So if it were possible to return to the same place in “hyperspace” every time you used DMT, and if it were possible to stay there for prolonged periods, and if while there you began observing repetitive, predictable properties of the space, and if you were able to test these predictions and confirm them, would this be proof that hyperspace is real? I don’t think so.

In my dreams, gravity is (usually) very real. I’ve had nightmares where I’ve fallen from very high places, and let me tell you, gravity was in full force! If I throw a ball in my dreams, the ball moves in a parabolic arc just as it does in my waking life. Are these observations evidence that my dreams are real? Not at all. If I make a scientific prediction in a dream and I’m able to confirm the prediction, is this proof my dreams are real? Of course not.


SWIMfriend suggests that it is rational to reject ANY unsupported claims, and he goes on in his posts to list a wide variety of unsupported claims. But there is an unsupported claim made by virtually all materialists that he doesn’t add to his list: “Material, physical reality actually exists.”

Here’s a broad generalization, but I think it’s often true: Materialists are hypocrites. They demand proof from those who believe in fairy tales with which they disagree, yet exempt themselves from providing proof for the fairy tale that they believe.

No but if you and I could both access the same place in hyperspace such that you could tell an entity a secret and then I could take a visit and return with your secret then we could conclude that it was real for BOTH of us.

So it's not enough that one person can repeat the experiment. To be good science it has to be repeatable or observable by others.



No but is proof that your experience of gravity has much more to do with you brain than anything else. If you could make scientific predictions in your dreams that others could confirm in their dreams then it would start adding weight to the fact that dreams are real. The problem with trying to use science here is that science is depended upon 'easily' reproducible results.



For what it's worth I don't agree with SWIMFriend at all...I know he means well and I don't disagree with his conclusions, but like you I realize that there is a whole world(s) of reality that are beyond our current science.



I agree that is a very broad generalization. Science does indeed offer much more proof for their 'farily' tales than the wandering guru's of India...does that mean that the guru's are wrong? Well I'm at least one scientist that doesn't think so. I understand full well that our perception is just a bunch of chemicals firing in our brain...so we add other chemicals and our perception changes or we meditate deeply and influence the chemicals in our brain and our perception changes.

No matter what I can't escape the fact that our worldly perception is nothing more than chemicals and since it can be changed it means i need to question what is real. What am I? What are you? What part of us actually exists? Is a dream real? Is hyperspace real? These aren't questions for materialist science. Never will be. We need a new type of inquiry that is rigorous within the parameters that it's experiments can be performed. The sages of India called this type of inquiry the science of yoga. Or the science of direct perception. I think they were on to something.

IMO what's not being well realized among some posters in this thread is that, if Hawking had said "There are no Leprechauns, they're just a fairy tale" then it (almost certainly) wouldn't have much bothered anyone--and that fact has not occurred to some posters, or the ramifications of that fact have not been thoroughly considered.

But a ramification of that fact is that some posters have distinct SPECIFICS in mind regarding (forgive me for not struggling to find exactly the right terms) their "supernatural ontologies."

Furthermore, they don't seem to realize that using arguments about the vagueness and ultimate unknowingness of reality is hypocritical if they're ALSO going to easily deny Leprechauns while prohibiting anyone ELSE from denying heavens.

And that's my main point: WE ALL CREATE CONCEPTS ON WHICH WE HANG REALITY. And creating those concepts invariably "limits" or "confines" reality in an artificial manner--yet some posters seem able to recognize that fact ONLY in questioning the concepts of OTHERS.

Concepts are tools:

1) Since writing is PURELY conceptual, it's beyond sophomoric for posters on an internet forum to claim they dismiss all concepts, conceptualizations, and discernment regarding truth and non-truth.

2) We form concepts IN ORDER to try to model reality in the mind, IN ORDER to focus mental processes upon it, in order to help to navigate reality. Mostly, mental processes (at least nominally) are some form of "rational cogitation." No one really believes they navigate reality through anti-rational processes. Although it's definitely true that some processes are more DEPENDABLE and USEFUL than others, and it's definitely true that some people are DELUDED about the FORM and EFFECTIVENESS of the processes they use (or THINK they use).

Let's stop pretending (or imagining) that our mental processes are any different from what I described (i.e., we form concepts about reality, and try to use mental processes that can be at least LOOSELY described as "rational" to process them). Then let's admit that Hawking's process is of the same sort as we all use: an attempt to discriminate the real from the imagined, the true from the false, the correct from the incorrect.

And Hawking's conclusion--not even a conclusion, just a REMINDER about a fact that too many seem too eager to ignore--is that when people discuss a "heaven" they are talking about an idea that people have CREATED in their minds, and NOT an observation (at least not one that can be tested or repeated).

Hawking's statement is a reasonable conceptual analysis, useful in (our plodding attempts) to navigate reality--whether or not it ULTIMATELY is correct (the concept of which, "ultimate reality" we all probably agree in REJECTING--at least as far as our personal ability to attest that we KNOW IT when we see it).

Finally, I would like to offer that notion that those with an interest in meditation or chemical influences on consciousness almost surely proceed from the intention to look for new (or enhanced) PERCEPTIONS, but that NOBODY (not even the Buddha) has recommended any different PROCESS other than the rational, to DEAL with those perceptions as human beings. Even someone coming along and saying: "I've SEEN that everything is the same, and we all eternally come from and return to the ONE SOURCE," is tacitly adding onto the end of his statement "...and therefore, we should think such and such, and do this and that, and realize other things..." and so on.

I’m not arguing that the existence of hyperspace can be proven – I’m explicitly stating just the opposite: There is no way to prove the existence of hyperspace (or an afterlife, or God, etc).

But I go a step further and suggest there is no way to prove the existence of material consensus reality either. This seems to be a fact that is either denied or ignored by materialists.

joedirt said “I understand full well that our perception is just a bunch of chemicals firing in our brain”. This is true, but it doesn’t address the question of the existence of material reality. If reality is in fact a “something else” (and I’m not suggesting it is), then “chemicals” and “brains” and “perceptions” and everything else which you consider a part of material reality are in fact just elements of the “something else”. They have no material substance to them - they don’t exist, at least not in the way you think.

If what we call reality is a “something else” (again, there is no proof that it is), then science describes the contents of the “something else”. It makes predictions about how the “something else” will unfold. Science tells us about the nature of the “something else”, but can’t ever tell us that the “something else” is in fact a “something else”.

I completely agree with this....but like endlessness said we have to make decisions and form beliefs based around at least some pragmatic view.

I'd also like to add a bit from the Buddhist perspective.

A serious student of Buddhism would say that the MOST fundamental "concept" of Buddhism is that "Everything is the Buddha nature," or "Everything and nothing are the Buddha nature."

From that concept, it would be more accurate to say as a Buddhist "There is no heaven, it's just a fairy tale," than to say differently. A Buddhist would say those "in" heaven or hell are simply deluded about their "surroundings," and that, really, there is nowhere possible to be to "escape" the Buddha nature for an instant. Those in heaven or hell are simply responding to the karma they erroneously believe they have acquired while they erroneously believe they have an existence separate from the Buddha nature.

I like how you speak for serious students of Buddhism... I'm presuming that a student of Buddhism that doesn't pass your criteria...aka share your views...would not be a serious student! LOL

BTW I think it should be pretty obvious that most in this thread are equating Nirvana with Heaven. For me at least, in this conversation heaven is equated to narvikalpa samadha.

Given that you (and perhaps one or two others) seem to feel "affronted" by my views, it's certainly no surprise that you take every opportunity to be "snotty" to me. It does make me wonder, though, whether your views more likely arise straight from your ego/personality than they do from your observations and knowledge--and that too is an issue I've been trying to imply: "attacks" on Stephen Hawking or the position he seems to represent seem suspiciously emotional, IMO.

LOL: Pot Meet Kettle...

I fail to see your point. I mean, I think its wonderful to debate philosophy but I wonder where does this translate to daily life?

let's just all agree to disagree....

My point loosely addressed the original topic of this thread and the double standard had by some materialists: Un-provable claims that agree with the materialistic paradigm are considered to be axiomatically true, yet un-provable claims that don’t fit their paradigm are called “fairy stories”. Double standard.

"nothing is real or at least, in the usual manner in which we use the term REAL." ... "It's just too convenient to give credence to only the level of reality which we are able to access."

Those statements assume you know what reality is and are no different from claiming, that which cannot be proven is a fairy tale. Both [the pronouncements on the nature of reality and fairy tales] are so sweeping that they become a matter of faith.

It is beyond difficult, practicably impossible, to prove such broad statements--even within a sound system of logic, which so far is the only means we know of capable of leading us from truth to truth.

If you accept that we can only hope to actually know things within well defined limits then choosing to disregard the stuff we have no hope of knowing becomes pragmatic rather than convenient.

Personally, the only irony I see is an apparent belief in knowing that faith will reveal truth.

Surely your views also arise straight from your ego/ personality too?

What I mean by this is: Please explicate on your personal 'obervations and knowledge' of death. Have you experienced it SWIMfriend? Science is grounded in human experience. Objective reality is there but (obviously) beyond our reach.

But yeh you big logical... person, stop being a Dawkins-esqe modern theologian and free yourself from the shackles of others opinions. Stop assuming and jumping the gun. Same goes to you Stephen Hawking you physics/ mathmatical minded bast (cuz he's obv reading this)

Thats my advice, take it or leave it. But carry on regardless (regardless).

Can we please drop the appeal to ego falacy, ad hominem attacks and general confrontational attitude? It is perfectly fine to disagree but I ask you all to please be respectful when doing so, not taking it as a competition with each other but rather learning from the opposite point of view and calmly pointing out the problems and incoherencies you notice in other's arguments.

Sorry to dig this one up again, but I finally re-found a mini-documentary I had seen that shows how Hawking has his head up is ass in regards to anything outside mathmatic calculations and cannot be taken as any sort of authority about what might be out there...wish I could have found it earlier as it would have been more poignant earlier in this discussion.

http://naturalnews.tv/v....225F9FC62BAEA9CC81BE1D12

Excellent video Saidin!!

Thankyou for posting it.I look forward to seeing how this thread develops from here

Rarely seen a "documentary" so full of rhetorical fallacies and use of fear.

Example: Calling upon people's wish to have free will, repeating "biochemical ROBOTS" about 20 times to make it look like a disgusting idea, implying the determinism is necessarly dangerous and that therefore must be untrue. Insisting on the fact that Hawkins doesn't believe in souls (a human word that doesn't mean much, really). Trying to force into our heads that not believing in souls or mind necessarly means that life is unvaluable and that, therefore, we must not trust Hawkins.

This is not a documentary that shows a search for truth; it is a documentary that has an agenda and that tries to convince the audience.

Sorry, but this video doesn't "show" anything. It merely makes baseless assertions and gives the personal opinions of its author. It's....REALLY pathetic, sorry to say.

There's nothing to argue with from the video, because the video itself makes no real argument.


EDIT: hehehe. Here's the latest "headline" at the NaturalNews.com website.
"Japan not hit by 9.0 quake? False flag nuclear weaponry actually destroyed Fukushima, claims report"

Another bit of penetrating analysis from NaturalNews.com:
"British woman develops allergy to electricity following chemotherapy treatment"

Interesting interpretation...

You don't have free will only if you cannnot break free of your programming, so it is no wish, it is something that can be accomplished by anyone with presence of mind enough to free themselves.

It is you that quantifies "biological robots" as a disgusting idea, I found it an excellent interpretation of Hawkings own writings and beliefs. You may feel you are a robot, I do not, and I don't find it disgusting at all, just misguided.

The form of determinism outlined in the presentation is dangerous. Can you not see that?

Hawking does not believe in souls, he has said so himself on numerous occasions, and is one of the basis of this entire thread. If soul is just a meaningless word to you, then you don't understand the concept very well. Through Hawking's own writings he claims that the mind does not exist, that it is solely an epiphenomenon of the brain (of which there is no proof). Physics totally ignores the meaning behind the equations, so a physicist shouldn't speculate on something they are totally blind to. I found the authors explanations of this quite reasonable.

No one is trying to force anything into your head...I find your reaction to this film quite interesting and telling. That materialists don't believe in a mind or soul does not mean that life is invaluable, just that is a slippery slope to devaluing life.