savithru wrote:No, a justification has to be given as to why I have chosen this road. After two centuries of scientific research all that John Bell asks in the end is "Who do we think we are?".

Do we then have to fall back on ‘no signaling faster than light’ as the expression of the fundamental causal structure of contemporary theoretical physics? That is hard for me to accept. For one thing we have lost the idea that correlations can be explained, or at least this idea awaits reformulation. More importantly, the ‘no signaling …’ notion rests on concepts that are desperately vague, or vaguely applicable. The assertion that ‘we cannot signal faster than light’ immediately provokes the question:

Who do we think we are?

We who make ‘measurements,’ we who can manipulate ‘external fields,’ we who can ‘signal’ at all, even if not faster than light. Do we include chemists, or only physicists, plants, or only animals, pocket calculators, or only mainframe computers? (Bell 1990, Sec. 6.12)

Penrose, Einstein and John Bell were all those people who favored a realist world-view and were unhappy with what quantum physics was saying. In fact Penrose even goes on to say that quantum mechanics at this point of time makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Anton Zeilinger thinks that everything should be interpreted in terms of information. Science as an enterprise was there to lift that veil and help us understand how the universe really works and answer those big philosophical questions. That's why I am a strong Platonic realist and this too is the philosophical conclusion of Bernard D'Espagnat after his lifetime research in quantum mechanics which is called as "Open Realism". I want to understand the way the universe works, that's why I was interested in science not for anything else. So why should I put my money, effort and time on an enterprise which is stagnant and reached a dead end?

The pagans mystery religions knew who we are, they knew that human beings are mere puppets at the hands of gods who controlled all their free will and their fate. When Gnostics said this bitter truth out to everyone the secular world and the established religions persecuted them, silenced them and wiped them out completely. I am not after medals, honors, reputation, doctorates or something else. I want to pursue truth.

I would really like to see some of this stuff actually happen from your OP;

"By magical incantation rapid rivers may be made to run back to their fountains, the sea be congealed, winds become destitute of spirit, the sun be held back in his course, the moon be forced to scatter her foam, the stars be torn from their orbits, the day be taken away, and the night be detained."

- Iamblichus on the mysteries of Egyptians, Chaldeans and Assyrians.

Could you tell me where and when any of this has happened or when you could perform a demonstration for us. What you have posted there are claims of observable phenomena, evidence of which would convince pretty much everyone here I should think, that you aren't regurgitating vapid shit with no basis in reality and that we should take you seriously. Any chance of that happening in the near future?

Many think that mysticism is something which only happens inside our heads and reject it as hallucinations or dogmatically use mysticism to affirm monism or solipsism. Both of these people are wrong, mysticism can produce real empirical effects in reality, the witches of the ancient times used to do it and based on what I know it should be possible in the near future.

Rumraket wrote:

CharlieM wrote:

Animavore wrote:

CharlieM wrote:

The entire cosmos exists but it is meaningless to ask where the cosmos exists.

No it's not. It exists everywhere. All around us.

So the cosmos takes up the same space as your body? Two entities occupying the same space.

One is part of the other, there is no issue here. Animavore is part of the cosmos.

CharlieM wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

CharlieM wrote:

Animavore wrote:

No it's not. It exists everywhere. All around us.

So the cosmos takes up the same space as your body? Two entities occupying the same space.

One is part of the other, there is no issue here. Animavore is part of the cosmos.

Just as we are part of a higher reality. An earthworm is part of the same universe as us but has very little awareness relative to ours. This does not mean that we are omniscient, only that we are (slightly)more aware than worms. The reality of the cosmos is not dictated by the amount of awareness we happen to have at this present time. Physical substance does not constitute all of reality, it only constitutes that which human beings are aware of.

CharlieM wrote:

The world of vision is an unknown realm to a man who has been blind from birth. It is part of the realm he lives in only he does not perceive it.

savithru wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

savithru wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

A book published in 1987. That's the sum of your knowledge about neuroscience? A book that offers a basic introduction to molecular biology. Not a neuroscience text, a basic general molecular biology one. Published in 1987. Wow. I'm impressed. Therefore Mithras is real.

Off to sacrifice a bull. brb

I'm no fucking Hindu, you can sacrifice as many bulls as you want. I'm a Gnostic.

I'm not really that interested in what you are, or what you claim to be. What I am interested in still, and have been from the moment I saw this thread, is seeing some of your claims demonstrated.

No, a justification has to be given as to why I have chosen this road. After two centuries of scientific research all that John Bell asks in the end is "Who do we think we are?".

Do we then have to fall back on ‘no signaling faster than light’ as the expression of the fundamental causal structure of contemporary theoretical physics? That is hard for me to accept. For one thing we have lost the idea that correlations can be explained, or at least this idea awaits reformulation. More importantly, the ‘no signaling …’ notion rests on concepts that are desperately vague, or vaguely applicable. The assertion that ‘we cannot signal faster than light’ immediately provokes the question:

Who do we think we are?

We who make ‘measurements,’ we who can manipulate ‘external fields,’ we who can ‘signal’ at all, even if not faster than light. Do we include chemists, or only physicists, plants, or only animals, pocket calculators, or only mainframe computers? (Bell 1990, Sec. 6.12)

Penrose, Einstein and John Bell were all those people who favored a realist world-view and were unhappy with what quantum physics was saying. In fact Penrose even goes on to say that quantum mechanics at this point of time makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Anton Zeilinger thinks that everything should be interpreted in terms of information. Science as an enterprise was there to lift that veil and help us understand how the universe really works and answer those big philosophical questions. That's why I am a strong Platonic realist and this too is the philosophical conclusion of Bernard D'Espagnat after his lifetime research in quantum mechanics which is called as "Open Realism". I want to understand the way the universe works, that's why I was interested in science not for anything else. So why should I put my money, effort and time on an enterprise which is stagnant and reached a dead end?

The pagans mystery religions knew who we are, they knew that human beings are mere puppets at the hands of gods who controlled all their free will and their fate. When Gnostics said this bitter truth out to everyone the secular world and the established religions persecuted them, silenced them and wiped them out completely. I am not after medals, honors, reputation, doctorates or something else. I want to pursue truth.

I would really like to see some of this stuff actually happen from your OP;

"By magical incantation rapid rivers may be made to run back to their fountains, the sea be congealed, winds become destitute of spirit, the sun be held back in his course, the moon be forced to scatter her foam, the stars be torn from their orbits, the day be taken away, and the night be detained."

- Iamblichus on the mysteries of Egyptians, Chaldeans and Assyrians.

Could you tell me where and when any of this has happened or when you could perform a demonstration for us. What you have posted there are claims of observable phenomena, evidence of which would convince pretty much everyone here I should think, that you aren't regurgitating vapid shit with no basis in reality and that we should take you seriously. Any chance of that happening in the near future?

Many think that mysticism is something which only happens inside our heads and reject it as hallucinations or dogmatically use mysticism to affirm monism or solipsism. Both of these people are wrong, mysticism can produce real empirical effects in reality, the witches of the ancient times used to do it and based on what I know it should be possible in the near future.

hackenslash wrote:But can you actually demonstrate dualism?

“If I were asked under what sky the human mind has most fully developed some of its choicest gifts, has most deeply pondered over the greatest problems of life, and has found solutions of some of them which well deserve the attention even of those who have studied Plato and Kant, I should point to India.’’- Max Mueller

monkeyboy wrote:
You know something? I'm confused here. All the current religions kicking around, at least that I'm aware of anyway, make big fat claims which are never demonstrated such as prayer being answered and essentially, they all boil down to a complete reliance on faith in their claims and belief in god/s who leave no evidence of any interaction with their believers. You started off by introducing the idea of powers such as turning rivers around. Now that would be awesome evidence of some serious powers there, just that one. Why would religions such as Christianity take hold, reliant as it is on faith and piss poor evidence when there were people around who could call on the powers you introduced?

How would those people be persecuted by mere mortal believers when they could do things like suspend daylight etc?

Why in the near future and not now? Its kind of like you are asking people for faith in things you can't deliver, that you have no more evidence for than Christians with their faith in the power of prayer and yet somehow, despite having no belief that prayer works, I'm supposed to just accept what you say. Do explain what difference there is in what you say compared to what they say, not the content of the claims, the ability to deliver on your claims.

LucidFlight wrote:Though we are mere earthworms in the context of the upper realms of the ultra-reality which encapsulates all, we should not be discouraged by the tube-shaped, segmented body which is the vessel of our human-based earthworm-like consciousness and neuron-based state of material sensational awareness in the vast garden of the higher realms, filled with its flowers and berries of pure thought. Many of us, with strong belief and pure concentration, can realise a dynamic quantum-energy-consciousness density arrangement which enables transcendence of the primal physical plane, towards the astral zones of ultimate mental experience. Eventually, we will come to know that which eludes the scientismistic mindset of dogmatic atheism and its ancient cries of naïve realism.

savithru wrote:My God is falsifiable where as the Christian God is not. I also want my religion to be banned because we really don't like mass worship and have no ideas of establishing or forming a religion.

savithru wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:
You know something? I'm confused here. All the current religions kicking around, at least that I'm aware of anyway, make big fat claims which are never demonstrated such as prayer being answered and essentially, they all boil down to a complete reliance on faith in their claims and belief in god/s who leave no evidence of any interaction with their believers. You started off by introducing the idea of powers such as turning rivers around. Now that would be awesome evidence of some serious powers there, just that one. Why would religions such as Christianity take hold, reliant as it is on faith and piss poor evidence when there were people around who could call on the powers you introduced?

Simon the magician was right there when Christianity was at its early stages. But we have no control with what gods had already preordained.

How would those people be persecuted by mere mortal believers when they could do things like suspend daylight etc?

By the time Christianity took over, religion was almost transforming from esoteric to exoteric dogmatic faith based systems so it would be hard to find such individuals.

Why in the near future and not now? Its kind of like you are asking people for faith in things you can't deliver, that you have no more evidence for than Christians with their faith in the power of prayer and yet somehow, despite having no belief that prayer works, I'm supposed to just accept what you say. Do explain what difference there is in what you say compared to what they say, not the content of the claims, the ability to deliver on your claims.

My God is falsifiable where as the Christian God is not. I also want my religion to be banned because we really don't like mass worship and have no ideas of establishing or forming a religion.

LucidFlight wrote:Though we are mere earthworms in the context of the upper realms of the ultra-reality which encapsulates all, we should not be discouraged by the tube-shaped, segmented body which is the vessel of our human-based earthworm-like consciousness and neuron-based state of material sensational awareness in the vast garden of the higher realms, filled with its flowers and berries of pure thought. Many of us, with strong belief and pure concentration, can realise a dynamic quantum-energy-consciousness density arrangement which enables transcendence of the primal physical plane, towards the astral zones of ultimate mental experience. Eventually, we will come to know that which eludes the scientismistic mindset of dogmatic atheism and its ancient cries of naïve realism.

savithru wrote:Kant has already divided the world into phenomena and the noumena.

According to Kant all human knowledge has to come from the senses, there is no way of knowing the noumenon.

Concepts like God and Forms fall into the realm of noumenon and hence unknowable by human beings.

We completely agree with Kant but assert that there is a way to study the platonic realm without using the sense organs.

savithru wrote:My God is falsifiable where as the Christian God is not.

savithru wrote:Many think that mysticism is something which only happens inside our heads and reject it as hallucinations or dogmatically use mysticism to affirm monism or solipsism. Both of these people are wrong, mysticism can produce real empirical effects in reality, the witches of the ancient times used to do it and based on what I know it should be possible in the near future.