1992, sorry to keep directing you to other threads, but this thread here is a very recent one that has direct bearing on this discussion (it's essentially the exact same one):

Neuroscience and the Self

I linked it to page 2...I think that should give a little overlap to see the relevance.

You would at least acknowledge that there are many as of yet undiscovered things which are true? Certainly you’re not suggesting that phenomena become true only after they are discovered and repeatedly tested?

And does it seem reasonable that the set of currently unknown phenomena exceeds the set of known phenomena? Or do you believe that we already know most of what can be known in the universe?

Would you agree that there are phenomena whose understanding lies beyond human comprehension? Or do you believe that human beings are cognitively capable of understanding all as of yet undiscovered phenomena?

Here’s what I think:

The set of unknown phenomena exceeds the set of known phenomena by countless orders of magnitude.

Much of what is unknown cannot be understood by human beings because we don’t have the cognitive capacity to understand. In fact, it’s likely that we will fail to discover many phenomena precisely because we don’t have the cognitive capacity to engage in the tasks that would lead to discovery.

We know more about the world than worms do, but on a scale where worms are at one end and an imaginary all-knowing being is on the other, I’d say we’re much closer to worms in our understanding.

Ok, I kind of hit some of these points in my last post before seeing yours, but I'll try to run through them quick.

-Yes I think that there is nothing shared between scientific method and spiritual belief. The use of the scientific method can help us better understand what we don't understand through testing. Religious belief is simply the ideals of oneself not subject to testing.

-Faith gets in the way of science in such instances that in the United States, stem cell research is demonized though it could save many, many people. I don't have faith in science, I have "faith" that my fellow man will use science to continue to improve living standards and learn more about life itself. I have "faith" in this because such has been the case throughout history, except in the dark ages which was a period of strict religious governance. There is no reason for anyone to believe that man kind will want to stop learning at any point in time.

-Beliefs are results of observations, but they aren't necessarily correct. Through testing, we can further our understanding of things and if anyone with the means can perform the same tests and get the same results, there is consistency and ultimately understanding. The human mind tends to not go to far into detail of the inner workings of things as just a passive observer.

-Science is not blind faith. Even if something does turn out to be incorrect, such as phrenology, it is still more reasonable to believe in something like that as opposed to all thought and emotion comes from a supernatural soul, as there is more logic and proof.

-I understand your point that if something comes completely out of left field, there will be a lot of people that will hand wave it away as bogus because it is so dissimilar from things we currently understand. This is definitely a setback of the human mind.

-Einstein was not religious http://www.atheistmind.c...stein-quotes-on-religion He even stated that having a personal god is naive. He used the word spirituality to describe his wonderment of our amazing universe to make that ideology more accessible to others of the time period.

-Your last question is a good one. Organized religion derives their sense of meaning from the fact if that they're good, they get to live forever under their omniscient creator. If this incentive wasn't advertised, I doubt religion would've grown as much as it has. I personally don't think a god exists because there is no evidence to support such a claim. If a god does exist and it's completely passive to my actions, then I would say that would leave things as meaningless as they are to me now.

As I typed this post you guys posted some more things, so I'm going to continue in this post to respond to you guys.

Gibran, I believe that there are probably many more things that go on that we have no idea about then what we are currently aware of. They would be true without are knowledge of them or not, and they would be true if humans didn't exist.

There are definitely things we cannot currently perceive to many different extents. We built tools to see things we couldn't normally see, tools such as microscopes and telescopes. It's not unreasonable to say that there are things we will never be able to perceive either.

As far as being closer to worms than complete omniscience in the scheme of things, I'd say I have no idea and not to be abrasive but you really don't know either. There is literally know way for anyone to form an accurate opinion on that. What if we did have it figured all out another 50 years from now? Who would be the judge of when we knew all there was to know. No one. When you get to such abstract ideas such as that, you're leaving my statement of physical reality behind. There's no reason for me to believe that everything we as humans experience is a result of the influence of another physical force that we can understand. Drugs make us high, food allows us to live, body language allows for unconscious communication, etc. There is nothing I experience that leads me to believe we are influenced by anything more than the elements we evolved from. There is no evidence to say otherwise either.

I'm not sure how I can elucidate my point any further. We're made of the same elements that everything else that has any bearing on us is made of too. Science explains to us the mechanics by such things. It is poor logic to say that we should believe in things when there's no supporting evidence, much less a question in the first place. Things do get overlooked that way, at least temporarily, but as it goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't believe in god, there's no unanswered question that can only be answered by god, and theres no evidence to support god. Theres no evidence to support that dmt is anything more than an internal experience brought on by a chemical, and in my experiences with it.

In your thread you compare dmt to real reality. If you were dead, could you experience dmt? Your receptors wouldn't accept it because you'd be dead, so no you couldn't. If you die, will I still be here? Absolutely. If humanity never existed, would the question of the dmt experience exist? Nope. When we go extinct, will dmt still be around in plants? Yep. There is an absolute difference between the physical world and consciousness. One comes from the other, they are not codependent.

And the day I can go inseminate a sunflower and have flower childs, I will eat my hat

Regarding consciousness and the physical world, I agree that one comes from the other. The question is, which comes from which?

If I were to base my answer on available evidence, I’d have to say that the physical world comes from consciousness, since consciousness is what I use to posit the existence of a physical world.

And what is it with you and your sunflower fetish?

They're pretty, what can I say.

As far as which comes from which, I personally think consciousness comes from the physical world, and that the whole enigmatic aspect of consciousness as just a strange by product of having an advanced brain.

I'm not going to say 100% I'm right though, I might be wrong and you might be right. My reasoning behind my assessment is the fact that I'm fairly sure things still persist without me. I come from a long line of people who are all quite nearly all dead. They had to exist so I could, and though they no longer exist I still do.

I guess the only way we'll know for sure is when get good enough to put people to death past the point of biological death and revive them, though that would be rather cruel.

There’s a bit of a logical conundrum here – you say that evidence of consciousness arising from the physical comes from your belief that things persist without you. You have no evidence of this, and if your consciousness ceases to exist after death, then you’ll never have evidence of this. Oh well…

I believe that consciousness precedes physicality because, as I’ve said, consciousness is the only thing I can be sure exists.

If consciousness persists after death, then eventually your belief will be proven wrong.

So if you’re wrong, you’ll eventually find out.
If I’m wrong, I’ll never know.

Ha!

You wanna fight punk? Come at me bro.

you have no evidence that consciousness precedes matter either.

I guess we're just gonna have to whip out or junk and see who is bigger to settle this one.

(Actually I'm fine with people having different opinions, as long as they don't impose hateful ones on others ie gay people are bad, skin color matters, women should make sandwiches.)

(So lets call it a draw, neither of us are gonna win one another over and we both know it)

i think Einstein said it best when he said the following:



you say there is no evidence for God, Einstein says this:

If you want to know more about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

I will just say that for me nature is god and there is evidence that nature exists.

A lot of religious beliefs are based in tests, shamanism is a great example, if a shaman failed in many cultures they were killed. It isn't like with western religion where if it doesn't work they say that something is wrong with you. One of the classic uses of sacred cacti was to find lost objects, this is a results based practice.

people who practice shamanism do not do so out of blind faith or having not tested the methods

i do not believe in the supernatural, i believe that science will one day explain a lot of what we term supernatural as natural and that it is dangerous to close ones mind and believe that religious claims and methods are always the result of untested blind faith.

We need not call upon unseen forces to explain things, unless we are talking about radiation, gravity, radiowaves, magnetism and other stuff like that. We cannot see these things first hand, but can experience them, perhaps we should not dismiss experiences people have until we can test them. it does not mean we should believe in them, but that disbelief is foolish, no belief is not the same as disbelief.

Einstein said he was a religious non-believer, this does not mean that he disbelieved, without belief is not the same as belief against. It is a very important distinction for me.

"I will just say that for me nature is god and there is evidence that nature exists."

Sure. I have said that many times as well..but what does that REALLY mean? It's like saying "I ate a hotdog for lunch"..so what? It is the easy way out because it is a sort of blank statement with no real substance. Define "nature"..define it's boundries..

...You cant.

I could say "well anything that exists is nature"..that would include pink flying unicorns if they someday end up being scientifically validated.

You are defining "god" as something that you are unsure of. You can say that you know nature exists..but that is only because you know that SOMETHING..ANYTHING exists..and you call that nature..yet currently you cannot really define that something other than with a term you choose to apply to it with a definition that is, by definition undefined. How is that so different from many other religions?

I think the communication through correspondence is clouding the conversation - I have noticed a trend with myself and others to make implications that are not there. I don't believe we are to far a field, perhaps just some subjectivity getting in the way... and implication that is assumed and not specifically written. I am not clear on the 'differences of conclusions' you are referencing, perhaps you could elucidate?

I, you, we - I am who I am and I can criticize all I desire, for my own edification and others. What is and what is not is all that is of any significance.

nature has no boundaries
It is the way, also called Tao in the past.
Nature is not what exists, nature is the force of existence.
It is without characteristic but has harmonic aspects in manifestation

I cannot say I know nature exists, only that I believe it does.
It would be foolish for me to say that I know anything.

Also definitions are kind of stupid when it comes to reality, they are symbolic representations, approximations and therefore incapable of expressing what exists, because existence self expresses. If I think that definitions result in understanding I am deluded. If I think that understanding results in definitions again I am deluded.

As for the distinction between this and other religions, there is no personification or projection of human qualities onto a supposed deity or entity. Likewise the methodology and practice is distinct from the rites and rituals of other religions.
This would make a good topic to explore further in another thread, but is so far removed from the abstract concept of science that it really is not ideal to ponder further here.

You seem to imply that you are unsure of nature, it seems self evident to me what nature is, but it does tend to be a concept that goes over most people's heads, because they are out of touch with it. Have you ever wondered why polarity exists? Why there is an up and a down? Why equal and opposite reactions entail each other? Why did the universe manifest in a way like this and not some other way?

This is why the subjective and the objective are not exclusive or even distinct from each other.
They are like two sides of the same coin.



As for what is and what is not being vital to our interpretation of our sensory experience, I would like to add to that.
They are linked, for example a thing is defined as much by what it is not as it is by what it is.

As for what does not exist, there are at least two forms of this

For example a form exists like position, but all forms are temporary, for example you do not exist in a permanent way, nothing does. Then there is cannot exist, as in never will, as far as we know it phenomena lacking a harmonic balance cannot exist, for example a magnet that has only a single polarity cannot exist and as far as is indicated never will.

I can honestly say that what I feel real science is, is pragmatic. It is a matter not of authority, but is instead a matter of utility.
It is not philosophy, it is function. It is not a way to view the world or explain it, it is a way to interact with the world. Science is an information technology, it is not about how we explain things and often our scientific explanations change over time, though our utility does not. For example while our explanation regarding gametic fertilization has changed remarkably over the years we still transfer pollen and sow seeds. In fact pollination mechanisms are very poorly understood in many plant families, but how to facilitate pollination as a method is well understood and the method does not fail if our theory lacks aptitude.

Science is too often regarded as truth, the same goes for religion.

It is interesting how religious concepts play a role in science though, for example the concept of the trimurti was key to the development of the atomic bomb, ergo the name the trinity project and the Krishna quote. Some concepts believed to be religious may prove to be archaic science, a methodology of understanding how to interact with the world.

A thing defines itself, the symbol is not the same as the thing. Placing faith in language as a form of understanding is problematic, it is at best vain to believe that language allows greater understanding, it merely facilitates communication. Some people view science as a form of language, instead of a method, but even the methods of language are not the same as language.

As for nature, it is helpful to ask the question:
How do patterns exist?
However if we want to be deluded we would ask:
Why do patterns exist?
But "why" is a vain concept, a projection of our psychology onto the universe.
There is no why, it is just a construct of language, one that inevitably leads to trouble.

Amit Goswani would disagree with you. How important is a tree? Just because you are unaware, or cannot prove nor disprove your importance or lack that does not qualify the statement. And if beliefs are just constructs of the mind - which in your case I can see that they are as you have constructed the reality you are sharing with us, then what is up with the repeating patterns (beliefs and society) through history on different sides of the globe?



Pure speculation; argument for the sake of argument.

Albert K Lloyd - thanks for the posts, very elucidating, for me anyway.

Gib I will get to the reading material suggested that you wrote.

Citta I am of the opinion, as well, that is consciousness that brings the material into being. DMT is something profound, my experiences with it have been very outside of the realm of my social and familial sponsorships; they had no relation to what I was raised to 'believe'. I have experienced other psychedelics and none came anywhere close to DMT, even at heroic doses. I am of the opinion/belief now that there is a correlation between DMT and the quantum world because of the significance of consciousness; as you get smaller and smaller Newtonian physics, Laws, quit working at the zero point is consciousness - DMT breaks down reality in such a way that it strips us down to that raw consciousness, revealing all aspects of ego; subjective consciousness, and seems to point to the absolute.


Thanks for the conversation all.

Listen, I don't give a shit about Amit Goswani. It makes alot more since that secluded religions are similar in that there's a human desire for purpose and validation, something that could come from a father like figure ie yaweh, allah whatever. Just because there are patterns in human psychology it doesn't mean that theres some secret universal consciousness driving that. They're just instincts, just like birds knowing where to fly. Its hard coded into the biology of the organism. If you think thats too complex to be programmed into genes then you need to open your mind.

Tell me, where are you from? How did you find out about DMT? Did it have anything to do with the internet? If someone gave it to you, where did they figure it out from? Without communication technologies we wouldn't even have civilization. Its not arguing for the sake of arguing, you're just being a pestilent brat.

I seriously cannot believe that people with anything less than a mystical opinion of DMT are given such a hard time on this forum. At least Gibran understood my points and didn't have to use strange circle logic to express his.

it is one thing to note that you take take DMT and not have a spiritual experience,
it is another to tell a person that they did not have a spiritual experience when they take it, just because you did not

Who says that DMT results in a spiritual experience or that it doesn't?

Isn't there room in real science for the personal first hand accounts that people provide for their experiences? In the scientific sense can we discount data that others provide just because it isn't data we provide?

Is it scientific to denounce the beliefs of others as preposterous?
what part of the scientific method does that belong to?

when our personal belief gets in the way of our ability to believe others, what is that called?
i don't think any person is immune to doing that, it is human nature in a way and has nothing to do with science or religion

If my uncle McMotherlover tells me that he took some toothpaste and talked to a giant purple dictionary wearing a pimp hat, is it my scientific duty to contradict him or argue that he is wrong? I mean i would like an introduction, maybe he can hook me up with a good haberdasher, but in regard to science as a method what part of the method entails me trying to deny his experience to him? that goes both ways too, i would hate it for uncle McMotherlover to tell me that I didn't not talk to the giant purple dictionary, how dare he tell me what i did and did not experience, and how dare I tell him. i don't think good science or good religion really cares about convincing people about what to believe or think

Religion seems primarily concerned with the betterment of mankind, so does science
both get abused to our detriment as well

I can only say:
I love you Uncle McMotherlover, but then love really is a lot more of a religious concept than a scientific one, and given the choice between the two... well, i know how i feel and what i think, but you can make that choice without me telling you what I choose.

I can write complex stories that don't make sense.

I can then look back on these stories and add metaphors to the nonsense to make them relevant.

As it turns out, with the right catalyst, I can do this with my minds eye without even thinking about it.

When I first started using DMT I met many entity's, geometric patterns and voyaged through many strange plains of existence. I believe this was attributed to much by what I had already heard of the substance and the visions of the artists inspired by that.
As the novelty of those things faded, I began to go into the experience with my mind not as much on the substance, but on my own emotions and experiences. If I placed a camera in my brain for the world to see, I'm quite confident that the experiences I'm having now would not be in the slightest bit farmiliar to anyone and every 'vision' I have is quite unique. What used to be the theme of DMT has vanished completely. Phyiscal sensations remain the same more or less, but the psychological content doesn't feel like the same substance I started out with.

So without rambling much further, I'm on the science side of the fence. I used to kind of have one leg on either side, but now I'm of the belief that anything your mind can show you, it itself created it. Literally. It's the nervous system that is activated by reality in day to day life which your brain interprets to processable information. DMT just acts as a catalyst for the mind to create in a freestyle format not confined by the physics of everyday reality.

As the whole thing is so quick to manifest, the brain has ways of trying to make sense of the nonsense as it doesn't really show glitches like a computer, but smoothes round the edges. So, I'm not sure subconciously is the right word, but in a way I think we are just seeing what we want to see on some level.

The beauty of the substance is when you didn't know you wanted to see it.

Hands down though, you can't explain Einsteins theory of relativity to a dog so if someone put me on that spot and asked me the question of whether the whole thing is quantum soup or spiritual integration, my answer would be...

"It doesn't matter".

The important thing is what is learned.

That DMT experiences are connected to quantum mechanics is just plain wrong and wishful thinking. What do you really know about quantum physics? And when we break down matter in physics there is no "at the zero point is consciousness".

The materialistic philosophy that science rests upon does not reject personal experiences, it differentiates between what is wrong and what is right. In science we must discount beliefs and experiences that proves to be wrong. For example, the geosentric model of the universe was thought to be the right perspective, the right belief, the right experience. When Copernicus, Kepler and Galilei came along this was proven to be wrong. Such progress can be said to be science itself, and it is what brings us closer to the right answers.

Yes, it is scientific, and it belongs to the scientific method that is falsifiability and reason. Beliefs can be wrong, history has shown many examples of this.

It is not about denying the experience itself, but the experience could be a false representation of events. If you are a scientist, it is your duty to remain skeptical about his claims, and perhaps set up a controlled experiment that in some way could confirm that he can actually talk to a giant purple dictionary wearing a pimp hat while taking his toothpaste. The odds are that this is a personal hallucination of his, that belongs to his mind and his mind only.

And initially, how accepting was the scientific community of their ideas?

People, including scientists, don’t like ideas that challenge their cherished beliefs about how the world is. Scientists are just as irrational as other human beings, and they are often the first to express their opinions regarding what they see as the ridiculousness of certain radical new ideas.

Yes, of course. I know this very well too, but what is the point? If their theories really are right, it will eventually be accepted. Again, this is about beliefs and perspectives being wrong, about immediate reactions and shocks to breakthroughs. Einstein was ridiculed too, and the scientists who sought to refute his theories were just wrong. Something is either right or wrong, no matter what we think about it. We are by nature irrational, we have silly beliefs, we have egos. Science as a methodology, in itself, makes sure this doesn't get in the way when we wish to approach the right answers about how our universe works. People doing science however, can just as well fuck up as someone who uses a knife. But this is not an argument against science or a case for the lack of science, as I am sure you know - just as the fact that someone kills with a knife is not a serious argument against the knife in fact being a good tool. These are rather general remarks about people.