Into the mystic (an experience).

by El blanko 207 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

rem

Robyn,

It sounds like we are saying the same thing. I'm just saying that there is no longer any benefit to studying alchemy, though it did lead to other beneficial sciences. Perhaps you believe about a century of intense study is not enough time to reap all of the benefits of parapsychology. I believe it probably is and that advances in psychology and other real scientific fields have grown along with the field and have now superceded it. That's all.

Still, there has been no evidence of the supernatural, no matter how sensitive the tests.

rem
rem

Onacruse,

Experimental results are never overturned - theories based on them are. There is no coherent theory of the paranormal. Period.

Rationalism is not a figment of my imagination. It is a epistimilogical process invented by human beings. It is real. No human can possibly perfectly follow it due to our biases, but it does exits. It is more real than a platonic form.

You are presumptous when you assume what would constitute good evidence of the paranomal or god for me. Needless to say, personal revelation is not the only option.

rem
SixofNine

Actually no, Bradley, I have very little cynicism in me.
Sunnygal41

Here's the deal: Humans like to have a consistant worldview. It's comfortable. It's stable. Whether it's believing in Jehovah God and His Organization, the dialectical-materialism of Marxism or the naturalism of skeptics -- the human mind will always sort things out to fit it's Weltenschauung.

I agree, Brad, that's why it is necessary to quiet our intellectual mind, so that we can tap into the intuitive side.......in this way we become "balanced"..........this thread has really helped me to see in so many ways what my last therapist, who was a traditionally trained Gestalt therapist, as well as a Shamanic healer, was getting at when I would sit in her office and spout things I had been reading and researching. She wanted me to let go of that narrow left brain, so that my right brain could be accessed! Also, it's our egos that want to keep things status quo, the "small self" as Jung put it. Our ego is full of all kinds of fears, and will try to control everything in it's domain! Xenophobia at it's most extreme!
Xena, that was a really cool experience! My friend, Dean and I do stuff like that all the time, at least two or three times daily, one of us will start to say something and the other will just say: "OMG, I was just going to say that or I was just thinking the same thing!" In fact, we've both done that with each other from almost the first moment of our meeting each other.
Sunnygal41

I'm just coming at it, as best I can, from a purely rational standpoint - something new-agey types won't even begin to do.

Rem, being a "new-agey type", I refer you to my above comments. If we want to evolve to higher and higher consciousness, we have to put away the black and white stances. They don't work, they are flawed in that they are too rigid. Somewhere right in the middle, with access to both fields of thought and attitude seem to me to be the most valuable and wise.
Ter
Satanus

Rem
I admit, I believe the probability of the supernatural realm to be so small as to be practically zero.
There you go. See? You're a believer, after all.
The same is true of my belief in god. All I need is some good evidence. In fact, down deep, I think I really want to believe.
I guess i too, kind of want to believe in that other side, an invisible side. Although, as time goes on, i realise that belief, pro or con, isn't that important. It doesn't change much. So, i try to keep an open mind, so to speak; the investigation files aren't closed/finalized, but the investigation isn't very active, iether. For me, it's a bit of wait and see, or more, trying to see what may be there. Not that i'm suggesting that to you. I just find it interesting reading about your beliefs.
S
logansrun

rem,
Keep in mind that I do respect you as an over-all rational person. Nevertheless...
Show me the money. Show me the replicated experiments.
I'm very new to exploring the "pro" side of the parapsychology debate, so I cannot give a complete answer to your request. I have heard, though, that some consider psi phenomenon to be "state-dependent" and thus not readily accesible to experimental validity. The human mental condition is complex and ever-changing; it would make sense that altered states of consciousness are inconsistent and very dependent on mood and other factors. Ask a Monet to paint in a laboratory and he might say that it is impossible. One has to be "in the mood." Again, this is just a possibility, I'm not even saying that I believe in parapsychology.
Mental conditions are almost invariably not open to scientific scrutiny. How do you quantify such feelings as love, empathy, jealousy and religious awe? You can't. No one can. It's validity or non-validity is completely subjective. Many skeptics view subjective experiences as having no validity whatsoever; since the love I have for a friend is unverifiable and unfalsifiable it must therefore not be true. Of course, such a statement is ridiculous. Couldn't the same be said for mystical and spiritual feelings?
I'm not saying that fellow "skeptics" such as Randi can't be overly dogmatic. I'm just coming at it, as best I can, from a purely rational standpoint - something new-agey types won't even begin to do.
Two things: Number one, no one is "purely rational." Not even Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennet. Secondly, have you considered that you have debated "new agey" type people and not looked into more educated people who are open to "supernatural" phenomenon? Sure, one can debate Creationism with a backwater, snake-handling Pentacostalist, but that doesn't mean you've wrestled with theists who have more intellectual finesse. There are educated believers and non-educated believers. Dumb atheists and smart atheists. Just make sure you've talked to the more intelligent sides of both camps.

I admit, I believe the probability of the supernatural realm to be so small as to be practically zero. The same is true of my belief in god. All I need is some good evidence. In fact, down deep, I think I really want to believe.
So, what books have you read in favor of belief (besides WT books, of course). Have you read William James's "Varities of Religious Experience"? Alduous Huxley's "The Perrenial Philosophy"? Paul Davies's "God and the New Physics"? Richard Swineburne? Kenneth Miller? Really, since you "want to believe" I'm sure you would have read something which is pro-theist.

Anecdotes are not evidence. I've seen both sides of the story.
Anecdotal evidence is not repeatable, but that does not mean that they therefore have no validity.

For every example of plate techtonics you give, I can give you 10 more along the lines of cold fusion, lamarkian evolution, etc. Remember, it was evidence that turned the tide for plate techtonics theory - not anecdotes.
Since you have no idea how many examples of scientific dogmatism turned upside it's head I can give you cannot make the above statement. Have you ever read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolution"? I also want to mention that there is a HUGE difference between a physical phenomenon and a mental one. Plate tectonics is readily available to scientific study in the physicalist sense; mystic experience is not.

Regarding SETI, I happen to have been running it on my PC for quite some time. I don't view it as a hard science (though it is based on hard sciences such as information theory), and plus it's just in it's infancy. If the skies had been as thoroughly searched as the field of parapsychology, then I think you would have point, and I wouldn't be wasting cycles on my PC
Again, there is a big difference between state-dependent mental phenomenon and physical phenomenon. Surely you must see this.
B.
rem

Hey Sunnygal!

Your response presumes that there really is a higher level of consciousness. It's question begging. Perhaps there is some higher consciousness that we can "evolve" to, but first you have to provide evidence of it. I can just as easily say, "The tooth fairies will only leave money under our pillows if we are nice to them." It doesn't make much sense unless you provide evidence for the existence of tooth fairies. :)

Also, sometimes things are black and white - there is a god (gods?) or there is not. The Earth is held up by a tortoise or it is not. There really is some type of paranormal phenomenon or there is not.

Beleive me - I can just imagine how cool it would be if there really was supernatural intervention in our world. I think it would be great! We could cure diseases with witch doctors instead of using costly drugs and risky surgery. We could pray for rain and good harvests, mitigating the need for pesticides, genetic engineering, fertilizers - practically eliminating famine. Who needs police detectives? Remote viewers can find murder victims and their killers through the ether. But crime would never happen anyway, since we could consult fortune tellers and see our future and possibly avoid situations. No need for the telephone - we can communicate with each other telepathically faster than the speed of light!

If paranormal research could just match one of the breakthroughs of scientific, rational thinking, then I would change my mind about it. If a theory is useful, then that's all that matters to me. I'm pragmatic that way. But theories that are useless usually tend to turn out to be wrong. Meaning - there probably isn't a higher consciousness for us to strive for.

It's surprising that there aren't any really surprising finds to be found in parapsychology considering the amount of research that has gone into it. Seriously - if there is anything to synchronicity and other spooky phenomenon beyond psychology and coincidence - it's a wonder that no trace of anything has been found until this point. Not a trace! This is strange for phenomenon that happens to every person on earth many times throughout the year! We are not talking about rare stuff here.

Anyway, I'm rambling... I was a believer in this stuff until a few years ago. I started reading the other side of the story... and man, is there a lot of research. Scientists have not been slouching when it comes to the paranormal. The problem now is that pseudoscientists have come in to take their place and are now making unfounded claims that tickle the ears of many who want and even need to believe. They make a lot of money on books, though.

rem
rem

Bradley,

>>I'm very new to exploring the "pro" side of the parapsychology debate, so I cannot give a complete answer to your request. I have heard, though, that some consider psi phenomenon to be "state-dependent" and thus not readily accesible to experimental validity.

That's convenient. Define the phenomenon as non-testable. Now we are in the region of philosophy - not science. The purely rational standpoint is usually to withold judgement on such things, yet not hold them credible. i.e. allow for the minute possibility that they exist - but don't believe in it. God's and fairies fall into this camp as well.

>>Ask a Monet to paint in a laboratory and he might say that it is impossible. One has to be "in the mood." Again, this is just a possibility, I'm not even saying that I believe in parapsychology.

First of all, many people claim their paranormal powers *can* be tested. Dowsers are tested all of the time with conditions that they agree to and feel are completely fair. They are usually flabergasted when they only perform around the level of chance. There are many other examples, of course.

In fact, scientists aren't even looking for particularly *good* paranormal practicioners or strong phenomenon. They are only looking for a significant deviation from chance. No one is asking Monet to paint a masterpiece - they are just asking him to slap some paint on a canvas to see if the paint actually exists.

But, sure, there is the possibility that the phenomenon is extremely shy. In that case there is no way to test it and all we have are anecdotes. Anecdotes are really useless as evidence. No matter how many are piled up, they are still suspect - the plural of anecdote is not data. The Bible is full of anecdotes, but do you really believe an ancient jew named Jesus was really resurrected?

As far as intelligent believers - all they can do is define the phenomenon as untestable. Just like the fairies that float around my head - they only come out when nobody is looking. That's not rational.

Of course, this does expose us to the possibility of Type II errors. This is unavoidable until someone invents a system of knowledge as effective as the scientific method and filters out the infinite number of Type I errors. But really, what good are the nuggets we lose with Type II errors if we cannot even harness them for the good of humanity. If it's so shy that it can't be tested in a lab, how is it at all useful? Once it becomes useful, it automatically becomes testable.

As far as wanting to believe - maybe I really don't want it *that* badly. Can you briefly outline the benefits to belief? Why should I? Because I might be missing out on something that cannot be tested or verified? Why should I read one of those books? Is there any startling truth I'm missing out on with my rational viewpoint? All you can say for certain is that there is a *possibility* that I'm missing out on something - and you can't even say for a certain what exactly it is! (Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation) :)

But anyway, I really should not be posting while I'm drunk. :) Take it easy!

rem
rem

Bradley,

A couple more things:

>>Since you have no idea how many examples of scientific dogmatism turned upside it's head I can give you cannot make the above statement.

I was being conservative. It's obvious that there are far more wrong ideas that right ones. Just because someone is going against contemporary thinking doesn't give him any more chance of being correct. As Sagan was fond of saying, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

As far as paradigm shifts in scientific thinking - that's all part of the process. That's why the scientific method works. Pseudoscientists don't change their theories in the face of facts.

>>Again, there is a big difference between state-dependent mental phenomenon and physical phenomenon. Surely you must see this.

Surely you must be suspicious that not a *shred* of high-quality evidence has surfaced in all of these decades of intense study? I can see it being elusive... but all-together invisible? I doubt it. Like I said before - nobody is looking for huge phenomenon - they gave that up a long time ago. They have been looking for the slightest blip on the statistical radar for years now. The problem is that when you start looking to that level of signal to noise ratio, your procedures have to be pretty much perfect so as to rule out non-psi factors.

rem

Into the mystic (an experience).

Share this