"I am you" nonsense

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#61  Postby jamest » May 03, 2016 6:30 pm

GrahamH wrote:
jamest wrote:There is a good possibility that all the physical universe has the same underlying essence, so I'm not sure why that seems like a terrible idea for life/mind/consciousness.


Who are you replying to?

Monkey Bones seems very concerned with personal identity:

Picasso can't be Einstein. Picasso is Picasso, the 'you' in picasso is picasso. Doesn't matter how much changes he can do in his brain by taking nootropics or whatever, Picasso would still be the 'you' Picasso.



That's the opposite of your view, where there is no essential difference between you and Einstein.
What, for Monkey Bones sake, do you think makes jamest jamest and not Picasso?

You seem to be missing the point, which hinges upon 'essence'. I don't deny that there's a difference between the experience of being jamest and the experience of being Graham, though I do think that our fundamental essence is the same. Likewise, assuming the world were real, one could acknowledge the difference between bones and trees yet still think that they had the same fundamental essence.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18594
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#62  Postby laklak » May 03, 2016 6:40 pm

jamest wrote:From what I hear, only the good find it. ;)


Yeah but then they die young.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#63  Postby THWOTH » May 03, 2016 11:45 pm

:tehe:
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37117
Age: 56

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#64  Postby MetusBatman » Jul 20, 2016 9:56 am

daramantus wrote:I was reading some pseudoscience, to get some laughts, when I read a text that said that "We are all one" after death.
Meaning that "I am you", and "you are me". We are all connected after life, We are all one "consciousness", and we are all love, blah blah

What's the evidence? That we all gonna be friends , connected , etc?
If after life everything's a hell ? With Clows, Devil Entities? (I know It's a retarded idea, but who knows? If they say absurd claims, I can too) Even if after life there's a wave field and we all gonna be in form of energy, what's the prove that we all gon' be together?
There are proofs out there, with people who did OBE and saw devil entities, etc.. (which can be pure imagination) but even though, no one has even seen connection between people.. or "pure love" etc..
I know that some of you will be like "There is no life after dead" , but try to understand my view to debunk this retarded 'New Age crap.


It worries me that you're not able to discern the idea behind the "You are me and I am you." - Ever heard of empathy? Empathy isn't new age.
MetusBatman
 
Name: Fuckoff
Posts: 1

Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#65  Postby Kafei » Oct 15, 2016 3:18 am

There is a phenomenon in consciousness that science is labelling "mystical experience" which mystics have been engaging throughout history. And when one has this universal experience, one of the core defining characteristics is the powerful intuition that all is one, that all people and things are ultimately connected, everything exists as a unicity. Now, as to why that exists in our species, we're not sure. That's why we've got such studies right now investigating the mystical experience, but even physicists talk about the multiverse ultimately being an interconnected unicity. The mystic and the physicist seem to have come to the same conclusion.

Why such things aren't mentioned in a topic like this is beyond me. Perhaps most people haven't gotten the memo based on research that has taken place in the past few decades, and new studies that are currently in place now.
Last edited by Kafei on Oct 15, 2016 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kafei
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 793

Country: United States
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#66  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Oct 15, 2016 3:21 am

Does that really mean anything beyond the fact that we're empathetic, social animals, and sometimes our brains kick that function into action beyond useful levels?

Experience and truth are two very different beasts, and we mistake one for the other at our peril.
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 46
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#67  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 15, 2016 8:35 am

Kafei wrote:There is a phenomenon in consciousness that science is labelling "mystical experience" which mystics have been engaging throughout history. And when one has this universal experience, one of the core defining characteristics is the powerful intuition that all is one, that all people and things are ultimately connected, everything exists as a unicity. Now, as to why that exists in our species, we're not sure. That's why we've got such studies right now investigating the mystical experience, but even physicists talk about the multiverse ultimately being an interconnected unicity. The mystic and the physicist seem to have come to the same conclusion.

Why such things aren't mentioned in a topic like this is beyond me. Perhaps most people haven't gotten the memo based on research that has taken place in the past few decades, and new studies that are currently in place now.

1. Roland Griffiths =/= scientists.
2. Giving a name to phenomenon, doesn't mean there's actually something more to the phenomenon.
3. The bolded bit is not at all special. Humans have a strong tendency to look for cause and effect and to view the world as interrelated without the need for mystical experiences.
4. The reason for 3 and why 4 is absolute nonsense, is that it gives humans a survival advantage, by recognising and deducing cause and effect we learn how to interact with various phenomena in the world.
5. Citation if you please. Everything is connected due to the virtue of there being no absolute barriers, for example, between our universe and another. That's the same as there being some kind of mystical force that connects us all.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#68  Postby Kafei » Oct 16, 2016 2:44 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:There is a phenomenon in consciousness that science is labelling "mystical experience" which mystics have been engaging throughout history. And when one has this universal experience, one of the core defining characteristics is the powerful intuition that all is one, that all people and things are ultimately connected, everything exists as a unicity. Now, as to why that exists in our species, we're not sure. That's why we've got such studies right now investigating the mystical experience, but even physicists talk about the multiverse ultimately being an interconnected unicity. The mystic and the physicist seem to have come to the same conclusion.

Why such things aren't mentioned in a topic like this is beyond me. Perhaps most people haven't gotten the memo based on research that has taken place in the past few decades, and new studies that are currently in place now.

1. Roland Griffiths =/= scientists.


I'm not referring to specifically Griffiths' work, but multiple studies done by various professionals in the field ranging from neuroscientists, neurologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, psychopharmocologists, etc. Why would you think I'm simply referring to one particular person?
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
2. Giving a name to phenomenon, doesn't mean there's actually something more to the phenomenon.


It does however mean that it is, indeed, an extant phenomenon. While there are vast implications to these studies and their findings, no one is claiming anything "supernatural" here, if that's what you're getting at.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
3. The bolded bit is not at all special. Humans have a strong tendency to look for cause and effect and to view the world as interrelated without the need for mystical experiences.

Yeah, but this is not that. This is not some intellectual tendency to look for cause and effect. This experience literally gives an impression of everything that exists being ultimately one. It's arises out of a powerful intuition, and not some "strong human tendency to search for cause and effect."
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
4. The reason for 3 and why 4 is absolute nonsense, is that it gives humans a survival advantage, by recognising and deducing cause and effect we learn how to interact with various phenomena in the world.

Reason 3 wasn't even a criticism towards this phenomenon. It's more of a misunderstanding of it. Reason 4 seems it's a more apt description to describe an aspect of Darwin's "survival of the fittest."
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
5. Citation if you please. Everything is connected due to the virtue of there being no absolute barriers, for example, between our universe and another. That's the same as there being some kind of mystical force that connects us all.

Well, simply look into any attempt at a TOE (Theory of Everything) in physics. The implication of things like M-theory or string theory is that the multiverse, in all its vastness, is ultimately a unicity.
User avatar
Kafei
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 793

Country: United States
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#69  Postby Wilbur » Oct 16, 2016 5:07 am

ScholasticSpastic wrote:Does that really mean anything beyond the fact that we're empathetic, social animals, and sometimes our brains kick that function into action beyond useful levels?


Possibly, it's an open question.

Experience and truth are two very different beasts, and we mistake one for the other at our peril.


Same for opinion and fact.
baby hatred.
User avatar
Wilbur
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#70  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 16, 2016 9:17 am

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:There is a phenomenon in consciousness that science is labelling "mystical experience" which mystics have been engaging throughout history. And when one has this universal experience, one of the core defining characteristics is the powerful intuition that all is one, that all people and things are ultimately connected, everything exists as a unicity. Now, as to why that exists in our species, we're not sure. That's why we've got such studies right now investigating the mystical experience, but even physicists talk about the multiverse ultimately being an interconnected unicity. The mystic and the physicist seem to have come to the same conclusion.

Why such things aren't mentioned in a topic like this is beyond me. Perhaps most people haven't gotten the memo based on research that has taken place in the past few decades, and new studies that are currently in place now.

1. Roland Griffiths =/= scientists.


I'm not referring to specifically Griffiths' work, but multiple studies done by various professionals in the field ranging from neuroscientists, neurologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, psychopharmocologists, etc. Why would you think I'm simply referring to one particular person?

Because that's the only reference you offer while making a claim about a consensus of scientists.
If you make a claim about a consensus you need to either cite multiple studies by leading scientists in the field, or cite at least one meta-study.

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
2. Giving a name to phenomenon, doesn't mean there's actually something more to the phenomenon.

It does however mean that it is, indeed, an extant phenomenon.

The phenomenon is that people claim to have mystical experiences.
That doesn't mean there's anything interconnected about it or that it's the same experience for everyone.


Kafei wrote:
While there are vast implications to these studies and their findings, no one is claiming anything "supernatural" here, if that's what you're getting at.

Neither does it demonstrate that all these people are having the same experiences.

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
3. The bolded bit is not at all special. Humans have a strong tendency to look for cause and effect and to view the world as interrelated without the need for mystical experiences.

Yeah, but this is not that.

How do you know this?

Kafei wrote:This is not some intellectual tendency to look for cause and effect.

Hence why I never mentioned the intellect. It's got nothing to do with intellect, it's an instinctual way humans look at the world.

Kafei wrote:
This experience literally gives an impression of everything that exists being ultimately one.

Some of them do, others do not.
You keep asserting or pretending all people who claim to have had mystical experiences, experience the same thing.
You have not demonstrated this and I know of people who did not experience this 'all is ultimately one' feeling.

Kafei wrote:
It's arises out of a powerful intuition, and not some "strong human tendency to search for cause and effect."

:picard:

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
4. The reason for 3 and why 4 is absolute nonsense, is that it gives humans a survival advantage, by recognising and deducing cause and effect we learn how to interact with various phenomena in the world.

Reason 3 wasn't even a criticism towards this phenomenon.

Never said it was. Could you take more care to actually read what I post, rather than presenting various answers and criticisms to things I haven't actually stated?

Kafei wrote:
It's more of a misunderstanding of it.

Blind assertion.

Kafei wrote: Reason 4 seems it's a more apt description to describe an aspect of Darwin's "survival of the fittest."

Except:
1. That's not Darwin's that's Herbert Spencer's.
2. It matters fuck all to the point I'm making.
It's far more simple and rational explanation than the assertion that mystical experiences actually tell us something about the universe.

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
5. Citation if you please. Everything is connected due to the virtue of there being no absolute barriers, for example, between our universe and another. That's the same as there being some kind of mystical force that connects us all.

Well, simply look into any attempt at a TOE (Theory of Everything) in physics. The implication of things like M-theory or string theory is that the multiverse, in all its vastness, is ultimately a unicity.

Failure to provide even a single citation has been noted.
What exactly is your expertise in physics?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#71  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 16, 2016 9:21 am

Oh and before we get to far into this disussion Kafei, can you provide a rigourous definition of what consitutes a mystical experience?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#72  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Oct 16, 2016 11:05 pm

Wilbur wrote:
Possibly, it's an open question.

Every question can be an open question if you're farting around with mysticism of the gaps. Do you have a position on this? Or are you just stirring shit?
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 46
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#73  Postby Alan B » Oct 17, 2016 12:12 pm

Far be it for me to enter the world of woo, but if, through some form of thinking discipline, a sense of 'enlightenment' can be achieved, then it would be the same for each person simply because our brains are biologically the same. The only difference between our brains is the memory and learning pathways which makes us different from one person to another.
Because of these differences any mind-state of so-called 'enlightenment' (which may be a 'fundamental' mind-state - careful, mind the woo here, AB) will be described quite differently from one person to another, sometimes in terms of the most outrageous woo, which gives no credence for such a mind-state, if indeed it does exist.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9999
Age: 85
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#74  Postby Wilbur » Oct 19, 2016 1:20 am

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
Wilbur wrote:
Possibly, it's an open question.

Every question can be an open question if you're farting around with mysticism of the gaps. Do you have a position on this? Or are you just stirring shit?


My position is that it's an open question. Your wacky scientism doesn't resolve the issue, it's just your catechism.
Last edited by Wilbur on Oct 19, 2016 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
baby hatred.
User avatar
Wilbur
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#75  Postby Wilbur » Oct 19, 2016 1:23 am

What is the scientistic position? Some things once thought supernatural turned out to be physical so therefore everything is? That's retarded.
baby hatred.
User avatar
Wilbur
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#76  Postby Wilbur » Oct 19, 2016 1:26 am

Wait, is the scientistic position that once some poor benighted fools thought everything was supernatural so therefore nothing is?
baby hatred.
User avatar
Wilbur
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#77  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Oct 19, 2016 1:32 am

Wilbur wrote:
My position is that it's an open question. Your wacky scientism doesn't resolve the issue, it's just your catechism.

Given that you seem to know so much about what I think, would you be so kind as to tell me more about this "wacky scientism" to which I subscribe? Because it's the first time I've heard about it. You may be the only one I can trust, since I've been keeping this from me.
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 46
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#78  Postby Fenrir » Oct 19, 2016 1:40 am

Wilbur wrote:What is the scientistic position? Some things once thought supernatural turned out to be physical so therefore everything is? That's retarded.

Not quite.

Of all the things science has so far investigated precisely zero have yet been found to be explained by majick.

"Scientism" is simply a wolf-whistle employed by the hard of thinking to dismiss criticism of their imaginary security blanket.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3621
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#79  Postby Wilbur » Oct 19, 2016 1:46 am

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
Wilbur wrote:
My position is that it's an open question. Your wacky scientism doesn't resolve the issue, it's just your catechism.

Given that you seem to know so much about what I think, would you be so kind as to tell me more about this "wacky scientism" to which I subscribe? Because it's the first time I've heard about it. You may be the only one I can trust, since I've been keeping this from me.


Your comment suggests you believe there's a perfectly mundane deflationary account for these experiences, what's the basis for that thinking?
baby hatred.
User avatar
Wilbur
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 641

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re:

#80  Postby Wilbur » Oct 19, 2016 1:52 am

Fenrir wrote:
Wilbur wrote:What is the scientistic position? Some things once thought supernatural turned out to be physical so therefore everything is? That's retarded.

Not quite.

Of all the things science has so far investigated precisely zero have yet been found to be explained by majick.



... so therefore nothing is. You gotta dive deep to come up with such a perfect nugglet.
baby hatred.
User avatar
Wilbur
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 641

United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests