|
Post by hollandr on Apr 27, 2005 22:31:34 GMT
Folks
There are some who when faced with a higher dimensional proposition believe it without evidence. And there are others who disbelieve it without evidence.
Both seem to me to take their preferred position without even a pretence at rationality.
And there are some who when faced with possible evidence of some higher dimensional proposition put large amounts of energy into explaining away the evidence with statements using words like might and probably. Such dismissive statements are not accompanied by evidence unlike the original proposition.
This eagerness to dismiss evidence of higher dimensional propositions without investigation seems to me to constitute Pathological Doubt.
I have seen it quite often. For example, a friend dreamed some lottery numbers and put one bet on them. He won around $100 but said that because it was not a very large win, there was no evidence for a deeper reality.
Now who or what benefits from that sort of pathological doubt?
If we could answer that we would understand a lot.
Actually the history of science also shows many examples of pathological doubt. Meteorites and ball lightning are obvious examples.
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by bevan on Apr 29, 2005 12:51:44 GMT
Russell, I think I’m at the point where I don't believe anything is totally true. It's a lovely primary state to be in most of the time. The problem is that it doesn’t help a huge amount when my primal fears and deeper-seated beliefs are activated. Try realising a belief that’s in your muscle, your posture, reinforced by a lifetime of habitual stance and breathing. Good luck even noticing those suckers! Never mind trying to understand and transcend them...
Anyway, I think doubt and belief are pretty much obsolete concepts these days. How do we know what our beliefs are when all we have to truly reference against is ourselves? Believing or not believing are true for the individual concerned. A real skeptic is not a pathological doubter, a real skeptic simply suspends judgement where evidence is not forthcoming. Our experiences do not and should not count as evidence for others.
If I didn’t believe in my beliefs, what would I believe in their place? Your beliefs? What do I believe about your beliefs? What gains or side effects might your beliefs produce in me? What will my life be like when I believe what you believe and how will I know I've been successful? Nope, my life exists in my universe which could be several billion times removed from yours. We believe what we perceive. We also perceive what we believe. Catch 22 until we don't believe anymore....
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Apr 29, 2005 21:05:41 GMT
If I didn’t believe in my beliefs, what would I believe in their place? Bevan This is a most interesting question. When I stand outside and look at the sun, I do not believe in it. I can feel it and see it. And when I call on others they find it in the same place in the sky without being prompted and find the sky around it clear or clouded just as I do. Therefore I am content to say that I Know the sun is there. Other people have the same experience with "God" . They no longer believe because the existence of an underlying cause is quite quite obvious. Now those for whom the existence of a meaning or source to life is obvious are traditionally known as Gnostics - knowers. And since they are clearly deranged or heretics the tradition has been to kill them as quickly as possible. Thereby society is confirmed in its knowledge that it is not possible to know anything. I recall a hymn from Co-M HRA - that goes something like - once I have seen the face of God then I no longer need Faith or Hope. All that remains is Love. These damned Gnostics are everywhere. Cheers Russell
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on May 3, 2005 23:00:09 GMT
Brethren
Is this a scary topic?
Have I claimed the high ground so that anyone commenting feels insecure?
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by whistler on May 4, 2005 4:35:10 GMT
Brethren Is this a scary topic? Have I claimed the high ground so that anyone commenting feels insecure? Cheers Russell Not really - There are some who when faced with a higher dimensional proposition believe it without evidence. And there are others who disbelieve it without evidence.. - Those are big words Russell I hope I Understand what you ment. Once the concept of more than one dimension can be proved - a medium can do that when they tell you something that you know and they can't possibly know - that knowledge must be somewhere to be shared - in another dimension The concept of another dimension is an important point - because that makes even more dimensions possible. I wouldn't suggest higher or lower dimensions as that introduces Man's Judgement, putting Man and Planet earth in the Center When the concept of more than one dimension is proved you cease to believe -- as Russell said you know. As for the propostions they should make sense according to your knowledge - there is IMO a lot of rubbish spoken To quote Bevan "a real skeptic simply suspends judgement where evidence is not forthcoming." Not only a skeptic should suspend judgement - everybody should suspend judgement until they understand something.'
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on May 4, 2005 4:59:51 GMT
There are some who when faced with a higher dimensional proposition believe it without evidence. And there are others who disbelieve it without evidenceAnd I find the worrying thing to be that you, Russell, say this with no note of discernible irony, implying that you, in your own estimation, never believe anything without evidence. Which forces the logical deduction that you are either a.) nutty as a Dundee Cake, or b.) acting with evidence, to your own satisfaction. Whether it would satisfy me is, I stress, not important to the argument in the slightest
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on May 4, 2005 6:44:54 GMT
For me it comes down to the quality of the evidence. A couple of individuals coming to a conclusion and validating it with their own experiences is not proof. Being able to replicate the results with very little deviation from the original proposition in a series of properly constituted experiments would constitute proof.
Which leads to a bigger question - do you need to see or witness the proof to believe? (in whatever the proposition is)
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on May 4, 2005 21:58:06 GMT
Being able to replicate the results with very little deviation from the original proposition in a series of properly constituted experiments would constitute proof. Which leads to a bigger question - do you need to see or witness the proof to believe? (in whatever the proposition is) Bod You are quite right - replication and witnesses are essential to Masonic Science - hence the importance of finding or forming a lodge of competent brethren I had the joy of a stable meditation group where the brethren would see the same or very similar events without prompting. The composite view always showed more aspects than any one brother (or sister) could see by themselves. And of course to make it a real science we have to form hypotheses and conduct experiments. So that if someone has observed something and reported it, it should be possible to devise an experiment to test that. This includes one-of events because they leave traces and the pre-requisite relationships still exist. Cheers Russell
|
|
|
Post by whistler on May 8, 2005 19:09:59 GMT
For me it comes down to the quality of the evidence. Being able to replicate the results with very little deviation from the original proposition in a series of properly constituted experiments would constitute proof. Which leads to a bigger question - do you need to see or witness the proof to believe? (in whatever the proposition is) Bod this is an interesting one to replicate . Think of a situation with a medium bringing through a relative to bring comfort or pass on some information. It is a two way thing - the one in spirit, and the person whom is to be communicated with. So the "Grandmother" in spirit makes the effort, to communicate and convince that all is well, maybe even tell of something very important. The next day the person on the earth , says to the medium, "Do it again I want to prove it to my sister". That would only happen if Grandmother wanted to . These things are a two way process. Beings in Spirit are not just pawns awaiting instructions for people on earth. Those in Spirit know they exist, they know what they can do.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on May 8, 2005 23:11:04 GMT
So the "Grandmother" in spirit makes the effort, to communicate and convince that all is well, maybe even tell of something very important...........................Beings in Spirit are not just pawns awaiting instructions for people on earth. Whistler From my point of view the first hypothesis to be tested in your example would be whether it was in fact the grandmother communicating., So some competing hypotheses to be distinguished experimentally might include: - there is an entity imitating the grandmother - there is a familiar spirit belonging to the grandmother pretending to be her - the medium is faking it consciously - the medium is faking it unconsciously. So how would we set up experiments to test those possibilities? Cheers Russell
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on May 9, 2005 9:42:36 GMT
See, my proof seeking starts on a more fundamental level - is the medium genuinely in touch with the spirit world, or are they a fraud - pretending to something that does not exist. How do you test that? Dunno...first you have to proove beyond doubt that there is an 'other side'
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on May 9, 2005 10:26:55 GMT
There are difficulties here as many Mediums do speak, like the Oracles and Sibyls of olden times, in ambigious terms and those seeking contact will read into these what they want.
Now imagine I go to a seance. If the medium or some of their associates know me then they can be primed with useful data. They say, "The heavily built man with the beard, I have an elderly lady who wishes to contact him." Now I am likely to think this is my late mother who died 4 years ago. If they stick to generalities then I can make these fit, and if they DO have real facts about me they can fill these in to make the guesswork seem to also be true. For example, ".... she wishes to warn you about a man, his name begins with a B" Now this would fit as I do know someone with such a name.
My test would be to come into such a Meeting right off the street and to be told something which only my late Mother could have known. I did issue such a challenge to someone who posted here who claimed to have such powers to be able to tell me something private about myself that is known only to a handful of people and one of them dead, (my Mother), but they refused to take me up on this. I am also very sceptical about those who charge money to practice such powers which I consider to be a gift and not to be used for personal gain.
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on May 9, 2005 11:56:31 GMT
A noble sentiment. However, even those with noble sentiments have stomachs. If they spend all day helping the needy, won't they become needy themselves? Let them pass a hat around to cover the price of their sandwiches, by all means.
Apropos of hats, I was amused to read last night about the early career of a distinguished thespian. When he was eleven he and his brother put on a puppet show, at which their father advised them not to charge an entrance fee lest they lose their audience. However, the show was such a success that the elder brother stood at the door with a hat, charging thruppence to get out. As this was in the 1920s, he contrived to make a tidy sum, and the experience completely corrupted the spirit of his younger sibling, so that beguiled by promises of riches it confirmed him in his chosen career of acting. His name was Peter Wilton Cushing.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on May 9, 2005 19:37:30 GMT
See, my proof seeking starts on a more fundamental level - is the medium genuinely in touch with the spirit world, or are they a fraud - pretending to something that does not exist. How do you test that? Dunno...first you have to proove beyond doubt that there is an 'other side' Bod, there are many Mediums that are NOT mediums so set those aside. There are and have been many brilliant Mediums one whom you may have heard of "Gordon Higginson" his abilty to provide proof of survival, also mundane details like street addresses, and phone numbers was wonderful.. On our Grandmother level If she wants to communicate, with her grandchildren, she will. Through the Medium she will give proof to the person concerned. It can be a simple thing like a special family name, object or event. Probably to an outsider the evidence will not be obvious or important, but then the Grandmother will not be i communicating with the outsider. Another example of a Commercial Medium. I saw Colin Fry, when he was touring. At a Show with an audience of 2500, He went to a complete stranger who I happen to know very well. He picked up Family names, the fact that she worked a lot with people dying, and how upset she had been with her father many years ago had to shoot her dog and much more. An other proof sometimes occurs when somebody gets the same message from more than one medium. , Russell, I think we both know the difference between "Psychic and spiritual" Also remember the "grandmother" could well have been a great grand father, brother, friend , enemy, mother, sister, son etc etc that is what incarnation allows. The important thing is that the enity has an attachment with the person in this life time and wishes to communicate - it may even be just to say "sorry".
|
|
|
Post by jratcliff on May 12, 2005 3:44:17 GMT
My issue is with people, especially scientists, who view the Universe as clockwork machinery composed of nothing more than energy, matter, time and space; nothing more, and nothing less. To these people, material reductionists by trade, the Universe holds no great mystery and life and evolution are mundane manifestations of the blind watchmaker.
I cannot fathom how anyone can look at the Universe and not stand in absolute awe. I have also felt very strongly and for a very long time that neither life, nor consciousness, are happy accidents but are as much a natural order of the Universe as any fundamental force.
There is a particular series of 'esoteric' books that I am quite fond of. In these the author posits that consciousness is not manifested from matter but rather matter is a manifestation of consciousness.
Since the two interact at the absolute most basic level (the explicit order unfolding from the implicit order of an infinite number of simultanous alternate Universes) the simplistic notion of dualism does not entirely tell the tale.
Most serious material on the subject of esoteric studies is, in fact, highly scientific in nature and tone. One needs only experiment upon themselves. Those who do not take the effort to make themselves better men are only robbing themself of their own personal progress on the karmic wheel of life.
At least that's what I think tonight.
Bro. John
|
|