| Author
|
A thread that Hos nothing to do with music but all at the same time
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Jan 12, 2007 16:24
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-01-12 14:05, the daleks wrote:
in the end though, we all die alone, and have to think about what that means to us personally. and the rest is faith and the choices we make. |
|
This is the bitter truth. Well at least it's bitter for those of us who put their money on the science, faith, corporations, guru or their own children. The only thing that can make death come easy is the clarity of the mind and clear conscious. There's an old Chinese saying: "you will die like you have lived". What that means for each of us I leave each of you to figure it out.
Quote:
|
On 2007-01-12 14:05, the daleks wrote:
fuck the ego, i like the id better. but thats just my personal view. i think the western world could use a little less ego, and that would make things better, but am not making any bets that it will happen. i am a realist after all.. |
|
Beside being ignorant ego is not natural at all. Animals don't have ego. Only humans can say "I". Only "advanced" human being is stupid enough to perceive SELF and NOT SELF. This abnormal "reasoning" led us to disconnect from the nature and manifest this tumor like civilization made of concrete, steel, glass and silicon. The average human being is obviously not capable to see that without NOT SELF a.k.a. as nature there will be no SELF. Because we are nature. Anyway... the ego is a manifest of trauma. It polarizes our reasoning, understanding, behavior and in the end our true self. Ego is responsible for the "shadow" between consciousness and subconsciousness. To live above the influence of ego is to be really free. All other forms of freedom are simply living in the prison without bars.
Quote:
|
On 2007-01-12 14:05, the daleks wrote:
(but am i the only one that got the sarcasm in the 4D stuff?) |
|
No. But you have to understand that people are afraid of what they don't know. Kids are afraid of the dark until they learn that the dark is only the absence of light. Equal to that the adults are afraid of unknown but are also afraid to recognize the fear of unknown so they tend to hide behind reason, logic, science, religion or any other system of belief. Once they overcome the fear it's easy... to make unknown known we just have to turn on the light. And knowledge is the only light that removes the darkness. But to gain knowledge is to explore the darkness. No scientist can do it for you... If you trust in science it's the same thing as trusting in God. Until you explore it for your self it remains an illusion, a belief.
Quote:
|
On 2007-01-12 14:05, the daleks wrote:
but whatever, nothing is wrong with that. thats part of human 'novelty'
|
|
It's nice to see that Terence is still around after all this years. Isn't this in some way the very evidence that spirit can not be lost... Souls carry on in one way or another. His spirit is stronger than ever. Maybe this struggle is not lost after all 
  "It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
Freeflow
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
60
Posts :
3709
Posted : Jan 12, 2007 18:42
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-01-12 14:20, bukboy wrote:
The Daleks - Every1 Is not pretty much right.
Only the "naysayers" here have to produce evidence that theyre right. Every1 else hides in the typical religious shroud of belief and faith is above needing to prove itself. It just IS.
The ridiculous things that people believe that have nothing going for them. Y Y Y Y Y?
All the "yaysayers" have ignored everything Ive said as if it was too obviously wrong to even contemplate. Logic is not used to argue anything. Im just wrong + bullshit + I like fairies is every single response. WTF
Culturalist imperialism? U have beliefs that fly in the face of logic. I dont have to agree with that, and I dont have to keep quiet about it.
|
|
i think that getting into this thread asking for proof is kind of silly, so that was why i said what i said about the naysayers.
but like i said before this thread wouldnt be anything without people having different views..
there is not much to argument about spiritual beliefs(if its not done with great respect). but none the less this thread has been interesting and i must say that i learnd that i sometimes have to think more logical, even if thats not my thing 
but for that matter i wont dismiss interesting thoughts that cant be proven right or wrong.
cheers and have a happy weedend ohh weekend
|
|
|
|
mudpeople
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
113
Posts :
1785
Posted : Jan 13, 2007 00:23
|
I encountered some similar reactions with a similar post on another messageboard...
"You're not thinking, you're just being logical!"
I know what I know, and what I know is that in order for something to be proven, it has to be accepted as proven, and believed. What if it isnt believed? And I dont just mean, one person believes the sun is cold but everyone else says its hot. To a delusional person, the hallucinated reality is as real as it gets, no matter what others see.
I wont believe anything simply because someone told me, that includes books, professors, whatnot. I dont accept that anything can be proven unless it is believed. But if its not believed, can it be proven?
Laughing, condescending, arrogant, contemptuous comments are not rational discourse, in fact just the opposite. I can practically hear the emotions boiling, and doing what they do. Emotions cloud thinking. If you cant sit down and calmly and rationally explain why exactly its so wrong, then well, I guess you didnt prove anything right or wrong, and all you did was get all worked up, apparently for nothing at all but your own ego-masturbation.
Are you looking at Stonehenge right now? If no, then how can you know its there? Pictures can be faked, people can lie, books can be misinformed. Even senses can be fooled. Even if you're standing there, looking at it, what are you using to perceive it? Electrical impulses tied to sensory organs, which translate a sensation into electricity. Remember Shroedinger and his cat? THat applies to the Human measurement devices as well.
Please, calmly and rationally, name a method of perception which is 100% infallible.
. |
|
|
|
Freeflow
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
60
Posts :
3709
Posted : Jan 13, 2007 08:04
|
"Please, calmly and rationally, name a method of perception which is 100% infallible."
i dont think there is any 
to get the best perception of music you should maybe only use for example your ears  and in this case close your eyes cause its said that sight takes up to 40% of our cortex volume. i wonder if closing our eyes would leave some extra processing power to the hearing
though i dont know if we see better if we hold our hands over our ears
anyway what was this thread about?
http://www.scientificpsychic.com/workbook/chapter2.htm
|
|
|
|
Freeflow
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
60
Posts :
3709
Posted : Jan 13, 2007 08:15
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-12-28 07:48, bukboy wrote:
wtf have u been reading?
|
|
This is how you started your adventure in this thread
haha... i sense the humor bukboy so dont take me the wrong way, i also wonder what he have been reading, its quite a interesting theory that D-Jade explained.. and its a beautiful thought, and i for sure cant prove him wrong.
but talolard did prove him wrong,
"ur ideas negate the second law of thermodynamics which dictate a constant increase in entropy. therefore your beliefs are physcially imposible."
so is talolard correct?
i believe that when you die you die, finito. at least i hope so.. i just want to rest
|
|
|
|
bukboy
Hyperboreans
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
803
Posted : Jan 13, 2007 09:42
|
My intelligence is constantly being insulted and my posts answered with non-concrete irrelevant answers. Y shouldnt I get upset.
I am having difficulty understanding and responding to the riot of ideas in this thread so Im going to define the point of this thread to simplify the discussion, as its getting too large.
Being the main poster on this thread I can stipulate what its about so that we can concretely attack only that point. Agreed?(I do not think I am hijacking this thread so much as clarifying my objections from the beginning)
We should not be interested in perceptions or hallucinations. These are both subjective and not productive.
What I do want to talk about and only that is the lack of evidence or argumentation in proposing a theory. Also about lack of personal critical attitude to appraising our own thoughts for probability.
If someone came up to u and told u that he was from the future, but he looked like a junkie, and had no cool future devices or anything. Just looked exactly like a street bum, would you think there was any likelihood of his story being true? Would u believe it?
Would u actually give this guy the benefit of the doubt and say cool, his from the future? Would u give him money if he asked u to get him some petrol to get back to it?
No? You wouldnt give him money? becoz he smells of meths?
So then Y do people say stuff with the same approach. Say something that is ludicrously unsupported by any evidence. And everyone supposed to swallow it like its truth plainly becoz my well wishing friend wishes to bestow his bizzare lack of reason on me?
Another example. I just found out yesterday, my fiances close personal friends believe that ketamine gets them to the 6th dimension. I have no clue what the 6th dimension is, being a nice 3d fellow myself I cannot even imagine how a brain thats been trained to perceive in 3d can all of a sudden begin working in 6d so as to perceive it.
Do these people know that a dimension is perpendicular to all the others before it. its like imagining a direction that is at right angles to 5 other directions which are all at right angles to each other. This is completely impossible to imagine for any human being.
I think they simply have no clue what 6d actually means, even though they will vehemenlty oppose me despite having no clue that a n-dimension space is a mathematically defined synthetic concept, i.e. 3dimensions people can perceive but theoretical n-dimension spaces that are literally conjectures only? it is a concept not understood by people who have not done university mathematics. And even the people who do understand it have no idea how to imagine it, and none of them go on a trip and report that they have been to their other theoretical dimensions. Its just too necessarily impossible. Like snow is white and not white is always necessarily true. How the hell would some1 that has never done mathematics understand a mathematical concept that even its creators cant imagine.
What I think it is is a lack of mathematical understanding combined with a lack of critical ability. And general wishful thinking. Also I think theres an element of not being able to use english correctly and unambiguosly to define what the hell these people see. That they have visions I have no doubt, but whether they mean what they say, and understand what they say, and have considered how incredibly counter intuitive what theyre saying is, I doubt.
Anyway my point is only about the lack of evidence criterion. The examples themselves are made up so if u want to post please dont concentrate on my examples for hitches instead try to think of examples where unsupported fly-in-your-face theories should be believed. The only reason Y I am on this thread is to understand Y stuff with no evidence, should b believed over stuff with evidence. Soon as someone answers that I will concede defeat and join with the overconsciousness via copious amounts of substance.
P.S.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEEEAAASSSEE answer the question NOT the examples, and PLEEEAASSSEE do not introduce stuff that is not about the lack of evidence criterion.
PLEAASSEE focus on the question nothing else.
Im really begging everyone to just try to attack the actual problem, not me or my examples, or my lack of enlightenment. I have asked a simple concrete question thats all. |
|
|
|
mudpeople
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
113
Posts :
1785
Posted : Jan 13, 2007 19:29
|
How can anyone offer proof if nothing can be proven? And if it can, how can it be proven?
Maybe more would post if they didnt feel they dont need to explain themselves to you? Maybe they dont want to feed your ego. I know I dont.
Explain objectivity, if you want it so bad, personally I dont see how anything can be truly objective. This is not some "wacko Pleiadian nonsense", but conclusions drawn by modern psychotherapists such as Stanislav Grof. If it exists, it is because we perceive that it does. And if it exists it must already be perceived. So how, if there is no separation between the observer and the observed, how can anything truly be objective?
You dont believe it. Fine. you have your ideas. Good! Thats what they are, YOUR ideas. Expecting others to recognize your ideas as concrete truth is disrespectful of others, who may feel differently. This is not a bad thing! What if everyone believed what you do? No arguements anywhere. Personally my reaction to another trying to make me change my point of view is defiance. I like to make my own mind thank you very much! And what that means is NOT up to you!!
So, picture this, this guy comes up to you on the street, claimiing hes from the future. He's dressed in some kind of fiberless fabric, hes got a computer the size of a grain of rice with a holographic display. He shows you his blaster. He points up, and you see his ship hovering there.
Ok now that you've got that in mind, how exactly do any of these things offer proof that this guy is actually from the future, maybe hes an alien, maybe hes a hallucination, maybe hes a 6th dimensional ketamine kreature... Maybe you see what Im trying to illustrate here.
. |
|
|
|
bukboy
Hyperboreans
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
803
Posted : Jan 13, 2007 20:06
|
Objective is defined as everything that is true whether u believe it or not.
Like the bullet in the gun of the bastard taking your land from u. U can choose not to believe or perceive or be perceived. Wont matter much.
Accepting objectivity is a matter of survival. So real denial of the kind of objectivity we're talking about, would be a very perilous stance, but please feel free to grab the wall socket power supply and turn it on.
Does that explain what objective is?
I give everyones ideas an equal chance. If its really a bad idea il say as much.
Do u think your ideas are beyond question becoz u believe them? r u playing the religion card? These guys dont even have a religion to back up the 432 Hz story. Its just made up crap that is made to look like a belief so it can be above criticism. And the original post about energy of whatever, theres no religion that agrees with that.
Even if I respected religions position that it is above question, these "ideas" are not under its protection.
By quoting budha or eastern phil does not lend any creedence to it.
And then of course I dont agree that religion is above question anyway.
My Ego? Really. Beating on uneducated hippies is not high on my list of priorities. They should thank me 4 opposing their unsupported mystical beliefs as a token demonstration of rejection of dogma.
Anyway... Im much more interested in finding out Y you guys think my question is unimportant enough not to answer given how open minded you are? |
|
|
|
bukboy
Hyperboreans
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
803
Posted : Jan 13, 2007 20:07
|
Objective is defined as everything that is true whether u believe it or not.
Like the bullet in the gun of the bastard taking your land from u. U can choose not to believe or perceive or be perceived. Wont matter much.
Accepting objectivity is a matter of survival. So real denial of the kind of objectivity we're talking about, would be a very perilous stance, but please feel free to grab the wall socket power supply and turn it on.
Does that explain what objective is?
I give everyones ideas an equal chance. If its really a bad idea il say as much.
Do u think your ideas are beyond question becoz u believe them? r u playing the religion card? These guys dont even have a religion to back up the 432 Hz story. Its just made up crap that is made to look like a belief so it can be above criticism. And the original post about energy of whatever, theres no religion that agrees with that.
Even if I respected religions position that it is above question, these "ideas" are not under its protection.
By quoting budha or eastern phil does not lend any creedence to it.
And then of course I dont agree that religion is above question anyway.
My Ego? Really. Beating on uneducated hippies is not high on my list of priorities. They should thank me 4 opposing their unsupported mystical beliefs as a token demonstration of rejection of dogma.
Anyway... Im much more interested in finding out Y you guys think my question is unimportant enough not to answer given how open minded you are? |
|
|
|
mudpeople
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
113
Posts :
1785
Posted : Jan 13, 2007 21:15
|
Maybe you mean, "If I THINK its a bad idea I'll say as much" because you cant speak for anyone at all but Bukboy. Making statements that imply your ideas are superior definitely dont encourage others to rationally examine your question.
You can believe whatever you like, so long as you extend the same courtesy to others.
You make an ultimatum, and when others refuse to meet that arbitrary construct, you seem to take that as a victory.
Whatever you may say, your posts are dripping, quite audibly, with ego. This is tainting your perceptions, and this has nothing to do with mystics or religions. One of the most effective tools of controlling an individual is making them annoyed, irritated, or whatnot, to the point where rational thought is pushed aside in favor of whatever feeds the ideas you already hold to be so true.
Thats not a very intelligent definition of objective, man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective
Keep in mind however that the wikipedia is user-contructed so its facts may be flawed... Also keep in mind that ALL SCIENCE is user-constructed and subject to human flaws, same goes to all mysticism. You are a mystic, in your own scientific religion. I dont believe either is 100% true or containing all answers infallibly. Im waiting for more definite proof, as a true scientist would.
The moment you cease to be able to question your own belief, is the moment you cease to be a true free thinker.
. |
|
|
|
bukboy
Hyperboreans
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
803
Posted : Jan 13, 2007 21:28
|
And ur the one getting upset.
What exactly is ur objection? That Im egoistical, disrespectful and arrogant?
Doesnt change that a belief with no evidence deserves to be ridiculed.
|
|
|
|
mudpeople
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
113
Posts :
1785
Posted : Jan 13, 2007 21:37
|
well I guess you could read upset into it...
My objection is to any kind of elitism. This includes the assumption that your ideas are the only true ones.
. |
|
|
|
bukboy
Hyperboreans
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
803
Posted : Jan 14, 2007 08:29
|
The only problem is that Im not a belief elitist.
I dont know how uve read that in. ALL I WANT IS ACCOUNTABILITY. Any theory is equally probably if its equally well argued. I dont discriminate.
Oh by the way I think I understand Y u dont like my definition of the objective. Its a simplified definition used in philosophy not science.
But thats phil 101.
Subjective - everything that has to be believed to be true,
Objective - everything but the subjective.
I cant really go in2 depth too far as to the nature of belief but it is a topic on its own. I think its a good working definition anyway.
So no one bothers caring to answer my simple question? What have u got to lose? u might learn something. |
|
|
|
Freeflow
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
60
Posts :
3709
Posted : Jan 14, 2007 22:20
|
bukboy - can you precise your question, narrow it down. as i saw lots of question marks in your post.
so what was the question?
in small words
|
|
|
|
bukboy
Hyperboreans
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
803
Posted : Jan 14, 2007 23:51
|
|
Y does the original post get so much support from the posters, without any evidence for it? |
|
|
|
|
