"I am you" nonsense

Fenrir · **#81** by **Fenrir** » Oct 19, 2016 1:56 am

Wilbur wrote:
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.

Don't put your own inanity into my mouth, that just makes you look even more ridiculous, if that is possible.

ScholasticSpastic · **#82** by **ScholasticSpastic** » Oct 19, 2016 1:58 am

Wilbur wrote:
Your comment suggests you believe there's a perfectly mundane deflationary account for these experiences, what's the basis for that thinking?

THAT's what you're calling "wacky scientism?" :lol:

There is no evidence for anything other than a mundane account for the experiences. So.... "wacky scientism" means not wanting to make up weird shit when there isn't any evidence for it? I'll cop to that.

Wilbur · **#83** by **Wilbur** » Oct 19, 2016 2:15 am

Fenrir wrote:
Wilbur wrote:
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.

Don't put your own inanity into my mouth, that just makes you look even more ridiculous, if that is possible.

Plenty of reasonable people seem ridiculous to creationists and holocaust deniers, are you like one of the few rational people to have ever lived or something? It's much more likely that you're just another ideological brawler on the nets appealing to consensus in your home court. Tragic. You say I'm ridiculous, but realistically that's just not gonna mean very much outside your bubble and your bubble isn't really all that significant in the wider world. You're gonna have to do better.

Wilbur · **#84** by **Wilbur** » Oct 19, 2016 2:21 am

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

There is no evidence for anything other than a mundane account

Fenrir · **#85** by **Fenrir** » Oct 19, 2016 2:40 am

Wilbur wrote:
Fenrir wrote:
Wilbur wrote:
Fenrir wrote:
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.

Don't put your own inanity into my mouth, that just makes you look even more ridiculous, if that is possible.

Plenty of reasonable people seem ridiculous to creationists and holocaust deniers, are you like one of the few rational people to have ever lived or something? It's much more likely that you're just another ideological brawler on the nets appealing to consensus in your home court. Tragic. You say I'm ridiculous, but realistically that's just not gonna mean very much outside your bubble and your bubble isn't really all that significant in the wider world. You're gonna have to do better.

1/10

Troll better.

Wilbur · **#86** by **Wilbur** » Oct 19, 2016 2:42 am

Fenrir wrote:
Wilbur wrote:
Fenrir wrote:
Wilbur wrote:

... so therefore nothing is. You gotta dive deep to come up with such a perfect nugglet.

Don't put your own inanity into my mouth, that just makes you look even more ridiculous, if that is possible.

Plenty of reasonable people seem ridiculous to creationists and holocaust deniers, are you like one of the few rational people to have ever lived or something? It's much more likely that you're just another ideological brawler on the nets appealing to consensus in your home court. Tragic. You say I'm ridiculous, but realistically that's just not gonna mean very much outside your bubble and your bubble isn't really all that significant in the wider world. You're gonna have to do better.

1/10

Troll better.

Whatever dude.

Fallible · **#87** by **Fallible** » Oct 19, 2016 7:49 am

Oh look, wilbur's saying words.

Thomas Eshuis · **#88** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Oct 19, 2016 9:02 am

Wilbur wrote:
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.

What is it with you and your incesssant need to attack your interlocutors through straw-men?

Thomas Eshuis · **#89** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Oct 19, 2016 9:03 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.

Why don't you go ask on a scientism forum.

Thomas Eshuis · **#90** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Oct 19, 2016 9:04 am

Wilbur wrote:
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.

No, you got have no interest in an honest discussion to deliberately twist someone's words like that.

Thomas Eshuis · **#91** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Oct 19, 2016 9:05 am

Wilbur wrote:
Fenrir wrote:
Wilbur wrote:
Fenrir wrote:
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.

Don't put your own inanity into my mouth, that just makes you look even more ridiculous, if that is possible.

Plenty of reasonable people seem ridiculous to creationists and holocaust deniers, are you like one of the few rational people to have ever lived or something? It's much more likely that you're just another ideological brawler on the nets appealing to consensus in your home court. Tragic. You say I'm ridiculous, but realistically that's just not gonna mean very much outside your bubble and your bubble isn't really all that significant in the wider world. You're gonna have to do better.

Doubling down on your initial straw-manning with yet more dishonest straw-manning.
Who do you think you're fooling with this Wilbur?

Fallible · **#92** by **Fallible** » Oct 19, 2016 9:09 am

Every time I think I might be edging anywhere near to thinking wilbur has something useful to say, I recall the end of this thread.

Thomas Eshuis · **#93** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Oct 19, 2016 9:12 am

Wilbur · **#94** by **Wilbur** » Oct 20, 2016 10:12 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Why don't you go ask on a scientism forum.

Wilbur · **#95** by **Wilbur** » Oct 20, 2016 10:31 pm

Fallible wrote:Every time I think I might be edging anywhere near to thinking wilbur has something useful to say, I recall the end of this thread.

You didn't find that useful? You must be like totally oblivious to the sitchy ay shun.

I was flying when I typed that.

Kafei · **#96** by **Kafei** » Oct 21, 2016 3:05 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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.

It's not the only reference I've made. In the locked "Ground of All Being" thread, I made references to multiple studies. It's simply that Johns Hopkins simply has performing this research since about 2002, and has been collecting a lot of interesting data just over the past decade or so. Here's a link to multiple studies done at Johns Hopkins. There's also earlier studies such as "The Marsh Chapel Experiment," also known as "The Good Friday Experiment." There's also studies in the U.K. with psilocybin and the study of its effects on the brain via fMRI led by Dr. Carhart-Harris.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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.

I don't think the research is necessarily saying that it's the "same experience" for everyone. What they're saying is that in a full-blown mystical experience, the characteristics which are exhibited within the experience will be universal. And for the study, six of these core characteristics are definitive of the mystical experience.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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.

Again, I think you're missing the point. No one is arguing that people have "the same experiences," I'm not even sure what you mean by this statement. I get the impression that you think this is somehow trying to say that everyone sees the exact same type of hallucinations. That's not the case at all. The hallucinatory phenomena in the visual field may be quite similar, but I don't think people are seeing the exact same type of visual hallucinations.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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?

Well, for one, I've actually thoroughly read what these studies involve and what they're about, and I have first-hand experience with this psychedelics. People aren't attempting to unearth some type of meaning that wasn't there as some kind of longing to justify reason. They're attempting to describe to the best of their ability an inner experiential phenomenon, and this core characteristic of unity is in every case articulated by those volunteers that rate high for mystical experience.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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.

Yes, but no human being through their ordinary intuition declares the entire universe/multiverse all one. That's often a metaphor born out of the mystical experience.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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.

I believe these studies I've referred to, especially the Johns Hopkins studies, have clearly shown that the mystical experience does, in fact, possess characteristics that will be universal to anyone who undergoes this phenomenon in consciousness. You mentioned you "know of people." Well, the doses they're using at Johns Hopkins are akin to Terence McKenna's "heroic dose." I speak to many people online through forums and chatrooms, and it's not often that I find a person who's actually partook in this endeavor of the "heroic dose" for that these characteristics to even manifest at all, it is necessary to take such a dose to elicit a mystical experience in the first place. Many people, in fact, most people (atheists and theists alike) have not had such an experience.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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?

I have read carefully, and responded appropriately.

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

Blind assertion.

Well, you keep insisting on "it's not the same experience." Well, no one is arguing that it is.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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.

Whether we want to believe the mystical experience is somehow telling us something about the universe or not is irrelevant, I believe. What's noted is simply that it causes one to have the overwhelming intuition of interconnectedness. It's an aspect of the experience, whether it's true is another question. However, it is definitely highlighted as THE core characteristic amongst the 6 defining characteristics of mystical experience listed in the Hopkins studies.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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?

I'm obsessed with the topic, but not enough to actually become a physicist, I suppose. I've read books on QM, M-theory, string theory, etc. You don't need a citation. If you truly fathom the implications of something like M-theory (and not many people have a clue as to what this stuff is about), you will realize that it posits an 11-dimensional multiverse that is ultimately all interconnected. It's simply that no one is smart enough to scientifically confirm M-theory.

Fallible · **#97** by **Fallible** » Oct 21, 2016 8:08 am

Wilbur wrote:
Fallible wrote:Every time I think I might be edging anywhere near to thinking wilbur has something useful to say, I recall the end of this thread.

You didn't find that useful? You must be like totally oblivious to the sitchy ay shun.

I was flying when I typed that.

No way.

aban57 · **#98** by **aban57** » Oct 21, 2016 9:17 am

Fallible wrote:
Wilbur wrote:
Fallible wrote:Every time I think I might be edging anywhere near to thinking wilbur has something useful to say, I recall the end of this thread.

You didn't find that useful? You must be like totally oblivious to the sitchy ay shun.

I was flying when I typed that.

No way.

Maybe he was flying. Very high...

Fallible · **#99** by **Fallible** » Oct 21, 2016 9:22 am

Yep, that's what I took him to mean. The typed evidence, and the fact that he's said he only posts when on something, would seem to bear this out.

Wheelspawn · **#100** by **Wheelspawn** » Oct 09, 2018 3:52 am

It all makes a lot more sense after you've dropped acid. Take enough psychedelic drugs and you can become anything--another person, every person that ever lived, a tree, even your past or future self, God or nothing.

"I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Ads by Google

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re:

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re:

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Ads by Google

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Ads by Google

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Re: "I am you" nonsense

Who is online