"Empirical"
Comments
-
angelica wrote:I agree 100% Ahnimus. It is textbook psychosis. The problem comes in when most people don't know is what psychosis truly is. I do. From experience AND from information. Psychosis is a break from reality. What this means is a break from what everyone sees as reality. I've been blessed to see what is beyond "reality". How many people have done so? Even the Holographic Universe books talk about the mentally ill tapping the true ground state of life that others are oblivious to.
No, people that are psychotic are not living in a higher reality. They are delusional. They are admitted to psychiatric hospitals because while their mind is off in some alternate plane of existence, their physical (real) body is still here on earth acting weird.I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire0 -
soulsinging wrote:then what was the reality of her impossible experience? that's what im asking. you admit that she suddenly changed. what was the cause? how did it happen? she said it was spiritual. what's your alternative (and i suppose infinitely superior) theory?
got nothing ahnimus?0 -
soulsinging wrote:got nothing ahnimus?
Yea, just as spiritual as smoking Salvia or consuming LSD.
During traumatic periods a person's mind disconnects from reality and quite often goes into a dream-like state. These visions can be quite lucid. This can also happen if a person is clinically ill, such is the case with Schizophrenia and Dementia.
When a person is training to be a fighter pilot. They are placed into a centrifuge for flight training. Some times at high G's the blood is drained from their brain and their minds go into a psychotic state. They come back to awareness of reality when the blood returns to their brain.
There are multiple causes of those kinds of visions.I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire0 -
I remember the last time I encountered the word "empirical" on a message board. I was arguing with someone about car speakers. A mod locked the thread and said something about how it's stupid to pass off opinion as empirical evidence. But, if you ask me, I don't think anyone was trying to pass anything off as empirical evidence. It was a just a matter of opinion. I had one opinion, and the other person had another. When in comes to how certain car speakers sound, it is undoubtedly a subjective argument. I think that mod just wanted to use the word "empirical" in a sentence.0
-
Ahnimus wrote:They are admitted to psychiatric hospitals because while their mind is off in some alternate plane of existence, their physical (real) body is still here on earth acting weird.
I don't deny that the experiences are distorted by "normal" standards. I don't deny there was definitely an illness aspect to the delusions. Part of the process of healing all these years has been clearing up my cognitive distortions, so now, when I am in contact with this higher plane, it IS purely spiritual without fallout or distortion. I now have a level of consciousness that can support those experiences without illness."The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!0 -
Read 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding' by David Hume.
Empirical epistemology
1. Of the different species of philosophy. In the first section of the Enquiry, Hume provides a rough introduction to philosophy as a whole. For Hume, philosophy can be split into two general parts: natural philosophy and the philosophy of human nature (or, as he calls it, "moral philosophy"). The latter investigates both actions and thoughts. He emphasizes in this section, by way of warning, that philosophers with nuanced thoughts will likely be cast aside in favor of those who wield rhetoric (or sophists). However, he insists, precision helps art and craft of all kinds, including the craft of philosophy. [1]
2. Of the origin of ideas. Next, Hume discusses the distinction between impressions and ideas. By "impressions", he means sensations, while by "ideas", he means memories and imaginings. According to Hume, the difference between the two is that ideas are less vivacious than impressions. Writing within the tradition of empiricism, he argues that impressions are the source of all ideas.
Hume accepts that ideas may be either the product of mere sensation, or of the imagination working in conjunction with sensation. (In Locke's terminology, this was known as the division between simple and complex ideas of sense). According to Hume, the creative faculty makes use of (at least) four mental operations which produce imaginings out of sense-impressions. These operations are compounding (or the addition of one idea onto another, such as a horn on a horse to create a unicorn); transposing (or the substitution of one part of a thing with the part from another, such as with the body of a man upon a horse to make a centaur); augmenting (as with the case of a giant, whose size has been augmented); and diminishing (as with Lilliputans, whose size has been diminished). [2] In a later chapter, he also mentions the operations of mixing, separating, and dividing. [3]
The missing blue shadeHowever, Hume admits that his account has one Achilles Heel: the "missing blue shade" problem. In this thought-experiment, he asks us to imagine a man who has experienced every shade of blue except for one. He predicts that this man will be able to divine the color of this particular shade of blue, despite the fact that he has never experienced it. This seems to pose a serious problem for the empirical account, though Hume brushes it aside as an exceptional case. [4]
3. Of the association of ideas. In this chapter, Hume discusses how thoughts tend to come in sequences, as in trains of thought. He explains that there are at least three kinds of associations between ideas: resemblance, contiguity in space-time, and cause-and-effect. He argues that there must be some universal principle that must account for the various sorts of connections that exist between ideas. However, he does not immediately show what this principle might be. [5]
4. Skeptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding (in two parts).
In the first part, Hume discusses how the objects of inquiry are either "relations of ideas" or "matters of fact", which is roughly the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions. The former, he tells the reader, are proved by demonstration, while the latter are given through experience. [6] In explaining how matters of fact are entirely a product of experience, he dismisses the notion that they may be arrived at through a priori reasoning. For Hume, every effect only follows its cause arbitrarily -- they are entirely distinct from one another. [7]
In part two, Hume inquires into how anyone can justifiably believe that experience yields any conclusions about the world:
"When it is asked, What is the nature of all our reasonings concerning matter of fact? the proper answer seems to be, that they are founded on the relation of cause and effect. When again it is asked, What is the foundation of all our reasonings and conclusions concerning that relation? it may be replied in one word, experience. But if we still carry on our sifting humor, and ask, What is the foundation of all conclusions from experience? this implies a new question, which may be of more difficult solution and explication." [8]
He shows how a satisfying argument for the validity of experience can be based neither on demonstration (since "it implies no contradiction that the course of nature may change") nor experience (since that would be a circular argument). [9] Here he is describing what would become known as the problem of induction.
5. Sceptical solution of these doubts (in two parts).
For Hume, we assume that experience tells us something about the world because of habit or custom, which human nature forces us to take seriously. This is also, presumably, the "principle" that organizes the connections between ideas. Indeed, one of the many famous passages of the Enquiry was on the topic of the incorrigibility of human custom. In a later chapter, he wrote:
"The great subverter of Pyrrhonism or the excessive principles of scepticism is action, and employment, and the occupations of common life. These principles may flourish and triumph in the schools; where it is, indeed, difficult, if not impossible, to refute them. But as soon as they leave the shade, and by the presence of the real objects, which actuate our passions and sentiments, are put in opposition to the more powerful principles of our nature, they vanish like smoke, and leave the most determined skeptic in the same condition as other mortals." [10]
In the second part, he provides an account of beliefs. He explains that the difference between belief and fiction is that the former produces a certain feeling of confidence which the latter doesn't. [11]
6. Of probability. This short chapter begins with the notions of probability and chance. For him, "probability" means a higher chance of occurring, and brings about a higher degree of subjective expectation in the viewer. By "chance", he means all those particular comprehensible events which the viewer considers possible in accord with their experience. However, further experience takes these equal chances, and forces the imagination to observe that certain chances arise more frequently than others. These gentle forces upon the imagination cause the viewer to have strong beliefs in outcomes. This effect may be understood as another case of custom or habit taking past experience and using it to predict the future. [12]0 -
Ahnimus wrote:Yea, just as spiritual as smoking Salvia or consuming LSD.
During traumatic periods a person's mind disconnects from reality and quite often goes into a dream-like state. These visions can be quite lucid. This can also happen if a person is clinically ill, such is the case with Schizophrenia and Dementia.
When a person is training to be a fighter pilot. They are placed into a centrifuge for flight training. Some times at high G's the blood is drained from their brain and their minds go into a psychotic state. They come back to awareness of reality when the blood returns to their brain.
There are multiple causes of those kinds of visions.
Through years of study, and by switching my life patterns to self-affirming healthy ones and by clearing out my cognitive distortions, I have learned to regularly access the ground potential of life in a healthy way. This means I have spiritual experiences/guidance/revelations, without illness distortions that are called "psychotic". Now they are purely revelations. And they are specifically designed for me to grow and learn and to lead me towards my purpose of helping others overcome illness. I am intuned with my purpose."The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!0 -
angelica wrote:The fact is that due to my "visions", I have been directed towards all kinds of healing. When I have had a limited, unhealthy ego, or sense of self, as the nature of mental illness in some cased dictates, due to these "delusions" I learned to believe in myself when no one else did. I learned to trust the inner visions and use them to guide me. I learned to believe my healing was guaranteed, even when I was still ongoingly obsessive-compulsive each day. Just like a sports figure can rely on their vivid visuals to create superior performance, I relied on my visions to create superior performance. The difference with myself and the sports figure is that my ego did not self-generate these visions. These visions came to me with intelligence, from beyond my awareness of myself. I'm fully willing to accept that these visions manifested in my own brain. The thing is, I've seen very vast understandings about life, in terms of "revelations", and part of what was revealed to me was that these revelations stem from the field of life that supports all of this 3-d stuff. It is beyond 3-d physical existence and therefore also beyond my own brain.
Through years of study, and by switching my life patterns to self-affirming healthy ones and by clearing out my cognitive distortions, I have learned to regularly access the ground potential of life in a healthy way. This means I have spiritual experiences/guidance/revelations, without illness distortions that are called "psychotic". Now they are purely revelations. And they are specifically designed for me to grow and learn and to lead me towards my purpose of helping others overcome illness. I am intuned with my purpose.
Yea, except there are people that have moved beyond that stage to realize that it was all an illusion. You aren't the first one to feel that way. Pick up Dr. Susan Blackmore's books, she wrote a textbook on it called Consciousness: An Introduction. And another on Conversations with Consciousness.
Based on the principle of predeterminism, it's entirely possible for you to have revelations about the future. I've never had an OBE or anything, but I've had premonitions.I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire0 -
Ahnimus wrote:Yea, except there are people that have moved beyond that stage to realize that it was all an illusion. You aren't the first one to feel that way. Pick up Dr. Susan Blackmore's books, she wrote a textbook on it called Consciousness: An Introduction. And another on Conversations with Consciousness.
Based on the principle of predeterminism, it's entirely possible for you to have revelations about the future. I've never had an OBE or anything, but I've had premonitions.
You might forget the information I provided on levels of consciousness in the free will thread, wherein they discuss how people have transcendant experiences all the time. The outcome and integration depends on whether the person integrates these experiences, and rises to the level of such transcendence in terms of stages of consciousness.
As I've said, when you see the real reality, this one pales in comparison. Maybe Dr. Blackmore had experiences with "memories and imaginings" as mentioned in Byrnzie's article. The revelations I was shown were highly complex. Since I have seen these understandings in a multidimensional way, I can explain them holistically. I can understand aspects of these subjects other people cannot, and I can explain them from numerous angles because I know them holistically. There have been "real" counterparts to all of my spiritual experiences at each stage. The spiritual is just the spiritual aspect--or the source aspect of my experiences, wherein there have been physical manifestations. Just like thoughts stem from beyond "real" and filter into this 3-d reality system, my spiritual experiences have come from further back in that emergence.
As Byrnzie's article points to: "Writing within the tradition of empiricism, he argues that impressions are the source of all ideas.""The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!0 -
angelica wrote:You might forget the information I provided on levels of consciousness in the free will thread, wherein they discuss how people have transcendant experiences all the time. The outcome and integration depends on whether the person integrates these experiences, and rises to the level of such transcendence in terms of stages of consciousness.
As I've said, when you see the real reality, this one pales in comparison. Maybe Dr. Blackmore had experiences with "memories and imaginings" as mentioned in Byrnzie's article. The revelations I was shown were highly complex. Since I have seen these understandings in a multidimensional way, I can explain them holistically. I can understand aspects of these subjects other people cannot, and I can explain them from numerous angles because I know them holistically. There have been "real" counterparts to all of my spiritual experiences at each stage. The spiritual is just the spiritual aspect--or the source aspect of my experiences, wherein there have been physical manifestations. Just like thoughts stem from beyond "real" and filter into this 3-d reality system, my spiritual experiences have come from further back in that emergence.
As Byrnzie's article points to: "Writing within the tradition of empiricism, he argues that impressions are the source of all ideas."
Yet, you can not prove beyond reasonable doubt any of your supernatural experiences. Egoism is also common in posts of this nature. Claiming that you are more enlightened than me for some metaphysical thing which you can not prove to me, lest I become the same as you, at which time it may still only be an illusion. You pose an argument that is neither provable or falsifiable and therefor I can't saying anything about it.I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire0 -
angelica wrote:As Byrnzie's article points to: "Writing within the tradition of empiricism, he argues that impressions are the source of all ideas."
According to Hume they are. Kant took it a step further and introduced our cognitive make-up into the equation. He also posited the 'neumena', or that which shall be forever unknown to us. That which lies beyond the range of our perception. Schopenhauer then took Kants ideas and sprinkled some eastern mysticism and philosophy onto them. I believe that Schopenhauer finally nailed it.0 -
Ahnimus wrote:Yet, you can not prove beyond reasonable doubt any of your supernatural experiences. Egoism is also common in posts of this nature. Claiming that you are more enlightened than me for some metaphysical thing which you can not prove to me, lest I become the same as you, at which time it may still only be an illusion. You pose an argument that is neither provable or falsifiable and therefor I can't saying anything about it.
Obviously you don't like that I've had my experiences, or that I talk about them. The fact of the matter is, the only reason I put myself into any talk of "levels of consciousness", is because you like to say it is psychosis that causes me to talk like this. Therefore I am willing and able to assert otherwise, and to back up my own assertion with the works of those who study stages of consciousness.
You are the one who is claiming you are not enlightened. I am merely validating your experience. When you are able to talk about seeing the light and being attuned spiritually and when you display understanding of it, I will validate that understanding, too.
The only reason I ever talk about this is because I am 100% certain anyone can achieve attunement with their own potential. I know undoubtedly that any one individual is stunningly amazing beyond belief. And that each person is the center unto their own universe. If you think I am looking down on you, that is a product of your own imagination."The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!0 -
angelica wrote:Again, you seem to not understand what I am saying if you are calling me an egotist. Being an egotist means one is excessively tied to the ego. I'm actually giving all credit for my experiences to that which is beyond my ego!
Obviously you don't like that I've had my experiences, or that I talk about them. The fact of the matter is, the only reason I put myself into any talk of "levels of consciousness", is because you like to say it is psychosis that causes me to talk like this. Therefore I am willing and able to assert otherwise, and to back up my own assertion with the works of those who study stages of consciousness.
You are the one who is claiming you are not enlightened. I am merely validating your experience. When you are able to talk about seeing the light and being attuned spiritually and when you display understanding of it, I will validate that understanding, too.
The only reason I ever talk about this is because I am 100% certain anyone can achieve attunement with their own potential. I know undoubtedly that any one individual is stunningly amazing beyond belief. And that each person is the center unto their own universe. If you think I am looking down on you, that is a product of your own imagination.
Likewise, I believe and have support in my assertion that your experiences were not real, that their is no higher self and realization of causality is enlightenment. When you are able to talk about determinism I will validate it for you.I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire0 -
Ahnimus wrote:Likewise, I believe and have support in my assertion that your experiences were not real, that their is no higher self and realization of causality is enlightenment. When you are able to talk about determinism I will validate it for you.
Additionally, I have the support of many scientists that study consciousness.
Dr. Susan Blackmore, Psychologist, Physiologist and Parapsychologist being one of them.I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire0 -
Ahnimus wrote:Likewise, I believe and have support in my assertion that your experiences were not real, that their is no higher self and realization of causality is enlightenment. When you are able to talk about determinism I will validate it for you.
Assert away. What I hear is that you don't believe me so you are showing me your own personal belief. A belief is different than a "knowing". Think about it, if you claim there is no higher self, what you are saying is that "to your knowledge" there is no higher self. I don't dispute your knowledge. It is what it is. At the same time, I also have my own knowledge."The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!0 -
Ahnimus wrote:Additionally, I have the support of many scientists that study consciousness.
Dr. Susan Blackmore, Psychologist, Physiologist and Parapsychologist being one of them."The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!0 -
Ahnimus wrote:Yet, you can not prove beyond reasonable doubt any of your supernatural experiences.
And there is much in this world and in human consciousness that is beyond the grasp of science. Rationalism, and it's extension in science, does not define the limits of consciousness. Human awreness and perception cannot be narrowed down to mere rationalism.0 -
"We have good reason to believe that consciousness arises from physical systems such as brains, but we have little idea how it arises, or why it exists at all. How could a physical system such as a brain also be an experiencer? Why should there be something it is like to be such a system? Present-day scientific theories hardly touch the really difficult questions about consciousness. We do not just lack a detailed theory; we are entirely in the dark about how consciousness fits into the natural order.
Many books and articles on consciousness have appeared in the last few years, and one might think that we are making progress. But on a closer look, most of this work leaves the hardest problems about consciousness untouched. Often, this work addresses what might be called the "easy" problems of consciousness: How does the brain process environmental stimulation? How does it integrate information? How do we produce reports on internal states? These are important questions, but to answer them is not to solve the hard problem: why is all this processing accompanied by an experienced inner life? Sometimes this question is ignored entirely; sometimes it is put off until another day; and sometimes, it is simply declared answered. But in each case, one is left with the feeling that the central problem remains as puzzling as ever. ...
Physics and cognitive science do an excellent job within their own domains, and I have not tried to undermine them. For example, I have not disputed that the physical world is causally closed or that behavior can be explained in physical terms; but if a physicist or a cognitive scientist suggests that consciousness can be explained in physical terms, this is merely a hope ungrounded in current theory, and the question remains open."
http://consc.net/book/intro.html"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!0 -
A supernatural experience is in no way lessened in it's significance for an individual simply because scientists are unable to verify it. It's not human consciousness that's lacking here. It's the limited scope of the scientific eye that needs to be questioned. Supernatural experiences have been occuring for thousands of years. Every culture outside of our recent industrial civilization was a culture who's religious beliefs centered around animism, and shamanism. The Ancient Egyptians, the Celts, the Australian Aborigines, the Mayans e.t.c.
Do you think that it's possible for an entire people to delude itself so completely for 5 or 8 thousand years? I'm not talking about a religious engagement that resembles anything like that which we ascribe to Christians, or Catholics. I'm refering to a religious belief and involvement which imbued and influenced every facet of everyday life. A living, physical, and immediate religious life. I don't think that people could delude themselves that fully and for that long. I therefore believe that we have a lot to learn from these cultures and from those tribal societies that still exist in the world today.0 -
Byrnzie wrote:According to Hume they are. Kant took it a step further and introduced our cognitive make-up into the equation. He also posited the 'neumena', or that which shall be forever unknown to us. That which lies beyond the range of our perception. Schopenhauer then took Kants ideas and sprinkled some eastern mysticism and philosophy onto them. I believe that Schopenhauer finally nailed it.
Cool stuff: "For Schopenhauer, human will had ontological primacy over the intellect; in other words, desire is understood to be prior to thought, and, in a parallel sense, Will is said to be prior to being. In attempt to solve or alleviate the fundamental problems of life, Schopenhauer was rare among philosophers in considering philosophy and logic less important (or less effective) than art, certain types of charitable practice ("loving kindness", in his terms), and certain forms of religious discipline; Schopenhauer concluded that discursive thought (such as philosophy and logic) could neither touch nor transcend the nature of desire—i.e., Will. In The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer posited that humans living in the realm of objects are living in the realm of desire, and thus are eternally tormented by that desire (his idea of the role of desire in life is similar to that of Vedanta Hinduism and Buddhism, and Schopenhauer draws attention to these similarities himself). ...
Schopenhauer's identification of the Kantian noumenon (i.e., the actually existing entity) with what he termed Will deserves some explanation. The noumenon was what Kant called the Ding an Sich, the "Thing in Itself", the reality that is the foundation of our sensory and mental representations of an external world; in Kantian terms, those sensory and mental representations are mere phenomena. Schopenhauer departed from Kant in his description of the relationship between the phenomenon and the noumenon. According to Kant, things-in-themselves ground the phenomenal representations in our minds. Schopenhauer, on the other hand, believed phenomena and noumena to be two different sides of the same coin; noumena do not cause phenomena, but rather phenomena are simply the way by which our minds perceive the noumena, according to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which is explained more fully in Schopenhauer's doctoral thesis, On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help