I personally think Hawking is a great example of an exception to that humble part. That guy drives me nuts. Brilliant yes... He said, I guess, that science had proven conclusively that there is no God. I think that was really presumptuous.

"And no, I am certainly not talking about students, but professional scientists doing real work with or in their fields. "

oh sorry for the misunderstanding, i meant scientists that also teach- not students. But yea i knew you didn't mean "all". But you did say "most scientists are honest humble etc"..and then followed it with "often at conferences they're humble etc" ..so later when you used "often" describing spiritual people it came off like "most". Ok i have a semantic headache now hahah

lol thanks for adressing my actaul question..

"Ever heard of a magnetic vortex water trap? I would really like to know what people are seperating out in this "trap" water..because just saying all the ormus people are crackpots is kind of ignorant. I bet you have never even investigated this yourself."

If someone really wants to saying something is bunk, they should be able to adress all angles first. BTW I never said ormes was real or that science cannot know anything. I never said that ANYWHERE so please do not put words into my mouth. Can you please go back in this thread, or anyh thread and find a quote of me saying that "science cannot know anything about the universe"?.. Really, since that is your response to me I would love for you to go do that.

I mentioned that these people are comming up with something that they call ormes(and some do not even call it that), so if you want to say it is all bunk can you please explain to me what it is they have? It is bad science to pass something off completely without actaully looking into it yourself first.

well if we are using the metaphor of a skyscraper in the sahara.....

If I was walking along in the sahara desert and saw a skyscraper I would be skeptical at first. I would first assume it was a mirage. But if i aproached it and it still stood tall in front of my face, and I touched it and felt the heat absorbed from the sun, and walked inside rode around in the elevator and felt the nice air conditioning, well then I would have no choice but to assume that there really was a skyscraper in the middle of the sahara. Yes even if I had never heard a scientist say there was one there ever, even a psuedoscientist, even if there was never a conference or a series of papers published on the skyscraper in the desert, I would beleive that it was there.

Now I have deffinitley had first hand experiences as vivid and real as that one would be that have proven to me first hand that my conciousness plays a crucial role in existence and physical reality. Maybe they were visions, maybe other people couldnt see them like I did, but thata doesnt mean its not real. In the intorduction to "Wizard of the Upper Amazon" (amazing book) the writer is talking about phenomena like this, and he says "This idea may be upsetting to those psychiatrists who think "visions" is a polite word for "hallucinations" and who refuse to believe in realities other than the one of consensus that we use for convenience. The indians described in this book consider teh visionary world as real as the ordinary one; they are able to go there together and learn how to function better in the world of everyday."

Im not saying science is bunk i love science, its fascinating. And I know that most scientits say that they dont know everything, but to say that these things that people around the world have been expereincing for thousands of years are not real because scientific theories dont support them sounds crazy to me. These scientifit theories dont even support themselves, there are massive holes in their theories. Holes so large that they could stand to threaten everything these scientists think they know. Whats wrong with filling in these holes the best we can based on what we experience? I know that im probably only right about a very small fraction of the shit i talk about but there is no way to continue learning without doing this, unless you just rely on what others say and let all the scientists do the learning for you, where is the fun in that? Now alot of times when talking about this stuff I do seem to sound like I am 100% positively sure about what im saying but honestly in not even 100% sure that I even exist right now! lol, its fun though to try to understand, its a big cosmic joke.

well yes, first hand experience does count for something. I have heard more than once people claim this is all just peoples delusional hallucinations when they themselves have never even experienced a breakthrough with DMT..

When you start to rule out subjective experience *entirely* in favor of objective observations etc I think that is when you reall start to loose perspective. Of course objective sciences are important..I dont believe it is capable of explaining everything though. I dont believe the universe works that way. I dont think the universe is fundamentally rational. There is not much IMO that is rational about the universe even existing in the first place, so why would we assume that the rest of it is a completely rational place at it's core?

I have taken a lot of DMT, and gone back and forth in reguards to my feelings on what is actaully occuring. Really I think that trying to lable it as "real" or "unreal" is missing the point..but there have been those times where even now, looking back I cannot deny the reality of what I experienced. I have never heard any scientific theory that can properly debunk that reality for me. You dont always get to that place, you dont even necessarily often get to that place..but when you do I think that it when you start to realize the value of gnosticism.

^lol i agree completely, we are aproaching the edge of reason.

Sorry, I skimmed through your post and got hung up in other things



This magnetic vortex water trap is basically a product they wish to sell, a product that allegedly extracts the ORMEs/ORMUs/whatever they call it out of your own water. It provides you with your own ORMUs water concentrate. As far as I can see you can get one for 199$, what a bargain!




I know you didn't claim ORMEs was real, and I never said you did. However, when you say that "This is a HeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLll of a lot more that science can not explain out there than what it can explain atm", I take this as some kind of argument against using science to decide whether or not certain claims hold up. And I've seen you use this type of argument before to somehow talk in favor of outlandish/new/revolutionary ideas, so this is why I addressed this point of yours.

I also know you have never claimed science cannot know anything, and I haven't said this either. My point was that even though there is a lot we don't know about the universe, it doesn't automatically follow that we can't say anything for certain, or decide whether or not something is likely or wrong, for reasons discussed in my last reply to you.

If you did not point this out to somehow talk in favor of an open mind regarding strange ideas (such as those presented in this thread), or in some way supporting these incredible claims, then I am not sure why you even mentioned it. If you meant something entirely different than what I thought you did, then I humbly apologize for interpretating you differently. Anyhow, the point I was making is an important one, and it is relevant for many here at the nexus who uses similar arguments to give semantic nurture to their own beliefs and convictions.



What they claim to have is some sort of exotic state of matter with incredible physical properties. What kind of properties? Properties like, or to the effect of, the following along with other incredible health benefits;

Restoration of Youth and Vitality
Opening of the Third Eye
Opens the Gateway to the Next Dimension
Allows for the Instant Manifestation of Thought
Lifts the Veil from Prior Lives
Offers Extraordinary Knowingness
Enables Levitation
Enables Ascension

If this doesn't ring your alarm bell quite significantly, then I don't know what will. These claims alone discredit ORMEs enough for any scientist and skeptic. It's just the same old garbage that are pushed by quacks and deluded people, and you find this all over the internet. It's no different than many other types of exotic admixtures sold by quacks and scammers, and it exploits the lack of scientific understanding and education that a large part of our population suffers from.

Furthermore, when you search in the real scientific literature, there is essentially no mention of ORMEs/ORMUs, and the shabby websites that mentions this is only the ones that tries to sell it without any good information or references. A typical pattern seen in quacks and scammers, or even deluded people.

The properties of ORMEs/ORMUs are of such a significant character that if true, it would be all over the scientific literature. They even claim it to superconductive at room temperatures, which is quite revolutionary and an extremely important discovery for society.

There are also a lot of factual claims in the presentation of these ORMEs that doesn't hold up.

Ah, fuck this, using my time on this BS is wasted. I need to prepare for my exams. I call BS on this ORMEs stuff, you might not, so be it.

As for the whole thing about subjective experience you guys talk about in the last posts, I have commented on this before extensively, but I have one sentence that should say it all; We KNOW the brain is able to hallucinate things that are quite real to the individual experiencing it. Of course subjective experiences are real, because all experiences are real. What is more doubtful however, is whether or not what is experienced is real. If you see a skyscraper and no one else does, the alarm bells should ring, just as the psychotic person perceives his water tap to scream to him when he turns it on, and no one else does, should be a clear indication of wrong perceptions. The brain is a very powerful organ and has no problems producing vivid experiences that are clearly wrong interpretations of events.

This is absolutely true, but we must be careful about walking down the path that is implied by such statements.

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

We have no evidence of those things for which we have no evidence. This is a tautological fact, but it doesn’t really strengthen one belief over another.

Not too long ago, scientists could honestly state “we don’t know whether or not the Earth revolves around the sun, but we do know that there is nothing in science to suggest it does”. You can substitute any unknown into that sentence and get many statements that today sound very foolish.

Absolutely true, it's unfortunate how for many(or even most people) “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” isn't obvious.

your argument is correct, gibran2, but careful because, given the context where this discussion is happening, it may seem to imply that you are somehow arguing that therefore there is some validity to ormus/etc ...

Someone selling a product that claims levitation is possible, as well as opening the third eye and taking you to another dimension, should certainly be put in line for scrutiny. It reeks of charlatanism, and even if for some reason there was a part of this ormus story that was true, it's clear a lot of it is BS and people fooling others for money.

Yes, but I pointed this out to blow out some air of the certainty balloon of the people in that video. The point is that the claim is extremely controversial (but quite old), and shouldn't be taken at face value until something conclusive can demonstrate that it is a matter of fact. My initial reaction was essentially that they claim to know something they can't possibly know, and I know both you and me don't like that very much =)

While we can substitute any unknown into that sentence and get many statements that today sound very foolish, I maintain, as a scientist, that incredible claims require incredible evidence to be passed on (certainly ideas can, and should, be entertained - this is what sparks scientific work). So if I was a scientist in the midst of the debate of whether or not the earth revolved around the sun a few hundred years ago, I would have to require incredible evidence in light of the scientific spirit to accept this as fact. The same applies to the discussion of whether or not consciousness creates matter, and any other matter. If we were not to have this attitude, science would be rendered meaningless.

However, the absence of evidence in the case of consciousness creating matter being so significant poses some serious problems to the claim. As theoretical PhD physicist Victor J. Stenger points out, the world should have looked very differently if it really was created within our own minds, or within our collective consciousness or whatever. Not saying the claim is absolutely wrong, because this I can't possibly know with certainty, I maintain that there is so much arguing against the truth of this claim that it's completely rational to remain skeptical to it. We have discussed this before to a great extent, and I have raised some serious explanatory problems with the claim as well. Again, this doesn't mean it's wrong, but it makes the claim even more incredible - thus requiring incredible evidence.

Sadly something tells me that this debate will continue for quite some more time though, and perhaps never be resolved before "we blow ourselves to kingdom come".

Though I think a big part of the issue is what we define as consciousness. If we are talking about individual consciousness (or even worse, "personality and ego", it's obvious how many contradictions and flaws it would bring to believe that my own mind creates the universe. But if we're talking about some kind of Principle that is behind what we see as matter, I think it becomes more reasonable to understand.

But then again, what, in practice, does thinking a certain Consciousness creates matter, will bring? I mean, what is the point of considering this? Because in the case of the earth revolving around the sun, it ended up having many practical consequences, but appart from a philosophical discussion, can this "primacy of matter vs consciousness" discussion lead to anywhere?

Well, this statement is often quoted far out of place, and does not have general application in all situations. Sometimes, you see, absence of evidence is actually quite strong evidence for absence. To give an example of this let's say that we wish to determine whether or not my keys are to be located in the right pocket of my jacket. If we do not search inside this pocket, then most certainly absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. But say we conduct a thourough search inside my pocket, and the keys are still not to be found; in this situation absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence - i.e strongly suggesting my keys actually aren't in my right pocket.

Except when the god damn gnomes play tricks on me, and I look in my pockets, cant find the keys, then I look everywhere else, and after hours I look again and, guess what, the keys are in my pocket!

Haha, those godammned gnomes! Yeha, you can always talk yourself out of this, but then again what is more likely; that you misplaced your keys from the usual place(s), or that the gnomes took it?

That same question applies equally well to many things discussed here at the Nexus, and imo should be given more consideration by many here. Asking yourself "are there more likely, or at least other plausible, scenarios explaining X?" is not done enough.

it is my understanding that discrediting an individual, scientific or not, is rather naive.

alot like our human experience, until we know for a fact what is really going on around us, all avenues should be looked at.

I personally like the idea of all these metaphysical aspects existing and we should find a way to study this type of phenomena, scientifically instead of discrediting it as mumbo jumbo.

after all who are we to say that one opinion is more valid than anothers unless there is irrefutable proof of course

our opinions are like the other thing we all have, we need to move past that to have a completely open mind to properly observe

just some mumbo jumbo based on my naive human experience

Yes, wrists.... But you have to focus somewhere, right? I mean, you can't possibly examine every single wild claim people make, so what criteria should one use to do a pre-selection?

If people say that santa clause exist, will you investigate that? What if people say santa clause exists and he can open your third eye? What if its just something to open your third eye without santa clause? What if it's to open your third eye with something you need to pay 200 $ to get the program? What if................

See where im getting at?

Of course, ultimately, each one will have to decide where to use their time, but I think the point, for me at least, is that first of all, we do not have time for everything, and secondly, that certainly there ARE charlatans out there, so you cant trust anything just because it sounds nice or because 'science doesnt know everything'. Of course the argument shouldnt go to the other extreme and people just stay inside the comfort zone of what is already "known", we have to be open to expanding and revising our knowledge otherwise we might be missing up on a lot. But we need criteria to open up, it cant be loose-minded, as it often is.

Some people lack critical thinking, and this, together with being dissapointed with the current soul-less materialistic capitalistic world view that dominates mainstream society, makes people swallow any alternative theory that the charlatan next door brings, as long as it is mildly convincing. People also often forget to doubt their own subjective experiences, and forget that subjective experiences can also be mistaken (optical illusions are a classic example of this).

So if we talk about ormus, well, why is it worth it to talk about it? I mean, a google search yields a lot of way too wild claims, as mentioned above. Fractal mentioned some "water vortex", as if its something interesting, but come on, just look at the pages talking about it, they are making money out of it, selling these things and making very wild claims... So maybe someone should point us out to something a bit more reliable, if they feel there is something of truth to it, instead of just saying "look at it and dont be closed minded" and letting others who dont have all the time in the world sift through the countless pages of garbage for some reliable facts about it that might (or might not) be out there.

"This magnetic vortex water trap is basically a product they wish to sell, a product that allegedly extracts the ORMEs/ORMUs/whatever they call it out of your own water. It provides you with your own ORMUs water concentrate. As far as I can see you can get one for 199$, what a bargain!"

I can build one for 15 bucks. I dont care what someone sells it for or what they claim the stuff is. That is not my point, nor was it EVER my point. You avoided my point again. I have seen what comes out of these water traps..it is clearly seperating the water into 2 parts..so what is the section of water that is magnetically repelled? Until you adress that whatever these people are comming up, they are comming up with *something* saying you have debunked it just makes no sense.

It would help the discussion if you would link or attach instructions for the build up of such machine so we can test ourselves...

Sometimes it might be naive to discredit someone or something, but many times we do have enough knowledge and information available to safely dispute something. There is no reason to be apologetic about that. Certain claims are just flat out wrong and silly.



This is one of the classics I already commented on to jamie, even though it was misplaced according to him. Just because we don't know everything it doesn't mean that all avenues are worth looking at. Why? Because some of them are simply wrong, and we can tell it without using time and money to investigate more thouroughly. Open-mindedness is good, but there is no need to be so open-minded that your brain pops out.



Some metaphysical ideas might be attractive to think through more thouroughly and investigate closer. Other metaphysical ideas are simply not subject to scientific study. An example of such an idea is "the brain in a vat scenario", ala the matrix. There is no way to test this, because whatever tests we perform would be inside the simulation or inside "the vat". Yet other metaphysical musings are clearly wrong.



Sometimes one opinion is actually more informed, educated and valid than others. As you say, when there is evidence and real factual knowledge behind such opinions, they are superior. Real evidence, real science and real knowledge (even elementary education in science) speaks clearly against several of the claims and opinions expressed in this thread, as well as others on the nexus.



Open-mindedness does not require you to swallow ideas and claims uncritically, in fact quite the opposite.



I'm not sure what your point is, jamie. So what if they can separate some water? Why are you so hung up on that machine of theirs? I can do some separation too, but it doesn't mean I got something special or groundbreaking does it?