What is reality, what is a 2x4?

[Tomas]

Tomas (Toe-mass),

Thanks for the birthday wishes, I never would have expected them on this forum of all places!

every good boy deserves favour
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... Favour.jpg [zoom image]

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The specific aspect of the supernatural that I am talking about both exists and can be known, and when known, is still "supernatural", at least by my definition.

For you the therm "knowledge" seems to be not much more than a set of experiences and hearsay, shared or not. This means that to you knowledge equals opinion (to talk with Spinoza). But if so much is known about it then tell me: what is its nature?

So your primary evidence is whatever comes up in your mind then?

This is a cheap manipulation of what I've written, Diebert, and you ought to know it. My primary evidence is my personal experience.

What's the difference between personal experience and things coming up in ones mind then? Honestly, it's hard for me to understand apart from the obvious difference you make in one being a "cheap" way of saying it and the other a more satisfying way for you to frame it?

guest_of_logic: Moreover, I have twice asked you explicitly what it would take in the way of evidence to convince you, and you have failed to respond on both occasions.

No, I replied the same thing each and every time that the question seems seriously flawed and it would be ignorant to ask as well as to answer it. That's not a failure to respond, that's just you not agreeing with my response. Big difference.

In the light of the above it certainly should be clear by now that I cannot tell you how the supernatural (harmful spirits or whatever) could be accepted as "real". Since there's no clear uniform description of the nature of these entities, there can be no path towards any determination or falsification made available. I did make a reference to the work of Jacques Vallée earlier for an example of the difficulties of such material (supernatural encounters). Perhaps another answer would be then: first present more clearly which experiences are classified as encounters with spirits and how to interpret the exchange (harm/beneficial). This research is not even started to the level it needs to be before research on its nature could be done systematically. Although you might think there's research because you've read two books, I've read 400 books on it and experienced (to me) way crazier things and I still don't know what it is what people think they are talking about. And generally they just don't.

This is why I asked you "convince me of what?", not because I didn't remember the question but because the question revolves around a topic with no nature, no specifics that as such could be answered specifically or factually. The correct question should be "do you believe"... and answers offered like "I believe, "I do not" and "I'm not sure". Mine is an informed "I'm not sure and you shouldn't be that much either". If sanity is the goal.

[Cathy Preston]

Cathy,

1. You experienced something and you have no explanation for it, so you go about the important task of pinning it down.
2. Your responses imply that you know what exactly is normally happening, except your responses reveal that you don't.
3. The world is enthralling isn't it.



1. Right.
2. I see. So, what exactly is it that's happening normally that (in your estimation) I don't know?
3. Without a doubt.

Nature or the natural, which encompasses spirituality, is the most significant implication of reality. Maybe it's time to let go of dualistic concepts and just let the mind rest on what is.
^

[Talking Ass]

[Diebert, those 400 titles: would you mind listing, say, 50 of them? I'd like to begin reading. True, I will never approach you, yet I may get a little closer...]

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I'd like to begin reading.

I'd like to live to see that day! To my 400 grads you must have turned at least 144000.

[Pincho Paxton]

Reality is the freedom of the mind's translation process. A man speaks in Chinese, then the translator changes it to English. The mind hears the translator, and the words become pictures, and meanings. The Chinese was the reality, the translation was a weakened imitation of the true words. So reality is outside of the translation process. We can ignore the translation of a photon into colours by suggesting that the photon is creating a wave. We can also suggest how the wave is formed, and so ignore the wave as well. We can break all of the physics down into reality by ignoring our own senses, and changing everything into physics.

If you want true reality, ignore the translation process created in your own mind.