It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A challenge to all "sceptics"

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   
The holy Mystery of the Self


Originally posted by Astyanax
Of course, if you believe in gods and spirits and the like you can provide whatever fairytale answer you wish and get away with that. But then you wouldn't have explained anything; all you'll have done is say 'these are holy Mysteries' and shut the door on thought. At that point we would have nothing more to say to each other.


Originally posted by Skyfloating
Self doesnt exist within the physically measurable context... a realm not measured by science. It resides within a context beyond what your little tools can measure.

God and Religion I do not need to demonstrate my point...

No, just faith, which is what I was referring to in those words I have repeated above, and what you demonstrate in the words quoted just below them. And so it ends.




posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


And so it ends as usual...with most of the points I made conviniently being ignored by the materialists



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
And so it ends as usual...with most of the points I made conviniently being ignored by the materialists

Ah, self-delusion. A rather unfortunate aspect of the delusion of self.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Skyfloating,

You've stated that the spiritual world exists with absolute certainty, yet are unable to quantify it's existence in any way. Why is that any different than believing that Winnie the Pooh exists in the Hundred Acre Wood?

Also, why the need to degrade someone who would prefer factual proof to unsubstantiated reports?



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I havent even mentioned my personal experiences with out-of-body-travel, out-of-body-perception, remote perception, pre-cognition, retro-cognition, states of bliss, lucid dreaming and so forth and so on....some of these experiences are reasons for my belief, some were caused by my beliefs.

Instead I simply made easy to demonstrate points on choice, free will, existence of self, etc. Some of these points were responded to, but not all of them. See my very long answer to astyanax and his very short reply.

To return to the original idea of this thread: Skepticism as in "doubting everything" is not an objective and mindful attitude that will lead to new discoveries. Or, it might lead to new discoveries but only very slowly.
I would replace "skepticism" with mindfulness. What do I mean by mindfulness? Being open to any option and possibility.

I am glad this thread exists though, because I have had some pretty outrageous BELIEFS presented to me by skeptics. Here are a few classics:

"All children are born atheists"

"You and me dont exist"

"You have no choice"

"Only what can be measured is true"

Am I degrading others when I declare these beliefs to be unaccetable to any sane individual? No. I am not degrading the person voicing these beliefs, I am degrading the beliefs as non-effective and in no way in tune with what I am experiencing from moment to moment.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


If you have followed the discussion you will see that the last things I stated was that I have choice and there is such thing as a self...two things that were denied by the determinist/naturalist/materialist I was talking to.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Harken, O harken, to the words of the Prophet!


Originally posted by Skyfloating
I havent even mentioned my personal experiences with out-of-body-travel, out-of-body-perception, remote perception, pre-cognition, retro-cognition, states of bliss, lucid dreaming and so forth and so on....some of these experiences are reasons for my belief, some were caused by my beliefs.

And I haven't even mentioned how I went dragon-hunting with St. George, drank bloody marys with Count Dracula and was inducted into the Mile High Club by the Tooth Fairy.

And now, it seems, I've been arguing with Lobsang Rampa.

If you can provide credible evidence for even one of your claims, the world will be treated to the interesting Webcast spectacle of a middle-aged man eating a very expensive Borsalino.

No wonder you hate 'sceptics'. Your world must be lousy with them.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



I have the habit to write down my dreams in the morning. it was only a few weeks ago that I saw someone do something which I had previously dreamed. I went to check my records and sure enough, I had dreamed about the person doing that thing before he had done it. I did not intend or control that sort of pre-cognition. It only served as a reminder of the truth of perception beyond normal means. None of these things you can grasp with scientific evidence or physical measurement tools. They are things to be experienced. Experience, experience, experience...thats what I have been pounding on since this thread started. And you guys say "evidence, evidence, evidence". And I reply "experience, experience, experience!"

These truths are not found out by studying and proving what IS, but by practicing and discipline. If you lack the discipline to study reality yourself and instead rely on philosophy and internet-links there is not much I can do.

But we werent even discussing paranormal phenomena.

We were discussing choice. You are denying that we have choice.

I am saying: Standing at the crossroads I can turn left, right, go straight, backwards or even jump up and down and make faces at you.

You are saying that somehow the impulse to go left or right has been pre-determined and is not under my control. The impulse was there before I decided on what way to go. So I go straight and you say "that was pre-determined". So, to counter that, I turn around and go back...I exercise choice...and you will say "that was pre-determined". That may or may not be the case, but even if it is the case, the IMPRESSION is still of me making a choice and the choice I make, making a difference. If I feel the inner urge to punch someone in the face I can will myself not to do it. And this will have the beneficial consequences of not getting into trouble.

Right now I am aware of my choice to quit writing or to continue writing. I am aware that I can decide that. I quit now. Well, I chose differently and I continue. There is no scientific "fact" in the world that is going to tell me otherwise. And this conclusion is arrived at after I have been open to the possibility that I have no choice and no self and have examined it. But I passed that weird notion many years ago. Its oddball science that I find even stranger than my spiritual claims.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


So, without providing links to "scientific authorities", explain to me in your own words...once again...how it is that I dont have choice and dont excersise choice. And also how it would be closer to the truth not to use the word "I" in my vocabulary anymore. Because I must be stupid, I am still not getting it. Tell me how this knowledge improves my day-to-day experience.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Again. And again. And again


Originally posted by Skyfloating
So, without providing links to "scientific authorities", explain to me in your own words...once again...how it is that I dont have choice and dont excersise choice.

I explained the reasoning in the early post titled 'And Again'.

I explained how the findings of neuroscience support the reasoning in my long post on -- I think -- Page Five. See the bullet points, which contain no links but merely summarize the conclusions with reference to the data.

In that post I also quoted you a paragraph of Hobbes in which he anticipates the findings of modern neuroscience with uncanny insight. Seventeenth-century English is not always easy to decipher, but Hobbes is lucid and has the advantage of speaking in simple terms, of 'nerves' and 'strings' and 'pressures' rather in than the jargon on modern neuroscience.

How much more explanation could you possibly want?


And also how it would be closer to the truth not to use the word "I" in my vocabulary anymore.

As you may have noticed, I have no difficulty whatsoever in making use of that word. The entity I am is real. It needs to be identified to others for practical reasons, and existing words do fine.

Look, I'm not trying to say you don't exist. Look back through my posts and see if you can find a single place where I say consciousness is nonexistent. It is the sense of self that is an illusion, and when I say 'self' in this context I mean an independent causal agent, an entity that is able to institute processes of cause and effect -- to act -- without its actions being determined by any prior cause. That is what you mean when you say you have free choice, that you exercise free will.

A human being is not that kind of actor. Our scope is limited by our genetic inheritance, upbringing, personal history and momentary circumstances, said circumstances including, naturally, the presence and actions of other people. There is no way in which we could act free of these determinants. To do so would be to act randomly, without purpose.

There now, I've explained it three times.


Tell me how this knowledge improves my day-to-day experience.

I don't know enough about you for that. But if you'd taken more time with the links than the few minutes it took to bolster your preconceptions, you might have picked up a few hints.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Alright, your point is now sinking in. You say that the self that sees itself as a causal agent is an illusion because that self is dependent on prior causes of nature, others, and forces which it cannot control.

You and that school of thought may be right.

But it seems to me that despite your evidence, I will go on pretending that I have choice and that my self causes various events and circumstances. I will pretend that if I make a certain decision that this will cause other circumstances to unfold had I not made that decision. Objections?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Trust Nature


Originally posted by Skyfloating
But it seems to me that despite your evidence, I will go on pretending that I have choice and that my self causes various events and circumstances. I will pretend that if I make a certain decision that this will cause other circumstances to unfold had I not made that decision. Objections?

None whatsoever.

The illusion of self and the delusion of free will are the way of making sense of the world that we, as conscious entities, have evolved. They are useful in the most fundamental way; they are how we perceive our interaction with the rest of the universe, that is, with reality. But what is reality, really? The endless crash of probabilities against the barrier reef of history, which grows ever bulkier with the baroque encrustations of their debris. What animal has evolved to perceive reality like that? None that we know of, though in the final analysis we cannot know what it is like to be an ichneumon wasp or a mole rat, or a liverwort, or any other living thing. Hell, we don't even know what the experience -- the conscous experince -- of other people's sensoria is really like.

So it makes eminent sense to continue as we are; it is how we are made to be.

Still, there are real consequences to this change of perspective. We stop trying to solve personal problems through 'will power'; we understand there is no such thing, and those who appear to succeed through the use of it are simply acting out their personal determinants of history, inheritance, etc. It is still praiseworthy, but we recognize that we cannot all be like these fortunate folk. Instead of trying to cure our addictions through force of will. the rest of us can try to create the conditions that will enable us to overcome them.

More profoundly, we stop blaming evil people (we still recognize that there are evil people, they are people who seem unable to stop themselves from responding to their determinants in a way the rest of us recognize as evil) and see them as having problems that need fixing -- or, if they are unfixable, finding another solution (the nature of which I leave to your taste) for the problem they represent.

This means we have to construct our moral philosophy without any reference to personal blame. Vengeance and 'closure' will have to go out the window. I am not suggesting that this will necessarily improve human behaviour; it could well make it worse. But if this is the truth -- a conclusion we are being inexorably led to by what we discover about the human organism -- then we shall have to face up to it, and deal with it.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Well, I gave your post a star because its the best you have written so far on this thread and allows me to comprehend the overall attitude of naturalism...something I did not understand before.

Interestingly, some of the same phrases I have voiced in the past, but not as a naturalist, more as a spiritual-minded person ("trust in life to take care of it").

I view this debate as finished, not in the sense of one side agreeing with the other, but in the sense of my understanding a new viewpoint.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 

Well comprehended!

Many thanks for the star.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I think you are mischaracterizing skeptics or making the extreme skeptics look like they represent the "normal" skeptic.

Like you said, if it were not for open-mindedness then we wouldn't have discovered all that we have thus far. So, where is the problem? Scientists have investigated the paranormal and there are a few explanations for them that don't debunk them. Sure, there will be those you will never convince of anything either way.

Also, the skeptics you describe wouldn't even believe in radio waves since they can't detect them with their senses.

If after 100's of years no one can find what others say is there in the paranormal world, then what can they do? They have to prioritize what they spend their research money on... curing disease or investigating ghosts.

jats

Lol, I just realized how old this thread is


[edit on 10-11-2007 by jats1]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join