I just had an epiphany! Input wanted!

Yeah.. this is basically the mystical perspective on reality..

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
a reply to: SpaceGoatFart

I don't know if it is that people don't care about science. Perhaps science estranges people.

For myself I cannot follow the scientific thinking, the jargon and strange words, complicated thinking and the pre-loaded knowledge needed to understand.

The gap of understanding is so immense that I think science, in a way, spawns it's own estrangement.

It doesn't help when scientists start talking in abstract theories of strings and quantums, for me it is as sensible as metaphysics.

I understand it perfectly. But at least you aren't talking about quantums or dark energy, pretending to understand it, saying how it fits perfectly in your theory with UFOs and timelines, like it's so common on GLP.

That's what is sad. People pretending to be interested in science, but when given the opportunity to REALLY do so, they simply ignore it.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFart

I could easily invert what you just said.

Mystical teachings are a collection of inner sciences, they are sciences because they are reproducible as shown by thousands of adepts throughout our history. If you don't believe me you're welcome to practice the methods and find out for yourself.

Pseudoskeptics are trapped in Plato's cave, telling the man that has been outside of it that everything he has experienced outside of it is fantasies. What's more he isn't actually willing to go outside to look, so he simply ignores it or chooses to ridicule it without ever testing the validity of the proposition.

Science is slowly but surely starting to resemble mysticism more and more, but most aren't willing to acknowledge this or how much science has borrowed and been inspired by esoteric traditions. There's a great number of influential, even legendary scientists that were incredibly inspired by ancient texts. Hopefully we won't have to wait until this current generation of scientists die out before science is willing to admit that they've been trying to describe the reality of mystics all along. When that day comes It'll be the greatest paradigm shift science has ever been through.

www.theatlantic.com...

(This guy is describing everything that has been known to adepts forever to a T, but I suspect he's not willing to actually go out and say it: this is exactly what the Buddha and other sages talked about..)

a reply to: SpaceGoatFart

Try it.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Exactly. Interesting link.

a reply to: Peeple

For the record,

I have no desire for hypothetical thoughts about "dark plasma" etc., to become the next "quantum mysticism";
i.e a pseudo-scientific refuge for lack of proper research.

There is too much of that sort of thing.

On the other hand, there is too little good speculation, due to fear of the word "pseudoscience".

There is nothing wrong with theorizing, and even using "big words". Those big words are sometimes
used as "cover" for those trying to sell "woo".

But other people legitimately use all sort of concepts without intending to BS anyone.

But of course this sort of thing causes ripples in society, where some good speculation
mutates into all sorts of sub-par fallout.

It happens incessantly in society and cannot be avoided.

You might call it neo-darwinian propagation and mutation of memetic constructs.

I myself find some value in this often negative mess, as "stirring the pot" to cause
new creative ideas to bubble forth is the very essence of science, in part, so long
as the creative ideas are at some point tested, falsified that is.

That's the difference between pseudo-science and science --- the falsification
process.

Unfortunately when it comes to "sentience" and such subjects, it's extraordinarily
difficult to falsify properly.. and if one postulates about potential sentience existing
in non-conventional (to us) forms, then that is much more difficult.

But if one does not "spit-ball", then no research will ever be done.

The important thing is to press for research, not just believe something because
it's sexy-cool to one's personality matrix.

For the record, I *LOVE* science; I always have.. but science doesn't always
investigate the subjects I'm interested in, unfortunately. But that doesn't
mean those subjects won't be investigated and falsified some day.

Kev

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: SpaceGoatFart

I could easily invert what you just said.

Mystical teachings are a collection of inner sciences, they are sciences because they are reproducible as shown by thousands of adepts throughout our history. If you don't believe me you're welcome to practice the methods and find out for yourself.

Pseudoskeptics are trapped in Plato's cave, telling the man that has been outside of it that everything he has experienced outside of it is fantasies. What's more he isn't actually willing to go outside to look, so he simply ignores it or chooses to ridicule it without ever testing the validity of the proposition.

Science is slowly but surely starting to resemble mysticism more and more, but most aren't willing to acknowledge this or how much science has borrowed and been inspired by esoteric traditions. There's a great number of influential, even legendary scientists that were incredibly inspired by ancient texts. Hopefully we won't have to wait until this current generation of scientists die out before science is willing to admit that they've been trying to describe the reality of mystics all along. When that day comes It'll be the greatest paradigm shift science has ever been through.

www.theatlantic.com...

(This guy is describing everything that has been known to adepts forever to a T, but I suspect he's not willing to actually go out and say it: this is exactly what the Buddha and other sages talked about..)

I don't think you do understand what I posted.

In case you missed my first post in the thread, I mentioned gnosticism and Archons. That should tell you a thing or to about my openness to mystical knowledge. Actually I personally had a few mystical experience myself.


WHAT I CRITICIZE HERE, and what I will continue to do so, is the use of scientific terminology and (badly understood) theories to support mystical teachings and theories.

This is simply a total lack of rigor at best that could lead to self delusion, or an attempt to mystify the lesser knowledgeable at worst.

Such an attitude is already plaguing the world of spirituality, with greedy gurus using vague scientific notions to support their own agenda and theories. It should never be encouraged.


I'm all for an honest discussion about possible entities preying on mankind.

But to claim that, light and darkness / + - electrical charges / dark matter - normal matter are all following the same pattern and have the qualities of polar opposites and that thus there should be "dark humans" is simply an intellectual abomination.

Light and darkness are not opposite. Darkness is simply a lack of light (light = to 0, not negative light). Dark matter and normal matter are not opposite (dark matter is simply invisible for our tools and senses).


to use such scientific terminology so wrong, and to use it to claim "so there should dark humans" might be simply due to ignorance, but I don't have to accept it and let such misconceptions spread around.



Again: all I'm saying is, if you guys want to talk about spiritual entities or other such topics, please do so, just don't feel the need to sprinkle it with some scientific concepts you don't fully grasp to make it sound more serious: it's not necessary, it's not wanted, it's not welcome.

Now if you excuse me, I have to go report to my guardian angel, the spirit of Einstein who was really not happy about what he was reading in this thread

a reply to: SpaceGoatFart

I got it, you know more, but you don't want to tell.
As interesting as it may be to you, it has zero content for anyone else.

My epiphany was, there is a lot of unaccounted matter and energy, indicating, there is a very convincing possibility there is other self aware beings we can't see.
I don't know how I could make the intention, the topic, however you want to label it any clearer?

So why don't you share your opinion on that, instead of criticising the words I used?
Stay on topic, or talk to someone else.
no hard feelings, but it is super pointless, whatever you think you contributed, didn't "land".
So far all you said is "I don't like the labels you use, therefor I think you're wrong."
But I know I am right, and would go so far I'd dare say I read enough to know what I am saying, but you don't get it.
If you're not interested enough to formulate an argument, why do you bother to comment?






I never said light and darkness, are opposites, did I? It's your brain implying that because I said, all energy is created by opposite poles. Or chemical reactions, which follow also the rule of attracting opposites.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFart

Oh, I'm sorry.. that was ignorant of me.

In that case I fully agree. I'm not fond of this trend either, these people have a tendency to talk of these theories as if they understood them. Personally I don't see the need to use all these fancy terms, in some cases I can see how it's warranted, like mentioning the observer effect - you don't need to be a physicist to understand the general idea there. In other cases it might actively undermine whatever else the person is speaking about, at least to more serious-minded people.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

We certainly can discuss how some stars orbited faster than should be possible unless there was more "dark matter" (non radiant) which could be used as a fudge factor to explain the apparent discrepancy...we could discuss hypothetical axion particles or sterile neutrinos...we could discuss how the Universe is expanding "faster than it should" to frame "dark energy" --- and THEN discuss hypothetical sentience.

It all comes out exactly the same way...with or without the science primer. Of the poster knows both modes of thought.

I do agree that adding the science primer CAN be a good thing.

In a small group where everyone is on the same page it's not necessary. But for a "big splash post" it might be advisable.

Or one could simply be polite and ask for clarification.

Kev

originally posted by: Peeple
So why don't you share your opinion on that, instead of criticising the words I used?

OK I'm sorry for my seemingly condescending tone in the last posts. I thought I did share my opinion already in the first posts but since you ask I'll do it clearly:

I believe that the idea of entities (consisting of dark matter / dark energy / or anything else we can't observe so far), conscious or not, large or small, benevolent or malevolent is of course possible. It's actually the basic common tenet of all forms of spiritual beliefs and spiritual traditions.

Since these supposed entities are made of matter or energy we can't measure as of today, science simply chooses to ignore that question (what else can it do? science cannot make theories based on subjective experiences, only independently observable facts)

I believe this idea has not only been explored by spiritualities, but also by a vast amount of fantastic and sci-fi literature and movies (just like the idea that there is more to this world than what we see; from Plato's cave to the Matrix, this idea has also been explored since man can think).


Actually I recommend you to read Olaf Stapledon's StarMaker, I'm sure you will love it as it takes your idea and develop it much much more and give it epic and mystical proportions.

I'm glad you had this epiphany, and I hope this will be the first steps into your journey to read more and expand your knowledge on all these interesting topics, because the literature available is incredibly rich and we don't need to re-invent things when others already spend a lot of time on the subject. What is truly enriching is to learn from them and then let our imagination roam and explore new and virgin shores.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFart

But that's not common knowledge, it should be!
It's very likely something is influencing us.
Maybe a symphony of little things, maybe a more evolved species, maybe fungi, maybe electric charge, maybe light, every data from the outside world we perceive can be compromised.
Like hypnosis. Everything woo. Could be interaction, including prayer, culture in general, maybe we are our own control loop and collectively want to die?
One of many possible ideas.
But how can we move on as long as the masses don't think about it, because they don't know?
It's very likely not what we thought it is, but there is something we interact with, which is very strange to us, so strange we can't tell or even see what it is.
And that really includes all possibilities.

originally posted by: Peeple
But that's not common knowledge, it should be!

Uh what makes you think it's not? Like I said it's not only a common theme in philosophy and fiction, it's also a scientific reality. It was YOUR epiphany, don't assume everyone else ignored these interactions before you thought about them.


Buddhism has always explained the world is non-dual. Everything is interdependence. It's hardly a new concept.

Mankind is "manipulated" by parasites like toxoplasmosis and bacteria lving in our gut flora, we are the unconscious vessels of cultural memes, the seasons are influencing our mood, ...


Everything is influenced by everything up to a certain degree of separation.


It's not because you just realized it that no one did before you...


I really encourage you to read more on these subjects, you would have seen we already have a plethora of books studying all kinds of such possibilities AND realities







Coming from someone who once claimed people with less than 120 IQ shouldn't reproduce, I find your idea that this isn't common knowledge that everything is influenced by unseen forces very disturbing...

a reply to: SpaceGoatFart

Okay, you and some others knew, but I bet even on ATS many didn't and wouldn't believe it.

But now I would really like to know, what do you think?
What name do you use to describe it?
I bet a singularity?

originally posted by: Peeple
Okay, you and some others knew, but I bet even on ATS many didn't and wouldn't believe it.

I think you are assuming an awful lot about others. It's still you who completely ignored all the existing discussions about this in philosophy, fiction and science.

I mean you are basically talking about Plato's cave. Are you saying no one knows about Plato's cave? That's crazy.

originally posted by: Peeple
But now I would really like to know, what do you think?

Have you read my long post from yesterday? Like really read it? I explained in great details what I think. I'm starting to believe you spend more energy to spread YOUR ideas than to read and learn what others share with you.

originally posted by: Peeple
What name do you use to describe it?

What name I use to describe what? What are you talking about here? Your OP is vague and talking about millions of possibilities

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart

originally posted by: Peeple
And how would the observation we are influenced by symbiotic "others", qualify as pseudo-scientific theory
and old news at the same time?

Because it's only hypothetical. There are no observation of this as far as I know. Only subjective experience from the more "spiritual" folks. Unless you could document of these observations you talk about, treating it as anything else than a subjective experience (like "communicating" with divinities or entities, psychedelic trips or hallucinations) is pseudo-science.

You can't prove it's more than something happening inside the brain without influence from the external world (like a dream, or imagination, or consciousness) so Occam says you have to take that as the most probable explanation.

You can devise hypothesis that there are in fact symbiotic, invisible entities feeding on man's emotions or something, but you have to treat it as such, an unsupported hypothesis. Just like the existence of god or life after death.

originally posted by: Peeple
Could you elaborate what gets under your skin?

It's not you in particular, but when people put a lot of big scientific words in a bag (dark matter, multiverse, qunatum physics), show signs of not understanding them correctly, then add some supernatural stuff in it like aliens, time travel or ESP, and eventually shake everything and voilà! a magical theory of everything comes out of the bag.

It doesn't matter if it's mostly unsupported, full of contradiction and holes, and really far-fetched. The only thing that matters is that it sounds magical enough so it attract less educated people into thinking it's a great theory.


Man needs magic in his life, but I believe there's still more than enough magic left even with our current understanding of reality without having to resort to misleading fantasies to satisfy it.

You mean this one? To avoid misunderstanding.

Add:
So you say it's brain, illusions and errors of the perception device?

This one:

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart

originally posted by: Peeple
So why don't you share your opinion on that, instead of criticising the words I used?

OK I'm sorry for my seemingly condescending tone in the last posts. I thought I did share my opinion already in the first posts but since you ask I'll do it clearly:

I believe that the idea of entities (consisting of dark matter / dark energy / or anything else we can't observe so far), conscious or not, large or small, benevolent or malevolent is of course possible. It's actually the basic common tenet of all forms of spiritual beliefs and spiritual traditions.

Since these supposed entities are made of matter or energy we can't measure as of today, science simply chooses to ignore that question (what else can it do? science cannot make theories based on subjective experiences, only independently observable facts)

I believe this idea has not only been explored by spiritualities, but also by a vast amount of fantastic and sci-fi literature and movies (just like the idea that there is more to this world than what we see; from Plato's cave to the Matrix, this idea has also been explored since man can think).


Actually I recommend you to read Olaf Stapledon's StarMaker, I'm sure you will love it as it takes your idea and develop it much much more and give it epic and mystical proportions.

I'm glad you had this epiphany, and I hope this will be the first steps into your journey to read more and expand your knowledge on all these interesting topics, because the literature available is incredibly rich and we don't need to re-invent things when others already spend a lot of time on the subject. What is truly enriching is to learn from them and then let our imagination roam and explore new and virgin shores.

The one you quoted was me ranting about you using precise scientific terms for exploring vague hypothetical concepts.

originally posted by: Peeple
Add:
So you say it's brain, illusions and errors of the perception device?

What on earth are you talking about ? Can't you be more precise? Your OP talks about tens and hundreds of different possibilities.

Be more specific please. I'm not inside your mind, I don't know what you are thinking about right now.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFart

Okay to understand that I had to go to wiki star maker.
I didn't like that the site says creator.
It's not godlike, it didn't create us.
So you should avoid dirty words like that.
But there are things I like.
I just don't see why I should give someone elses imagination more credit than mine.
That's also all just conjecture.
And not what you think, it's what someone else thought.
Are you saying you believe that?

I just can't piece together what your theory of everything is? What do you believe is "it"?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: SpaceGoatFart

Okay to understand that I had to go to wiki star maker.
I didn't like that the site says creator.
It's not godlike, it didn't create us.
So you should avoid dirty words like that.
But there are things I like.
I just don't see why I should give someone elses imagination more credit than mine.
That's also all just conjecture.
And not what you think, it's what someone else thought.
Are you saying you believe that?

It's a fiction. For entertainment. Also the term is used the same way we create things. We are creators too. The book talks about vast and unseen conscious forces influencing the world. I thought that would interest you.


Instead all I see is you keep assuming about everything, even about a book you did not read, and it's really a pain in the a.. when exchanging with you.

Also you never answer my questions and ask new ones all the time, and when I answer you you don't read them.

Your posting feels disjointed and hard to follow, like you have racing thoughts, almost manic.


I hope you are fine but I'm stopping my exchange with you here, it's going nowhere because you don't exchange with me with the correct mindset. You are almost closed to external ideas, and feel like everyone think the way you did before your "epiphany". Maybe you shouldn't project so much.


I gave you all the leads to expand on my beliefs (which I also posted) if you feel like you want to. It's now up to you to decide if you want to accept external ideas or not (you feel like you don't really, you prefer to dwell on the ideas you develop yourself)



Have a great day and take care.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFart

Really you're implying I am crazy, because you don't understand what I am saying, while I try to understand what you are saying?
Wouldn't a communication problem be the first plausible explanation?
Show me yours and I show you mine.
What is your theory, what is the "other"?