And....where does one go from there? Should one therefore never "believe" anything, ever? And don't some beliefs have as part of them the negation/elimination of other things, thus "dis-allowing" some things?

Where do you want to go? I just gave you a formula for mental freedom use it as you see fit.

Hold no belief so dear you won't change it.
Allow for any possibility.
And yes continue to question every truth you think you have.

You say are certain only materialism is rIght but that is no diferent than christians claiming they have the truth.

My point is, Joe, that there is no way to squirm out of the position of having "beliefs." Therefore, it doesn't make sense to say "have no beliefs."

A scientist and empiricist has (and MUST have) beliefs, but those beliefs are (and MUST be) provisional upon new information.

I find the empirical approach to be the only dependable method of gaining knowledge as a human (even direct perceptions require empirical "substantiation" ).

Your rules (taken literally as stated) seem to recommend a "vegetative" mind state of knowing nothing--pure perception, if you like. That may be a useful meditative state (among a variety of meditative states one might experience), but it cannot be an everyday state of normal human consciousness (a state suitable for posting on forums, for example).

Whenever one is in a normal mode of consciousness, one must have beliefs (although they can surely be healthfully flexible), and those beliefs can logically (or experientially) disallow other beliefs. And, practically, if one were to question EVERYTHING then one would have no time to consider and develop KEY questions.

If the intent of your rules is to keep an "open mind," then they're useful. But taken literally as they're stated, they imply that it's useless to even TRY to come to "know" anything, or to follow a path of cultivating understanding. Somehow, I don't think you really mean to invoke that.

My words stand. You can choose whatever meaning you want.

Most people immediatly understand my intent while others dont want to understand and thus they look for holes and flaws before trying to understand. I can only deliver message.

You have to take all three parts as a whole. Any one in isolation is a recipe for disaster.

BTW as a working rational scientist these are the words I have chosen to live by. They are the my scientiic method.

BTW you can live with beliefs and still remain detached enough from them to not be controlled by them. Not vegatative. Freeing

Peace

I bring this up because there a some people (even people who post here), who will claim (usually when trying to dismiss someone else's point) that one can never "know" anything.

And that presents a problem--a very REAL problem of epistemology that philosophers themselves wrestle with.

If one truly can't "know" anything, then why try? If all knowledge is useless and pointless, why argue, or for that matter, even SAY anything?

But the flip side is that once you DO claim to "know" something, you DO by implication claim that some other things are specifically NOT true. And in fact, empiricism is a useful way to support and develop such claims.

It's a razor's edge to walk. But I find those who wish to dismiss anyone's "claim of knowledge" (such as, for example, "materialism is the ideal perspective to describe reality" ) on the UNIVERSAL BASIS that "you can't know anything," as...just being disputatious and dismissive. I've found that such people USUALLY will then go about telling you what IS right--thereby demonstrating that, well, you can know SOME things--as long as they're what THEY know.

"My point is, Joe, that there is no way to squirm out of the position of having "beliefs."

Source?

jk..

I agree with joedirt here, but the idea of having no beliefs is hard to get around on some level..but at the same time I feel like you are sort of taking what he is saying out of context to pick it apart. There really is no easy way to say it. I think that people should be open at least somewhat to allow for things they cant explain either way, otherwise they are not true scientists.

To state you are a real scientist but you wont allow for something that humans have not proven or disproven either way at this point is not being true to science. Science seeks to prove nothing really..it disproves thing. At this point in time there are many many aspects to the esoteric arts that have not been able to be disproven by science. So claiming you wont ever allow for them to even be concidered at all comes off as dogmatic. You dont have to believe them or think they are true, but stating you just wont allow for it at all exemplifies a boundry that you yourself has now constucted. This boundry has no rational reason for existing. It is irrational but you have no data to back up the claim that nothing metaphyisal is possible. If you cannot even allow for 1% of the curious mind to concider that maybe one day the reality of some of these things will be confirmed than you have just stepped into the shoes of dogma.

If you can allow for things to be concidered that are beyond the realm of scientific observation and explaination at this point and refrain from constructing boundries where they are not warranted the scientific persuit of a full understanding of reality becomes a much more noble one IMO.

All the greats had extremely open minds..look at Einstein, Tesla etc...

We do not disagree.

I'll repeat: It's a razor's edge. (This is to jamie--I posted before seeing joedirt's intervening post)

But I think it's worth asking and contemplating what we are in fact AFTER. I personally seek knowledge and understanding, and once you will have some notion that you even "sort of know" something "or somewhat understand" something you ARE in fact having a focus, and defining, and implying that some other things are "sort of not true."

And--what's kind of interesting to me--is that the very MOMENT one opens one's mouth (or starts hitting the keyboard), one IS stating SOMETHING along the lines of "This but not that." (Unless it is to restate that "you can't know anything" over and over again).

I would be happy to hear from anyone who can tell me: If one is not searching for knowledge and understanding, then what IS there to do?

Actually, I suppose one can lead a purely aesthetic life, where one simply enjoys experience. That's fine. Still, however, such people should probably have very little to say.

IMO, most people who SPEAK are in fact hashing over descriptions of reality "Is this true or that true?" I'm pretty confident that anyone who wants to ARGUE has the idea that some things are true (and by implication) some other things are false.

"Actually, I suppose one can lead a purely aesthetic life, where one simply enjoys experience. That's fine. Still, however, such people should probably have very little to say."

That does actaully come off sounding narrow minded. Why would someone with much experience have very little to say? Or is it that they would have very little to say that you yourself concider of any value?

Well...they would want to talk mostly about what might be new to experience. Where shall we have lunch today?

But if they were trying to talk ABOUT their experiences they would (more or less, by implication) be wanting to ANALYZE their experiences--and that's not experiencing anymore, it's thinking. At least for me, thinking involves truth analysis, gathering meaning (which is perhaps both truth assessment and assigning of relative importance--which implies an assumption of some things being true).

Communication is not usually seen as an aesthetic in itself. Art is a communication, but communication is not art. In art, the CONTENT of the communication is the substance, and (in a direct or indirect way) the content always involves showing "this" rather than "that."

But SWIMfriend this thread has gone off on the fallacy tangent..as these threads so often do. To use the example that we can sort of know some things, as a supporting point against the origional topic bing discussed here-that there may be something else going on within altered states that is beyond the current scientific ability to observe or explain is a fallacy. Of course we can know some things with a certain level of certainty. Noone in this thread has claimed that you cannot and I doubt anyone is going to. I know I am not a black woman living in south africa..but what does me knowing some things to some extend have to do with some subjective experience that science cannot observe or explain at this point?

So, I just dont really understand how the points you are making are really that relevant at all to the possability of something outside our ability to objectivly observe?..to attempt to cancel out that possability by claiming we can know some things is a fallacy. That is all that it is.

"I know this, and I know that..but I cannot observe that over over there so therefore that has no truth to it and is not possible". This is a fallacy. 1+2 does not equal 4 no matter how much you try to rationalize and fool yourself into believing it does.

Admiting that you just dont know, but that you feel it is unlikely is far more graceful an approach than stubbornly claiming something is not possible when you have no proof to back that up. The burden of proof is on you if you really want to make solid judgements either way on the reality of such experiences. The burden of proof does not sit with the individual who has such experiences and conciders the possabilities of such experiences with an open mind without comming to too many conclusions.

If you can not come here with some hard data to show us that disproves it once and for all, than I should think that some should just agree to disagree and the rest can just keep an open mind.

My posts relate to the implication that a "materialist" world view is illegitimate. I don't think it is. Certainly, I can supply lots of material for your inspection. When you can supply some of the "immaterial" for inspection then I'd be interested in observing it.

Those who wish to claim the "existence" of "immaterial things" have the burden of offering them for demonstration to the materialist, in order to show the falsity of his limitations.

In any case, that's not a discussion I'm particularly interested in.

My interest is in defending the rationality of materialism--and it's implication: that which cannot be detected (in any manner) can not be...described, or held as "existing." That which can be detected can be described and is....material (in the broadest, empirical sense).

I honestly don't know why I'm bothering to do this....call it insanity.


You say it can't be detected? Have you smoked DMT for gods sake or do you just claim to smoke it?

Give me your best scientific, materialistic, rationalistic point of view to describe exactly what a person sees on the substance? Sure DMT hit's the 5HT2a receptor subtype...AND? Right now today, science has NO FUCKING clue what we are seeing. None. Nada. Zip.


It seems to me that the problem is that you assume all these spiritual things should fit into your nice neat materialistic world view. Thereby making them materialistic and you NOT wrong.

What if you ARE wrong. And there are things that don't fit into your nice neat box? Then what?

"My posts relate to the implication that a "materialist" world view is illegitimate. I don't think it is."

Well, I dont think it is either..I think materialism has taken us far in some respects..I think we have to be more careful though in our approach because as far as it has taken us it has also endangered us to some degree. This is mostly due to greed though.

"Those who wish to claim the "existence" of "immaterial things" have the burden of offering them for demonstration to the materialist, in order to show the falsity of his limitations."

yes, they would..

"When you can supply some of the "immaterial" for inspection then I'd be interested in observing it."

I make no such claims. I have nothing I could offer up to anyone shed light on my own subjective expereinces. I dont make any solid claims or come to too many conclusions about them because I cant really say what is going on.

Personal experience is worth something though IMO. I dont think that objective validation is the only thing that makes something worth anything. If we cannot observe something objectivly than personal subjective experience of that thing is the only experience that we can have of that thing. If you have no personal experience of that thing than judging that thing can be tricky.

OBE's are a good example. I have had many spontanious OBE's without taking any substances. These experiences were not dreams, because I was able to leave my body at will, and come back to my body at will..go get a glass of water, and come back to bed and leave my body again. I never tried to induce these experiences they just happen infrequently late at night. I wont get into the content of these expereinces because that woudl require another thread altogether but it is hard to rationalize my way into concluding there is nothing to them other than random neurological firing.

Have you eve had these sorts of experiences SWIMfriend?..have you had DMT breakthroughs that seem to go beyond the boundries of what is explainable no matter how much you try to rationalize?

It changes the game for me somewhat having had these experiences. I just dont know what to think really, so I just take them for what they are..epistemological grey areas.

No joe, I have not smoked DMT, and I have privately discussed that fact at length with other members--which appears has now blossomed into a childish "behind the scenes" gossip subject (which is, rather much closer to the PATHETIC than the IMMATERIAL, LOL). FYI I AM now growing some very nice mushrooms, which will hopefully provide me an initial foray into the psychedelic experience.

But, I will say, if your attitude (and content...and demeanor) represent what might be revealed by psychedelic experience, I have some serious misgivings about the enterprise.

I have, however, devoted about forty years of effort in meditative practice, which has personally revealed experiences and insights to me which seem to align with reports of the psychedelic experience; hence my interest.

There is one thing I do know with absolute certainty, and it's something extremely USEFUL: People are easily deluded, and can easily come to believe they "know things" which they in fact don't. Another way of stating the same thing is that people can easily MISINTERPRET experiences which, without the benefit of experiment or even objective and skeptical analysis, can easily resolve into delusion. IMO that scenario is a substantial part of the human experience.

Claims of "special knowledge" are all too common among the deluded. There's a depressingly ENDLESS list--throughout history, and up to and including the present--of those claiming special knowledge of fantastical things. And golly, ISN'T IT ALWAYS TRUE: they always seem FAR MORE interested is PRESENTING their ideas than living them. Almost as if....almost as if the value of their "special knowledge" is to produce a "special ego" to make themselves special to others--hmmm...one more substantial part of the human experience.

And...they often get angry when their "special knowledge" is challenged; typically, the greater the extent their "special knowledge" is part of an ego embellishment, the greater their anger. I've seen this all my life.

The very serious problem with "special knowledge" (if it's ever true--which many find good reason to doubt) is that it's impossible to transmit to others (at least, I don't know of any good reports of it being transmitted). Which brings into question even further the veracity of those who go around claiming it.

Material, rational knowledge, on the other hand, is easily transmitted to others and easily verifiable by anyone.

The simple question I would put to you, joe, is: Have you considered why not everyone who has delved into the psychedelic experience has come away with the same worldview as you have? Right here we have the example of the OP, who implies quite substantial experience with DMT yet calls himself an "absolute no-spiritual person." What is it that he was "seeing on the substance?" Could his interpretations be different from yours? What can you offer us to show that your interpretation is the "correct" one?

First I would say: I do not AT ALL discount subjective experience. In fact, it is easy to make the case that subjective experience is EVERYTHING. Certainly, what happens in our heads is intimately important to us.

Now, you bring up something very interesting: OBEs. First, I wonder if you realize all the implications of you bringing them up. It seems to imply that you wish us to believe your experiences are OBJECTIVELY TRUE in the real world. Furthermore, I think it's fair to say that you mean to imply that the mechanism of the OBEs is (loosely) "supernatural." [If it were natural and didn't involve "sleepwalking" then it is surely something FAR beyond all present scientific understanding]

But I wonder: have you ever tested your experiences for objectivity in the obvious way? Have you ever had a friend put, say, an unidentified playing card where you could identify the value and suit of the card during an OBE? Somehow...I'm willing to take a chance and say you haven't (while being QUITE sure, you will have a somewhat less "satisfying" but still "scientific" bit of data to offer).

Your OBEs are a very BAD example for you to offer: They are something you should be able to verify as being "real," or, by an inability to verify, prove to yourself they are "imaginary." If they are real then please, for the GREAT AND VAST BENEFIT OF EVERY HUMAN ON THE PLANET--please document these experiences in a manner which can be published and presented to the world as positive proof of the "supernatural" in our lives. Speaking only for myself, it would mean a GREAT DEAL to me to see such evidence. I can assure you that if there's anything you want from the "ordinary world," money and fame, for example, you will have it in abundance following such publication.

If you are interested in doing that, but feel you aren't up to it empirically, I would be happy to help you.

Otherwise, your "comfort" in so commonly having such experiences while never having fulfilled (or experienced) an urge to "verify" them, should probably be taken as an act of denial and an experience of delusion. Simply, people have made endless claims of such things since before history--and no one has demonstrated them, even though such demonstrations should be easy to achieve.

"Now, you bring up something very interesting: OBEs. First, I wonder if you realize all the implications of you bringing them up. It seems to imply that you wish us to believe your experiences are OBJECTIVELY TRUE in the real world. Furthermore, I think it's fair to say that you mean to imply that the mechanism of the OBEs is (loosely) "supernatural." [If it were natural and didn't involve "sleepwalking" then it is surely something FAR beyond all present scientific understanding]"

But SWIMfriend..if you read the rest of my post I covered this already right here..

"I just dont know what to think really, so I just take them for what they are..epistemological grey areas."

Trying to fit words into my mouth saying I am implying that I wish for you to believe my experience is objectivly true is not really being fair to my words is it? I implied nothing of the sort and the last past of my post should have made that clear. I do not expect anyone to take my subjective experiences as objective truth. I stated very clearly that I do not know what to think in relation to these experiences so how can you come to the conclusion that it is fair to say that what I mean to imply is that the mechanism of "OBE's(whatever they really are) is supernatural? That is not fair to me at all. I stated my opinion that I dont know. If I dont know I sure as hell dont expect anyone else to take my words as if I know and believe them.

"But I wonder: have you ever tested your experiences for objectivity in the obvious way? Have you ever had a friend put, say, an unidentified playing card where you could identify the value and suit of the card during an OBE? Somehow...I'm willing to take a chance and say you haven't (while being QUITE sure, you will have a somewhat less "satisfying" but still "scientific" bit of data to offer)."

No of course not..wonder why?..because that has nothing to do with my post. I stated clearly(again) that I cannot just do this at will. It happens late at night randomly and infrequently. I have tried before to just lay down in the day and have OBE's and I cannot do it. It corresponds to a specific neurochemical state most likely that seems to only occur late at night and I cannot repeat it reliably. If I cannot repeat it on demand and it is a weird random occurance how can I do controlled experiments. Also I dont have OBE's like a typical OBE where I am flying arouond some real world astral double sort of thing. It feels more like a phase shift into another dimension, but has many times been specific to an earth dimension just not this one. I know how that sounds. I dont know how to explain this properly, you would have to experience it. I have no idea what the hell is going on here. It could be all a subjective projection..or not. I dont know. I dont think anyone really knows.

Everything Else

"Otherwise, your "comfort" in so commonly having such experiences while never having fulfilled (or experienced) an urge to "verify" them, should probably be taken as an act of denial and an experience of delusion"

Again, how is that fair to me? I am not calling you delusional..but you think it is okay for you to judge me as delusional for not going off to scientifically observe and verify something I cannot even repeat? It sounds almost like you would rather just have people not even mention that they had such an experience unless they can repeat it on demand and verify it.

Did I say anything about comfort in having these experiences? WHy SIMfriend do you feel the need to constantly put words into the mouths of others in order to sway a discussion in your favor? I never said a thing about finding comfort in having these experiences, nor did I claim I could do it at will or in any way that could be scientifically verified. if you dont like me talking about it when I can not possibly verify it either way that is fine, but to then call me delusional makes you sound like an ass.

This is the last time I care to interact with you on this forum on these topics. I dont like having extra words added to what I have said. It does not represent my point of view and is not fair.

But...don't you see: All of the above is really a good reason NOT TO MENTION THIS AT ALL. It seems to be...nothing. So why bring it up? Why is it a "game changer" if you don't even know what it is?

Surely, you must see that, almost no matter WHAT they are, they can't be anything to base any substantial IDEA on, since--by you're own direct admission--they are themselves...not substantial enough even to know whether or not they are real.

Some people would have such experiences and think nothing of them (in fact I had exactly such experiences--EXTREMELY vivid, conscious, and intentional--as a child)...and others would be mesmerized by them. Thus...they have nothing on which to base a CLAIM, or upon which to generate a worldview--or to bother even discussing. You can surely CREATE all kinds of ideas based on them--but they are just that: imaginations and personal creations (or, at least, that is the FAIREST assumption to make).

When one begins to construct "realities" from such things, one risks....something like insanity.

Again, the very CRITICAL FACT underlying this entire topic is that we KNOW--know better and with more certainty than we can know almost anything--that humans CAN AND DO delude themselves WILDLY, REPEATEDLY, and PERVASIVELY all the time, in all cultures, on all SORTS of issues.