What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by guest_of_logic »

Diebert,

How can you conceive of yourself as a "rationality nurse" when you exclude a whole category of explanation from the start? You have made it clear that you do this both implicitly through your skeptical questions and explicitly through such statements as: 'Also, supernatural explanations are in my view never "highly probably" since they always raise way more problematic questions than they ever solve'.

I think that before continuing this discussion it would be worth exploring this by taking Kunga's initiative to the utmost and for you to describe just what it would take to convince you of the supernatural. Is there anything at all? What would it be? Because, if it turns out that even in principle you cannot be convinced, then there's no point in continuing this discussion.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

guest_of_logic wrote:.... you exclude a whole category of explanation from the start... through such statements as: 'Also, supernatural explanations are in my view never "highly probably" since they always raise way more problematic questions than they ever solve'.
Problematic in the sense of being convinced in a rational sense, evidence based, which demands a grounding in natural things to produce knowledge. See also methodological naturalism and the line I most agree with: "the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural". And I think one should be careful to imply there are other ways of asserting explanations in this simple natural sense of the mechanics of the physical (health, disease, probabilities, fortune, etc).
I think that before continuing this discussion it would be worth exploring this by taking Kunga's initiative to the utmost and for you to describe just what it would take to convince you of the supernatural. Is there anything at all? What would it be? Because, if it turns out that even in principle you cannot be convinced, then there's no point in continuing this discussion.
Well, my point was exactly that from the start: that the question of being convinced or the impossibility to be convinced is a false one, steeped in deep ignorance about simple logical principles. The term "conviction" is impossible to distinguish here from faith. Let me take you back to what I think was your first outspoken statement you're still defending I guess: "I recognize through experience and through reading, that there are metaphysical forces beyond humanity that wish it ill". Can I translate that to I believe? But then you continued with claiming "solid reasons" and "research" which boiled down to quoting a collection of personal unverified stories from various books, forum members and a distance memory of some Ouija board session. Are these solid reasons and actual research by your definition? If so, we never had a real discussion to begin with.

If you really think that what you listed so far are "solid reasons" and "research" which should convince a skeptical, cautious mind than you haven't experienced yet anything worthwhile in this area. I could tell dozens of way greater personal stories and wilder personal beliefs. But I won't since this is not the issue. Your approach is wrong, your fundamentals are way off and the supernatural will remain a distraction for you this way, something to play with. Check out some of the great occultists of history and you'll notice that many of them are actually very hard-nosed and real skeptics. You will find them too rational and not pleasant. Simply because in magic the first thing one learns is the deceptive magick of the mind.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Kunga »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:deceptive magick of the mind.
Yet you regard without question, that the glass of water you're drinking while your sitting at the table is all real.
Conventional reality is looked upon by those that know Absolute reality, as being false.
So, a coffee pot levitating[naturally] , is just as unreal, as you sitting at the table drinking a glass of water.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Kunga wrote:So, a coffee pot levitating[naturally] , is just as unreal, as you sitting at the table drinking a glass of water.
Be as that may, if the first event doesn't spike more curiosity or concern than the second event, one might as well be dead already.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Kunga »

LOL
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by guest_of_logic »

Diebert,

I've got very little energy at the moment and my stamina in this exchange is starting to peter out, so this will again be a short post.

Three possible rational responses to the question, "Is the supernatural, particularly spirits, most particularly those spirits that wish humanity harm, real?", are:
a. Based on weighing the evidence on the balance of probabilities:
a.1. yes it is, or
a.2. no it is not, or
b. I reserve judgement, either because I don't have enough evidence, because I don't care to know the answer, or for some other reason.

In my last post, I questioned you as to what evidence it would take for you to answer with a.1, and you replied: "Well, my point was exactly that from the start: that the question of being convinced or the impossibility to be convinced is a false one, steeped in deep ignorance about simple logical principles". This is a dodge, plain and simple, not to mention one steeped in deep condescension, and so I will simply put the question to you again, in different terms:

Do you agree that the second answer that I listed above, a.2, is possible in principle, and, if so, what evidence would it take for you to choose it in practice; if not, why not?

I will also ask you an additional question: which out of those three possibilities best reflects your own answer?

I may respond more fully if/when my energy returns.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by cousinbasil »

Kunga wrote:No. But my daughter had a dream, that one was trying to get inside her body, and the same night her children had the same dream.
So what is your logical explanation ? To me it sounds like, A=A.
Say K - you're a grandma? Congrats!

But how and when was it determined that the dreams were the same? Recalling one's own dream often changes it, especially when relating it - this may be to make it clearer to oneself, or more intelligible to the one who is hearing it. I suggest if they were all discussing, there is no possible way to determine that it was "the same dream"; rather more likely that the narratives merged.
Say you were sitting down at your table drinking a glass of water, relaxing, going over some notes or reading......then the coffee pot on the stove levitated and slowly came towards you, and poured in your glass left over coffee. What would be your rational explanation ?
Let's say Bilbo Baggins came to your house and wanted to store something in your jewelry safe. What would be you rational explanation? Or if your dog began writing poetry?

But Kunga, don't forget that Diebert still can't explain why his fellow acid-droppers saw him wearing a red hat. Perhaps the coffee pot thing would be a flashback?
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Kunga »

cousinbasil wrote:
Kunga wrote:No. But my daughter had a dream, that one was trying to get inside her body, and the same night her children had the same dream.
So what is your logical explanation ? To me it sounds like, A=A.
Say K - you're a grandma? Congrats!



>>>>>>>She got married young[16].


But how and when was it determined that the dreams were the same? Recalling one's own dream often changes it, especially when relating it - this may be to make it clearer to oneself, or more intelligible to the one who is hearing it. I suggest if they were all discussing, there is no possible way to determine that it was "the same dream"; rather more likely that the narratives merged.



>>>>>>>>Her kids woke her up that night [scared], I will ask her how that scenerio went, but if I recall, they all had a dream the same night of a demon trying to enter their body. One of her sons told her about it the next morning [didn't know that their mother even had the same dream].
Say you were sitting down at your table drinking a glass of water, relaxing, going over some notes or reading......then the coffee pot on the stove levitated and slowly came towards you, and poured in your glass left over coffee. What would be your rational explanation ?
Let's say Bilbo Baggins came to your house and wanted to store something in your jewelry safe. What would be you rational explanation? Or if your dog began writing poetry?




>>>>>>>>>Dogs writing poetry is not a common occurrance. People seeing or experiencing ghosts or demons is very common, and has been reported/recorded throught history.


But Kunga, don't forget that Diebert still can't explain why his fellow acid-droppers saw him wearing a red hat. Perhaps the coffee pot thing would be a flashback?
No, I said it wasn't a hallucination.

Anyways...the paranormal activity experienced by humans is a known fact, reguardless if can be proved or not. Dogs writing poetry is even more absurd than the possiblility of demons or ghosts appearing, simply because of it being reported and recorded throught history.

Doesn't that have any significance ?
Shouldn't human reports throught history be considered evidence enough ?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

guest_of_logic wrote: Three possible rational responses to the question, "Is the supernatural, particularly spirits, most particularly those spirits that wish humanity harm, real?", are:
a. Based on weighing the evidence on the balance of probabilities:
a.1. yes it is, or
a.2. no it is not, or
b. I reserve judgement, either because I don't have enough evidence, because I don't care to know the answer, or for some other reason.
But a1 and a2 are both irrational responses considering any answer to those would need the phenomena to be studied to become first something natural. Which means stuff like probabilities, repetition, law, cause, effect. The moment the spirit world could be examined and explored like that it would become automatically part of the model of a natural world, like stars and planets are these days but weren't always. If your question is: can the unknown one day become more known, then my answer is obviously yes. But one cannot say "the unknown is real" since it's still unknown what we're dealing with exactly. Only the phenomena are real, the experiences are real, but all the various explanations and meanings assigns are definitely not!

Do you agree that the second answer that I listed above, a.2, is possible in principle, and, if so, what evidence would it take for you to choose it in practice; if not, why not?
The deep condescension you experience has in my view to do with your flat out refusal to accept any possibility you having a good brain could be so wrong on such a fundamental reasoning. That resistence you are projecting on a perceived dismissing and hostile tone. It's entirely an emotional issue on your side which I have to deal with each and every post but I can be patient.
I may respond more fully if/when my energy returns.
Take care! Don't feel rushed.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by cousinbasil »

Kunga wrote:Dogs writing poetry is not a common occurrance. People seeing or experiencing ghosts or demons is very common, and has been reported/recorded throught history.
Yes, but you did bring up the coffee pot scenario - also not a common occurrence...
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

cousinbasil wrote:... don't forget that Diebert still can't explain why his fellow acid-droppers saw him wearing a red hat. Perhaps the coffee pot thing would be a flashback?
They are still convinced I was joking with the hat. Is it possible they saw my bright red/orange aura? They described it as "tongues". It was an intense MDMA session, everyone was near flat out with that dose although I was still pretty active. No other things were witnessed though. In general I think it's a good drug to explore the inner side and understand more about love and feelings without detractions. It "cleanses" quite a bit without a hangover or dependency. Best with some supervision though.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Kunga wrote:Anyways...the paranormal activity experienced by humans is a known fact, reguardless if can be proved or not.
It are certainly known experiences. The main definition of "fact" is that it's proven by a certain known, described method. Perhaps not scientifically but something at least, transparent, consistent with itself.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Kunga »

What I was trying to say is , that it is consistently documented [paranormal activity]. Whether it is true nor not, is not so much the point, as it being something humans have been experiencing for thousands of years, in all cultures.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Kunga wrote:What I was trying to say is , that it is consistently documented [paranormal activity]. Whether it is true nor not, is not so much the point, as it being something humans have been experiencing for thousands of years, in all cultures.
But what's the point you are making apart from a generality? Many types of experiences and beliefs have been consistent over time and place, not all of them lasted. But to help you with a good example, lets take the classic book Dimensions from Jacques Vallée. A very good attempt to derive some coherence from a mountain of anecdotal evidence on encounters with faeries and aliens over the centuries. What you'd notice is A. this phenomenon is not consistent with itself at all, at least way less than people generally think and B. the type of commonality of the experiences suggests they are somehow fundamental to how we perceive and interact with reality and as such incredible hard to investigate or derive meaning from them. If anything these phenomenons seem to conspire against meaning and introduce the absurd at random.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Kunga »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:what's the point you are making apart from a generality? Many types of experiences and beliefs have been consistent over time and place, not all of them lasted
Isn't there any validity in things past down throught the ages ? I don't know what the specific name for it is, but it is a component in the construction of logic and reason. It is also used in a court of law, eye witness accounts. I don't think all this paranormal stuff is all done for shits and giggles. There has to be some validity, gathered from evidence accumulated from so many people through history. There is a lot of credible stuff out there, documented cases, from credible sources.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Kunga wrote: I don't think all this paranormal stuff is all done for shits and giggles.
But you seem to be saying a lot of it could be? There is certainly a lot of stuff out there, documented cases from credible sources. It means there's a lot of stuff out there and in here that's not understood fully. But knowing there's a lot of "shits and giggles" mixed up with them, some extreme caution is needed. People are drawn to the topic for a lot of varying reasons: entertainment, the need for mystery or weirdness, escapism, proof for some belief system or to make money of those who really need it, etc. It definitely has a attraction for the unconventional minds as well as the disturbed paranoia ones. Do you understand some strict rules are needed here for your protection as well?
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Kunga »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Do you understand some strict rules are needed here for your protection as well?
You mean the truth needs to be suppressed, because people couldn't handle it ?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Kunga wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Do you understand some strict rules are needed here for your protection as well?
You mean the truth needs to be suppressed, because people couldn't handle it ?
With rules I mean education on how to handle stuff, to get some better grip. Truth is a double-edged sword after all. If people cannot handle it they just pave over it with another lie. And lies lead to the real evil as they fall apart and demand more lies.
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Tomas »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:With rules I mean education on how to handle stuff, to get some better grip. Truth is a double-edged sword after all. If people cannot handle it they just pave over it with another lie. And lies lead to the real evil as they fall apart and demand more lies.
Hahah

Welcome to US Government NewSpeak, all who dare tread upon the shifting sands...
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Kunga »

White mans truth is a lie.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by cousinbasil »

Kunga wrote:What I was trying to say is , that it is consistently documented [paranormal activity]. Whether it is true nor not, is not so much the point, as it being something humans have been experiencing for thousands of years, in all cultures.
But humans have also been superstitious for thousands of years, in all cultures.

Maybe I am vaguely objecting to the catch-all terms "supernatural" and "paranormal." For instance, there have been countless reports of UFO sightings in the last century alone. Since by your reasoning, there have been too many to simply dismiss, what might an explanation be? Well, one is that we are being observed by at least one extraterrestrial species. Is this then also supernatural? If not, why not? If a species has interstellar space travel technology, perhaps they may have anti-gravity technology as well - one that could account for floating coffee pots.

Also, you say that paranormal activity is "consistently documented." Is this really true, though? Isn't it more accurate to say it is "often reported"? Actual consistent documentation seems to evaporate when you go looking for it. I don't for a second believe spirit beings do not inhabit the earth. But what I believe is not so much the problem as what I know. I know, for example, that people see faces in clouds... And that once the face is seen, it is very difficult to see that same cloud and not see the face.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by guest_of_logic »

Mr van Rhijn,

By the grace of good God or one of His agents (possibly those healing warm waters circumscribed by a TUB), I have a little energy, and of the positive kind, and so I will take this opportunity whilst it lasts to "pour out mine spirit upon thee".

Now, you offer the suggestion that it is not a rational idea that even in principle sufficient evidence might be accumulated so as to answer in the affirmative to the question of whether the supernatural, and in particular spirits, exists, which, I confess, I find to be a quite remarkable suggestion. My good sir, these are empirical phenomena, and not only can evidence be found in principle for any empirical phenomena, but, I contend - I most certainly do! - sufficient evidence has been offered in practice for these particular empirical phenomena in this very thread alone. Now, granted, some of it is not directly accessible to you, which might excuse your answering "(b) I reserve judgement", but I would be in denial myself to submit such an answer.

Kindly indulge me - be gracious, will you? - in briefly summarising the evidence: evidence from my perspective, mind you, as you have made it clear that no amount of evidence could convince you. My primary evidence, and it is evidence that you might perhaps be overlooking seeing that I have not yet expressed it as explicitly as I am about to, is that I directly perceive these spirits on semi-regular and sober occasions. Their existence is, then, to me undeniable. Granted, again, that it most likely will not have such force for you, being that it is not your experience.

Most of the other evidence I offered in this thread simply as objective corroboration of this reality: as evidence that not only do other people directly and indirectly experience these spirits too, but that they experience them, in particular through communication, in ways that prove their external existence independent of the mind.

In that spirit (if you will please forgive my wholly unimaginative choice of words), I offered the story of the Ouija session in which I participated in which a wind of non-natural origin announced the incoming presence of a spirit. I offered too the testimony of Roy Vincent, whose experience was with not a Ouija board but with a pendulum whose controlling spirits answered meaningfully questions posed in the mind of the woman next to him, she having no physical connection to the swinging pendulum, and he after prolonged use of the pendulum being psychically invaded by its controlling spirits (as you are free to read about in his book, which documents many other evidences of independently-existing spirits).

Tomas, too, offered his Ouija story in which spirits communicated through the board otherwise unattainable answers, including one correctly predicting the future. The chapter I linked to from Victor Zammit's book referenced many similar stories, including spirited predictions of future events (some used successfully for base gambling purposes), and stories similar to mine and Roy's in which spirits contacted through the board psychically invaded those using the board.

Too, I offered the observation that spirits have been accepted as a reality by most world cultures and religions for most of history, and that in certain cultures, a specific role exists for one who mediates the spirit realm for healing purposes: the shaman. Kunga offered a summary from a scientific paper indicating that shamanistic healing is as effective and consistent on its own terms as Western healing is on its own terms. Not only that, but I offered and quoted from two books in my personal collection that describe a whole paradigm of healing based on eliminating negative spirit involvements - a paradigm that it seems to me is a form of "modern shamanism". Along these lines too, I offered from yet another book case studies indicating that supplications to a higher power by men and women of faith can instantaneously heal illnesses.

All of which is a clear and undeniable demonstration of the truth of what I have been contending from the start - that there exist spiritual forces which act both for and against us. Your response, dear, wilful Diebert, has been entirely dreary: to focus not on the forest, but on the trees! I have tried to point out to you the folly of this approach - that even if it turns out that one or two of the trees are in fact telegraph poles, the rest still offer a canopy - but you will not have it; you simply will reduce the entire forest to an improbability, contending that such a naturalistic improbability is more likely than the supernaturally probable! Sir, I urge you, reconsider this folly. Perhaps it is the case that your denial is conceived out of a lack of preparedness to accept the implications of a non-material reality; perhaps it is a natural tendency to "swing too far in the opposite direction" after renouncing your former fundamentalist faith; whatever it is, it is ill-conceived: on offer is not some rank addiction but the basis of a higher order of life! May you open your ears and eyes to a broader reality...

Sincerely,
The Guest of the House
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by cousinbasil »

Laird wrote:Your response, dear, wilful Diebert, has been entirely dreary: to focus not on the forest, but on the trees!
As always, what he's really doing is pawing around, sniffing out truffles.
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Cathy Preston »

Why concern yourself with the idea of supernatural when you haven't plumed the depths of the natural?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is reality, what is a 2x4?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Hi Laird, I'm glad to see you're feeling a bit better again. Although perhaps a bit too manic sounding to know for sure how you are really doing.

The problem in these type of conversations lies from my perspective not in the debate about which evidence is sufficient and which not. That's not the type of discussion which is winnable or even productive. More interesting to me is how this always ends up with the other paraphrasing and modifying substantially what's being said. The whole dilemma of "whether the supernatural and/or spirits exists" is non sequitur in the context of knowledge. Simply because existence means nature: "the natural". What exactly the natural can be or encompass, yes, that's the great question. It depends on method I suppose. To you "sufficient evidence" means unverifiable books and third party stories. So be it. That's your call, your method.

Then you try to make me look bad by claiming that "no amount of evidence could convince me". It's a mean-spirited charge with no base in the conversation we were having. We need different amounts and have different standards of quality for sure. And of course it's not the amount of something that ever should be convincing. Otherwise a hundred stations on cable TV would always be right in their message to go out and buy consumer goods.

Now we can move on to the real underlying element of your rather emotional appeals: you perceive these spirits on semi-regular and sober occasions. And what's the alternative to the truth you see in this perception? It might for example be that your mind is imagining things or memory not reliable and the earlier reference to a diagnosed schizophrenia would become an important concern as well. It also casts more reasonable doubt on the Ouija session you keep referring to because you already described how one of the other three people was suffering from schizophrenia while he was moving the glass. How reliable does this story then is supposed to sound?

You're already offering the answer: you treat all the evidence referred to in this thread as corroboration of what you already believe: spirits and entities, voices or appearances, all of which you have already decided as being real and not some product of mental confusion. Or it cannot even be for you any mixture of confusion and entities with unknown motives. You do not doubt yourself at all in this!

As for my role, perhaps I was focusing on the trees but only because someone tries to tell me there's a forest where there's only a swamp and bushes in my own view. For a forest at least one needs the existence of a few trees together. So for a discussion on the forest to have first a focus on trees might not be a bad idea. And it's not like I need to be introduced to a body of literature or experiences. It's just your assumption that I cannot be versed in this topic because I do not engage in fueling your particular stand on a certain segment of the paranormal. You do not represent the belief in the paranormal. You are not its advocate. Your set of described experiences and books doesn't sound very impressive. It's like offering fast food to a fine diner and then criticize him for not being open to new experiences when he refuses.

Lets look at the "forest" then for a moment and looking over the whole discussion I belief you are not presently on a healthy path. It seems like a swamp you are willfully trying to get lost in. Your mind sounds increasingly confused, your reading skills weak and somewhat rationality impaired. Combined with the references to mental instability, I can only strongly push you to consider abandoning this draining path. You do know that to keep up this imaginary world is a momentous undertaking? It will slowly eat up everything you are. In some way the spirits you deal with will become real but demand a price. You are already paying it and you know it, somewhere deep inside. And yes I do have experience with people going the way you are going right now. I know the end of this path.
Last edited by Diebert van Rhijn on Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Locked