you live in a free country, so as long as you're not hurting people, that's part of your freedom.

 

[Ostronomos]

Recall that the only manner in which gods ─ indeed the whole supernatural zoo, Gandalf and all ─ are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined, in individual brains. They're never found in the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

I empathize with your frustration however you are ultimately incorrect. The material world is accessible to all. However, it does not hold priority over the supernatural, which remains inaccessible to the vast majority. This creates a condition in which the wavefunction of the universe is interacting with the mind. It is better hold a skeptical world view than stubbornly oppose the factual reality of the supernatural, which is part of nature or the simulation.

May I just point out that according to the self-simulation principle, processing is not displayed in our reality.

Processing is hidden. Either in an external processor or deep within the subject themselves.

For more information see this:

If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


Serious question ─ why not the Qur'an? Wicca? The Book of Souls? King James' Daemonologie? The Book of the Dead?


Ah, there you point to a deep difference in our worldviews.


Mr Langan and I don't share a common starting point.

For example, "mind" is a loose term for a variable bundle of brain functions.

Still, if it appeals to you, well, I trust you live in a free country, so as long as you're not hurting people, that's part of your freedom.

 

[Ostronomos]

Blu,

You are nothing more than a person who doubts the supernatural. I am more than willing to come to your aid and assist you in your worldview. Since I am one of the few who actually has interacted with the higher dimensions. It is not a conviction, it is a fact.

 

[blü 2]

The material world is accessible to all. However, it does not hold priority over the supernatural, which remains inaccessible to the vast majority.

I'd say that on the contrary, the supernatural is accessible to anyone who reads the bible or Grimms' Fairy Tales or Harry Potter, or watches Spiderman, Superman, a huge list.

My point is that its entities and magic phenomena are not an aspect of or found in reality, the world external to the self, hence are not objectively real, hence exist only as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains. For example, if a genuine supernatural world existed, then we'd expect those who had access to it to give consistent reports about its geography, inhabitants, features &c ─ but of course we find exactly the opposite.

We'd also expect them to be able to engage in meaningful dialog with those inhabitants, especially those with superpowers, who could dictate beautifully clear proofs or disproofs of Riemann's hypothesis, or the physics of dark matter and dark energy.

And to tell us all of next Saturday's winners, and the lotto numbers to buy, and the places of calamity to avoid and the times to avoid them.

And to keep us up to date with what our political and military opponents and business rivals were up to.

And to do so on a regular and reliable basis.

But that doesn't happen. The world where Harry Potter dwells is not the world where Donald Trump lurks and runs about; Jesus' Kingdom is running two millennia behind schedule; the apocalypse refuses to happen on the myriad dates foretold for it; and lottery tickets keep winning or losing in accordance with their statistical expectations.

This creates a condition in which the wavefunction of the universe is interacting with the mind. It is better hold a skeptical world view than stubbornly oppose the factual reality of the supernatural, which is part of nature or the simulation.

I've read that a few times, but I can make no sense of it.

If you want to know whether reality is a simulation or not, drop a brick on your foot, or plunge your hand into boiling water, or hold your breath for ten minutes.

 

[Ostronomos]

I'd say that on the contrary, the supernatural is accessible to anyone who reads the bible or Grimms' Fairy Tales or Harry Potter, or watches Spiderman, Superman, a huge list.

My point is that its entities and magic phenomena are not an aspect of or found in reality, the world external to the self, hence are not objectively real, hence exist only as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains. For example, if a genuine supernatural world existed, then we'd expect those who had access to it to give consistent reports about its geography, inhabitants, features &c ─ but of course we find exactly the opposite.

We'd also expect them to be able to engage in meaningful dialog with those inhabitants, especially those with superpowers, who could dictate beautifully clear proofs or disproofs of Riemann's hypothesis, or the physics of dark matter and dark energy.

And to tell us all of next Saturday's winners, and the lotto numbers to buy, and the places of calamity to avoid and the times to avoid them.

And to keep us up to date with what our political and military opponents and business rivals were up to.

And to do so on a regular and reliable basis.

But that doesn't happen. The world where Harry Potter dwells is not the world where Donald Trump lurks and runs about; Jesus' Kingdom is running two millennia behind schedule; the apocalypse refuses to happen on the myriad dates foretold for it; and lottery tickets keep winning or losing in accordance with their statistical expectations.

I've read that a few times, but I can make no sense of it.

If you want to know whether reality is a simulation or not, drop a brick on your foot, or plunge your hand into boiling water, or hold your breath for ten minutes.

Clearly you display the signs of atheistic evil. And since evil is stupid, it would fail to grasp even the most beautiful of light, truth and God.

God is love consciousness good.

evil is hatred, darkness and false.

 

[Kfox]

Blu,

You are nothing more than a person who doubts the supernatural,

How does one know what is or is not supernatural? The reason I ask is because if it is estimated that mankind only knows of approx 5% of the Universe, that means 95% we have no clue about. So if "X" is something you call supernatural, how do you know it isn't just a part of the 95% of the Universe/Natural world that we just don't know about yet?

 

[Ostronomos]

How does one know what is or is not supernatural? The reason I ask is because if it is estimated that mankind only knows of approx 5% of the Universe, that means 95% we have no clue about. So if "X" is something you call supernatural, how do you know it isn't just a part of the 95% of the Universe/Natural world that we just don't know about yet?

The mark that distinguishes genuine supernatural experiences from genuine natural experiences is the "mental" element. And how it influences the external world

Self and non-self or God and non-God merge to become the one that distributes over the one.

This results in what is known as non-local consciousness.

What a foolish atheists lacks is the understanding to boldly imagine what lay beyond their limited senses.

I pity them. Just as I pity the wicked (to use a biblical term).

 

[blü 2]

Clearly you display the signs of atheistic evil. And since evil is stupid, it would fail to grasp even the most beautiful of light, truth and God.

Clearly you're unable to back your claims with non-imaginary evidence.

If that's wrong, just present the non-imaginary evidence.

God is love consciousness good.

So, you say, there's no entity, no personality, called God ─ it's just a handy word for acting with decency and respect for others?

evil is hatred, darkness and false.

Not to embrace your imaginary God is to hate other people generically, to lie and to deceive, you say?

That sounds like a self-serving, self-boasting claim to me, nothing more.