Biases and content control

[rangerx]

7 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I have read the rules, and of course they apply to me, they apply to everyone. However, I maintain that I've not broken any of the rules.

You won't be missed. You're not the first crackpot in a long string of banned crackpots, probably not the last. Just so you know, sock puppetry fails here too, so save yourself that attempt.

Tick tick, tick tick....

Edited September 12, 2018 by rangerx

[Kafei]

Just now, beecee said:

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

More accusations, still no evidence to support the accusations.

Just now, beecee said:

Were you or are you on drugs? I need to ask that as you seem totally bereft of what you have said and claimed over two closed threads and this excuse to again raaaise your pet thingy to continue your crusade. 

No, again, I'm merely redirecting people's attention to the science that's been done relative to these topics. That's all, nothing more, nothing less.

Just now, beecee said:

Other then all the mods were mistaken and have unfairly dismissed your claims, and all the members that have participated are atheists despite at least one telling you that wasn;t true, and how this ground breaking, earth shattering news is being hidden etc etc etc 

I never said it's being hidden. I believe more and more people are awakening to the science that's been done.

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

You won't be missed. You're not the first crackpot in a long string of banned crackpots, probably not the last. Just so you know, sock puppetry fails here too, so save yourself that attempt. Tick tick, tick tick....

I'm a crackpot for simply sharing what has been established by our modern science? If you say so.

[rangerx]

5 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Atheists love to cherry-pick the grammar there, you don't know how many atheists I've encountered that have attempted to what you've demonstrated above. It's hilarious. What they fail to realize is if you're going to define mystical states of consciousness in accordance to the Perennial philosophy. Do you know how the mystical experience is defined in the Perennial philosophy? Apparently not. You haven't been paying attention, obviously.

I defined it quite elaborately in the initial thread which was closed, but make no mistake, there is a very elaborate definition of how these things are defined within this view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsgKUglCI7g#t=7m13s

http://www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-41-02-139.pdf

Try a bigger font. It might be more persuasive.

[beecee]

12 minutes ago, Kafei said:

And you've not shown any signs that you understand the science that's been done or how they relate this to the Perennial philosophy.

The questionable perennial philosophy is just that...philosophy. It does not show any evidence for god, and neither does any mystical experience.

And while I may not understand all the science, I am not misinterpriting anything, nor am  I biased,.

Edited September 12, 2018 by beecee

[Kafei]

Just now, beecee said:

The questionable perennial philosophy is just that...philosophy. It does not show any evidence for god, and neither does any mystical experience.

Again, I've pointed out that the Perennial philosophy is a perspective on the major religions, and within this perspective, the divine is defined quite particularly. Perennialism refers to an original etymology when referencing the divine.

Just now, beecee said:

And while I may not understand all the science, I am not misinterpriting anything, nor am  am I biased,.

Nevertheless, you still do not understand the science, as you plainly admitted so.

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Try a bigger font. It might be more persuasive.

What's persuasive is the evidence which has been established by decades of scientific research initiating with the work of William James in the early 1900s.

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, Kafei said:

I'm a crackpot for simply sharing what has been established by our modern science? If you say so.

No, you're a crackpot for being obtuse and petulant. However time "Transcendence of time and space" is not a thing, so you're just a fool to think that has anything to do with science.

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Try a bigger font. It might be more persuasive.

The thing is that no matter what size font he uses, it still isn't any evidence for any god! Oh to be saddled with such delusion and bias!!

[Kafei]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

No, you're a crackpot for being obtuse and petulant. However time "Transcendence of time and space" is not a thing, so you're just a fool to think that has anything to do with science.

It is a thing, and it has been established by decades of scientific research.

1 minute ago, beecee said:

The thing is that no matter what size font he uses, it still isn't any evidence for any god! Oh to be saddled with such delusion and bias!!

Yes, this is the narrative you must tell yourself in order to deny what's been demonstrated by the science. That's all this is. Jordan Peterson has spoken on this proclivity of atheists to flat-out deny evidence which undermines their stance. It's clearly spelled out in the link below. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_Q4CXvqLM4

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Again, I've pointed out that the Perennial philosophy is a perspective on the major religions, and within this perspective, the divine is defined quite particularly. Perennialism refers to an original etymology when referencing the divine.

 

 

The perennial philosophy is what it is, philosophy, not evidence for any god and neither is any drug induced mystical experience. That again is your misguided interpretation based on your bias.

[DrP]

3 minutes ago, Kafei said:

What they fail to realize is if you're going to define mystical states of consciousness in accordance to the Perennial philosophy. Do you know how the mystical experience is defined in the Perennial philosophy?

Define it how you like  -  it isn't proof god. The reports make observation....  in that much it is scientific....   jumping to conclusions based on mystic mythology isn't scientific though.  However you define god or the perennial philosophy the fact that people have similar experiences under the influence of medicines, drugs or in prayer like and meditative states doesn't prove anything. It is evidence that our minds work in similar ways (presumably because we are all human and you minds all work in the same way) not that there is any outside sentience involved.

 

[Kafei]

Just now, beecee said:

The perennial philosophy is what it is, philosophy, not evidence for any god and neither is any drug induced mystical experience. That again is your misguided interpretation based on your bias.

To the contrary, it is merely your own biases that prevent you to accept the fact that Perennial philosophy does indeed address the divine, that's the very intrinsic core of this view.

[rangerx]

Just now, Kafei said:

It is a thing, and it has been established by decades of scientific research.

Saying so, doesn't make it so. Not on this forum. Besides that, it's off topic. Yet another transgression. You make this too easy.

[Kafei]

Just now, DrP said:

Define it how you like  -  it isn't proof god. The reports make observation....  in that much it is scientific....   jumping to conclusions based on mystic mythology isn't scientific though.  However you define god or the perennial philosophy the fact that people have similar experiences under the influence of medicines, drugs or in prayer like and meditative states doesn't prove anything. It is evidence that our minds work in similar ways (presumably because we are all human and you minds all work in the same way) not that there is any outside sentience involved.

Yet your statement above was not the conclusion of the research. Not in the least. All you've done is mischaracterize it.

[DrP]

3 minutes ago, Kafei said:

What's persuasive is the evidence which has been established by decades of scientific research initiating with the work of William James in the early 1900s.

It really isn't that persuasive. It shows our brains work in similar ways.

[Kafei]

Just now, rangerx said:

Saying so, doesn't make it so. Not on this forum. Besides that, it's off topic. Yet another transgression. You make this too easy.

I'm not simply saying it's so. There's science that upholds this fact.

[DrP]

Just now, Kafei said:

Yet your statement above was not the conclusion of the research. Not in the least. All you've done is mischaracterize it.

What was the conclusion then? Summerize it.

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Kafei said:

It is a thing, and it has been established by decades of scientific research.

Yes, this is the narrative you must tell yourself in order to deny what's been demonstrated by the science. That's all this is. Jordan Peterson has spoken on this proclivity of atheists to flat-out deny evidence which undermines their stance. It's clearly spelled out in the link below. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_Q4CXvqLM4

Well again put your money where your mouth is and take this to the world!! You'll be a star!! May even make you the thirteenth Apostle!! Nothing to stop you showing us all that you aint biased.

[Kafei]

6 minutes ago, DrP said:

It really isn't that persuasive. It shows our brains work in similar ways.

Sure our brains work in similar ways, but again, the implications were much greater than that.

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Well again put your money where your mouth is and take this to the world!! You'll be a star!! May even make you the thirteenth Apostle!! Nothing to stop you showing us all that you aint biased.

It's already happening through this research.

5 minutes ago, DrP said:

What was the conclusion then? Summerize it.

Technical definitions have been offered by many great philosophers, thinkers, physicists, theologians, etc. I'd argue because you've identified with atheism, you necessarily cut religious study out of your life, and probably don't study any of the major religions. So, it doesn't surprise at all that you have to ask for me to summarize this for you, and it's precisely because you've never taken it seriously. As an atheist, you've disdained it. So, you've basically censored all the great philosophers, thinkers, etc. who've written towards the very thing you're asking for.

So, I'll offer a description, but I can't guarantee you'll comprehend it. I'll start with a quote from Alan Watts.

"There's astronomers that say that there was a primordial explosion. An enormous bang millions of years ago, billions of years ago which flung all the galaxies into space. Well let's take that just for the sake of argument and say that was the way it happened. It's like you took a bottle of ink and you threw it at a wall. Smash! And all that ink spreads. And in the middle, it's dense, isn't it? And as it gets out on the edge, the little droplets get finer and finer and make more complicated patterns, see? So in the same way, there was a big bang at the beginning of things and it spread. And you and I, as complicated human beings, are way, way out on the fringe of that bang. We are the complicated little patterns on the end of it. Very interesting. But so we define ourselves as being only that. If you think that you are only inside your skin, you define yourself as one very complicated little curlicue, way out on the edge of that explosion. Way out in space, and way out in time. Billions of years ago, you were a big bang, but now you're a complicated human being. And then we cut ourselves off, and don't feel that we're still the big bang. But you are. Depends how you define yourself. You are actually—if this is the way things started, if there was a big bang in the beginning— you're not something that's a result of the big bang. You're not something that is a sort of puppet on the end of the process. You are still the process. You are the big bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEunth9YCgo

Now, the vision in the mystical experience is one that goes beyond the the skin-encapsulated ego, this is precisely why this experience is also called "ego death." In the vision, you don't see yourself as this finite human being, but as the entire process, the Totality, the summation of all that has existed and will ever exist. Paul Tillich called this "The Ground of All Being." To quote Ken Wilber, I'll take a few excerpts from a book he's written on the Perennial philosophy.

"According to the perennial philosophy, this 'discovery of Wholeness,' the removal of the optical delusion of separateness, is not merely a belief—it is not a dogma one accepts on mere faith. For if the Ultimate is indeed a real integral Wholeness, if it is equally part and parcel of all that is, then it is also completely present in men and women. And, unlike rocks, plants, or animals; human beings—because they are conscious can potentially discover this Wholeness. They can, as it were, awaken to the Ultimate. Not believe in it, but discover it. It would be as if a wave became conscious of itself and thus discovered that it is one with the entire ocean—and thus one with all waves as well, since all are made of water. This is the phenomenon of transcendence—or enlightenment, or liberation, or moksha, or wu wei, or satori or what neuroscientists today are calling a 'mystical experience.' This is what Plato meant by stepping out of the cave of shadows and finding the Light of Being; or Einstein's "escaping the delusion of separateness." This is the aim of Buddhist meditation, of Hindu yoga, and of Christian mystical contemplation. That is very straightforward; there is nothing spooky, occult, or strange in any of this—and this is the Perennial philosophy.

At the very base of men and women's consciousness, then, lies the ultimate Wholeness. But—and here is the rub—it is not, in the vast majority, consciously realized. Thus, the ultimate whole is, for most souls, an Other. It is not, like the Jehovah, an ontological Other—it is not set apart, divorced, or separated from men and women. Rather, it is a psychological Other—it is ever-present, but unrealized; it is given, but rarely discovered; it is the Nature of human beings, but lies, as it were, asleep in the depths of the soul.

The basic Nature of human beings, then, is an ultimate Wholeness. This is eternally and timelessly so—that is, true from beginning, true to the end, and most importantly, true right now, moment to moment to moment. This ever-present and ultimate Wholeness, as it appears in men and women we call Atman (after the Hindus), or Buddha-Nature (after Buddhists), or Tao, or Spirit, or Consciousness (super-consciousness), or less frequently (because of its loaded connotations) God.

Because Atman is an integral Whole, outside of which nothing exists, it embraces all space and time, and is itself therefore spaceless and timeless, infinite and eternal. Infinity does not, for the perennial philosophy, mean Extremely Big—it means that spaceless ground which underlies and includes all space, much as a mirror underlies but embraces all its reflected objects. Likewise, eternity does not mean a Very Long Time—it means that timeless ground which underlies and includes all time.

According to the perennial philosophy, then, one's real self or Buddha Nature is not everlasting and death-defying; it is rather timeless and transcendent. Liberation does not mean going on forever and forever and forever in some sort of gold-embossed heaven. It means a direct and immediate apprehension of the spaceless and timeless Ground of Being. This apprehension does not show a person that he is immortal — which he plainly is not. Rather, it shows him that where his psyche touches and intersects the timeless Source, he ultimately is all of a piece with the universe — so intimately, in fact, that at that level he is the universe. When a person rediscovers that his deepest Nature is one with All, he is relieved of the burdens of time, of anxiety, of worry; he is released from the chains of alienation and separate-self existence. Seeing that self and other are one, he is released from the fear of life; seeing that being and nonbeing are one, he is delivered from fear of death.

Thus, when one rediscovers the ultimate Wholeness, one transcends — but does not obliterate — every imaginable sort of boundary, and therefore transcends all types of battles. It is a conflict-free awareness, whole, blissful. But this does not mean that one loses all egoic consciousness, all temporal awareness, that one goes into blank trance, suspends all critical faculties and wallows in oceanic mush. It simply means that one rediscovers the background of egoic consciousness. One is aware of the integral Wholeness and of the explicit ego. Wholeness is not the opposite of egoic individuality, it is simply its Ground, and the discovery of the ground does not annihilate the figure of the ego. On the contrary, it simply reconnects it with the rest of nature, cosmos, and divinity. This is not an everlasting state, but a timeless state. With this realization, one does not gain everlasting life in time, but discovers that which is prior to the awareness of time.

Now according to the perennial philosophy, the rediscovery of this infinite and eternal Wholeness is man's single greatest need and want. For not only is Atman the basic nature of all souls, each person knows or intuits that this is so. For every individual constantly intuits that his prior Nature is infinite and eternal, All and Whole — he is possessed, that is, with a true Atman intuition. But, at the same time, he is terrified of real transcendence, because transcendence entails the "death" of his isolated and separate-self sense. Because he won't let go and die to his separate self, he cannot find true and real transcendence, he cannot find that larger fulfillment in integral Wholeness. Holding on to himself, he shuts out Atman; grasping only his ego, he denies the rest of the All.

Yet notice immediately that men and women are faced with a truly fundamental dilemma: above all else, each person wants true transcendence, Atman consciousness, and the ultimate Whole; but, above all else, each person fears the loss of the separate self, the "death" of the isolated ego. All a person wants is Wholeness, but all he does is fear and resist it (since that would entail the "death" of his separate self). And there is the dilemma, the double bind in the face of eternity." - Ken Wilber

I'm willing to build on this as it's one thing to read about, it's quite another thing to actually undergo a "complete" mystical experience. So, to answer your question, the early universe is part of an integral Wholeness, and in the mystic's vision everything is one in a very literal sense. Not just all that exists now, but all that has ever existed, and all that will exist. That is the perception inside the mystical vision, and this is why the volunteers invariably express this phenomenon in consciousness as being a glimpse outside of time or of a timelessness, because in that state, you are literally everything that ever was, everything that is, and everything that will be. Consciousness is temporarily transformed and what is experienced is all the possible permutations that underlie all manifestation.

Ken Wilber gets much more deep and elaborate into explaining this, and if you really wanted to grasp this stuff, I recommend his book "Up From Eden." It's like $4 online. I've to come across a free version, but there may be one somewhere out there on the internet. If I find one, I'll definitely link you.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Kafei

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Kafei said:

It's already happening through this research.

Like this thread and like the two you have had justly closed, it will forever be lost in cyber space. 

[Kafei]

Just now, beecee said:

Like this thread and like the two you have had justly closed, it will forever be lost in cyber space. 

That's what you think. What you fail to realize is people are, indeed, waking up to this legitimate research.

[DrP]

5 minutes ago, Kafei said:

Sure our brains work in similar ways, but again, the implications were much greater than that.

The 'implications' were implied by the whim of the author - not the logical scientific conclusion. I didn't read all of the links  -  what in your opinion were the implications then and how were these conclusions drawn from the data?   Because no-one here has found any proof od god from reading the links you provided, you'll have to be more specific about what you think this evidence is exactly that points towards whatever it is you think is a god. Spoon feed it to me. 

ok - just seen your longer post...  I'll read that.

Edited September 12, 2018 by DrP

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, Kafei said:

It's already happening through this research.

Now you're basically back where you were locked. Apparently you haven't grasped the concept of don't bring this up again.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Kafei said:

That's what you think. What you fail to realize is people are, indeed, waking up to this legitimate research.

Sure they are!  The greatest earth shattering news that we could ever hear and this is all you have? Excuses, excuses, more excuses and conspiracy nonsense! Man, the bias is strong in this one!!

[Kafei]

1 minute ago, DrP said:

The 'implications' were implied by the whim of the author - not the logical scientific conclusion. I didn't read all of the links  -  what in your opinion were the implications then and how were these conclusions drawn from the data?   Because no-one here has found any proof od god from reading the links you provided, you'll have to be more specific about what you think this evidence is exactly that points towards whatever it is you think is a god. Spoon feed it to me.

The Perennial philosophy was the conclusion of the research.

https://files.csp.org/Psilocybin/Barrett2017Phenomenology.pdf

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Now you're basically back where you were locked. Apparently you haven't grasped the concept of don't bring this up again.

You mean you haven't grasped any of this.

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Sure they are!  The greatest earth shattering news that we could ever hear and this is all you have? Excuses, excuses, more excuses and conspiracy nonsense! Man, the bias is strong in this one!!

I never said anything about conspiracy. This research is getting out there whether you'd like to admit it or not.

[beecee]

9 minutes ago, Kafei said:

So, I'll offer a description, but I can't guarantee you'll comprehend it. I'll start with a quote from Alan Watts.

"There's astronomers that say that there was a primordial explosion. An enormous bang millions of years ago, billions of years ago which flung all the galaxies into space.

Are you serious??? I mean really, that is totally wrong on at least two aspects. Please, go learn some science and stop dabbling in drug induced mystical experiences, to re-enforce your bias.