Question about Energy

"What I am pointing out is that you cannot apprehend them in any form of normal waking activity, whether it be in debate or reading a book. So your criteria for assessing the information lacks sufficient rigor."

Really? Because I think you're qualifications for what you'd be willing to perceive as truth/reality are what lack rigor. That same justification can be used to defend any outlandish claim that is conceivable. Completely nonsensical.

"Knowledge is, being shared. The ability to communicate grows, as simple forms become more complex. I said nothing about belief. Knowledge is not a concept although everything we understand arises with conception, just as reality is not imagined although we imagine things about reality."

Another non-answer. You criticized my post for crediting science as the sole source of human progression, which if you reread it closely, was neither said or implied. And you're right, your post did not include anything about the role of belief in satisfying curiosity which is why I explained it to you. Without refining the way you process and accept information, you become more susceptible to misinformation. Without refinement, you severely hinder your ability to perceive truths that enable you to manipulate your environment in new ways.

"We an make a complete statement about reality. Reality is non local nor is it remote. Nothing real can be threatened and nothing unreal exists."

I'm not sure what you're even trying to say with these two sentences. It sounds like more irrelevant bs you read in some metaphysical/new age book.

"A comprehensive definition can not be put forward but reality may be apprehended. We name the animals as we discover them. It will forever be an open ended description. Reality, being non local, cannot be contained by description."

If you accept that reality may be apprehended, then that would imply to me that you believe objective knowledge is attainable, which in turn implies an objective reality exists which corresponds to human sensation, not a product of human sensation. In this case, though knowledge emerges, the universe itself it is not emergent but consistent. It appears emergent because as our body of knowledge grows, new possibilities arise in the human mind.

 

you have no power in this game . another word for power is potential . your avatar of pure reason has no potential . not You ... your avatar .
you present us with an avatar . who are You ?

i really am an enchanted king .
the faeries mess with me .

would you like to see one ?
.
.

 

"I haven't stated what my qualifications are, only that in the case of psychic phenomena, and by psychic I mean of the mind, the only avenue for apprehension is through the exercise of the mind itself. You can record the electrical activity associated with thought but you cannot discover remotely what the content of thought is."

It isn't your qualifications I'm criticizing, but your lack of qualifications. Essentially what you're saying here is that you accept personal anecdote as evidence. You may not be able to record the content of an electrical impulse, but you can any change in activity in the brain and where that activity is occurring, which would demonstrate a lot. And once you specify the nature of the psychic activity we are speaking of, other tests could be performed. Mind reading could certainly could be tested for accuracy and consistency.

"What don't you understand about it? Is it that you doubt the verity of the statement, or perhaps you believe that statements that represent common observation have nothing to do with assessing real things? Have we not determined that the observer has representation in the outcome of the experiment?"

You quoted the first sentence of the paragraph while ignoring its actual content. This is an obvious evasive tactic.

"Pretty sure I stated that your post contained premises that were inconsistent with each other."

The point you made was that curiosity is solely responsible for the acquisition of knowledge. Belief in a conclusion satisfies curiosity, so if the bar is set low, the truth will remain undiscovered. Verification of the truth comes from predictable results based on the presumption. This is the role refinement plays. You obviously didn't understand these posts, or are evading them which is why this requires remedial attention.

"Ahh, but my query is, what is the method of refinement? Is it skepticism or is it open mindedness? "

If you look up the definition of skepticism and open-mindedness you'll realize the two do not contradict each other. In fact skepticism and the scientific approach require a completely open mind.

"We may have uninterrupted observation that neither judges for nor against a particular position, one such quality of consciousness as I was referring to before. What is real, is always part of practical expression and is more plain than mysterious. What severely inhibits our ability to perceive truth is lack of examination."

If observation doesn't verify one position or another than no conclusion can be drawn. If the existence of an invisible, incorporeal teapot can not be demonstrated to exist than you can not claim it exists or does not exist. What you can say is that there is no evidence to support its existence, thus not worth believing in. The same goes for people who believe in psychic phenomena. Though I won't say it certainly does not exist, I can certainly attack the logic behind belief without evidence. Without evidence this exists in the same realm as our incorporeal teapot.

"If you are guessing, "sounds like", lies totally with the job description, not with any apprehended reality. If you compare your assessments with the criteria I set forth in my statement about reality and they do not correspond to those criteria, you can assume that your statement represents a subjective corridor of refraction."

Except I've never made any assumptions here. By telling you what it sounds like to me, I'm basically saying this is my best guess at what you're trying to say, so you should elaborate. Instead it seems you have replied with more nonsense.

 

I think you should perhaps check your definition of skepticism. Philosophically skepticism is the doctrine that true knowledge is impossible. Nothing whatsoever open-minded in a doctrine.
"We may have uninterrupted observation that neither judges for nor against a particular position, one such quality of consciousness as I was referring to before. What is real, is always part of practical expression and is more plain than mysterious. What severely inhibits our ability to perceive truth is lack of examination."

Do you mean that since we cannot according to you apprehend the total of reality then we cannot say that reality exists? If reality is non local then there is no local position to verify. If it is not remote, there is no remote position to verify.

We can however, share our thoughts and this is demonstrable. Money works because it is based on agreement. There are functions that function on the basis of agreement to have it so, no agreement, no function.

Yes you certainly can attack such logic but not to the point of discounting empirical evidence. There is such a thing as an expert witness

Nor did I say you made any assumptions and what I said stands true of itself.
What did you not understand about what I said? Your characterization, nonsense, is devoid of any mutually tactile information. I am elaborating but you have some perceptual/conceptual boundaries that are prohibiting your appreciation.

Life on earth has a rich catalog of empirical wisdom embedded in genetic code. You know far more than you think you know and consequently far less.
Consider where the eureka moment springs from.

 

Being the son of an attorney does not make one an attorney, so your opinion is not qualified on this matter.

You are correct in saying I've presented no corroborating evidence. I said there would be no proofs. I saw you coming here with your chip on your shoulder from a mile away, and my thought was that I don't want to waste my precious time trying to convince someone who has already made up his mind not to be convinced. I'll leave that discussion to thedope, cuz I know he gets major kicks from discussions like that, and I like to watch him in action.

I'm a much more practical and pragmatic kind of person. If I see something, and I talk to somebody else and we find that we both see roughly the same thing, though we may describe it somewhat differently, then I'm willing to accept that we both have a sense that allows us to see the same thing. I don't need a scientific experiment to "prove" to me that this is true. The fact that you don't see what I do is not important, because based on my interactions with others who do see it, I must conclude that you're simply colorblind, but unwilling to admit your vision deficit.

You can scream for "proofs" all you want, but you'll never get them, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to give them to you, because you're stuck in the mindset of refusing to believe that others have an ability you don't.

The bottom line is that you've behaved badly. You hijacked someone else's thread - though I'll admit that the op seems to have abandoned it - however technically this is a violation of item 6 of the rules of the forum. You've ridiculed people, which constitutes trolling and violates item 4 of the rules. These two breaches alone are more than enough for me to report you to the mod. I let it go this one time in the interest of allowing the discussion with thedope to continue, but if you continue to hijack threads and ridicule people, I will report you. We do not get to talk about psychic stuff merely by your benevolent leave - it is one of our rights on this forum, and you will not violate that right. If you want to debate the merits of believing in psychic phenomena, then start your own thread and have as much fun there as you like.

 

Why would you want to do something like that to someone? The more you surround yourself in negative energy, the more you feel it too. You will also get the effects of embracing those things.
I would recommend you let out any bad energy you have towards someone through exercise or meditation. Counselling may help too, talk about it. And then let it go.
It is important to remember, build a bridge, not a wall. Life will be much better then.

 

I apologize for my lack of reverence zengi. It is my feeling that the savage beast cannot be soothed lest you allow him into your comfort zone.

 

Not at all, dope. You're absolutely right...unfortunately I have neither the time nor patience at this particular point, and further I'm seeing the quality of life on the Psychic Forum deteriorating as a result of infringements on its peace. However I'm finding it helpful to read your interactions.

 

the internet , it turns out , isn't much of a community life . for
a good long while we happily didn't know that .

as for our sceptic , there is a way with words that can allow
him to have a positive , natural psychic experience . it is in
composing words with a sense of music , pure music .

pure music has power with one intention , and that is ,
to be sensual unto the everything and nothing . discordance
is masterful . let him weep . then to dream a kindness .

 

What you mean is that people are having the audacity to bring some common sense into here, and that is spoiling all your fun.

 

What I mean is that people are having the audacity to ridicule others and hijack threads on this forum on a fairly regular basis, and that this behavior tends to intimidate people, which makes them reluctant to post questions, thoughts, or opinions here that they should feel free to post if they like.

 

From a spiritual standpoint, I agree. From a practical social standpoint, I would say a community breaks down when bullies are allowed to to rule, but thrives when a sense of acceptance and fair play pervades. There is a perfectly good place for composing words with a sense of music for our skeptics: In their own threads, observing the forum rules. Let harmony and kindness abound therein.

 

The senses discussed her are not common but require refinement.

The skeptic has no sense of it at all.

 

What I see on a fairly regular basis is people posting statements which do not match your worldview.

 

A world view that fails to appreciate the view of the world, is strictly self contained.

 

Not matching my worldview is acceptable. Ridiculing and hijacking earn a trip to the mod's office.

 

CrabbyPaws ne'r got a reply ?

 

I assumed CrabbyPaws was addressing the op - the only poster who's still on-topic. Good post too, innit?