Into the mystic (an experience). (page 13)

hemp lover

This is a fascinating thread.

Xena, I loved your experience with your daughter. FOSHLL and I have had many similar experiences, though none so profound as simultaneous baklava :)
FOSHLL likes to chalk each and every one up to coincidence (paternal influence perhaps), but I'm not so quick to discount such moments.

I have two friends who are VERY in touch with their mystical selves and they've had many such experiences, way too many to call them "coincidences."

-Lannie (of the hoping to be at least halfway enlightened some day class)

myauntfanny

REM

You have an interesting concept of "proof". There really is no "proof" in science - only probabilities.

Yes, the rule of thumb that works well is, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

And how do you reconcile these two claims? Evidence is proof, is it not? OE: "establish by evidence, demonstrate, prove"

Just LOOK at the concept of probability for a minute. It's not real! It's just an idea we use to explain events after the fact, and I'm saying it doesn't explain anything more than god does (which does not mean I believe in god, I am making a logical point here). You can't prove probability. You can't test it. You can't falsify it. It's an idea. It's a construct. If you say something will probably happen and it does, that doesn't mean probability made it happen. It just means you thought it would probably happen. When something, ANYTHING, happens, probability is in no way causal to that thing happening. The argument that coincidences must happen because they probably will is like arguing that the sun must come up tomorrow because it probably will.

rem

MyAuntFanny,

Perhaps we are using different meanings of words. To me, evidence is not "proof", though many people use the terms proof and evidence synonymously. To me, proof means there is no other alternative - the cause is determined. In science there is no such thing as proof in this context. Evidence can help one ascertain which explanation is more probable, though... yet this is not proof in this strict sense.

I agree that probability is not a causal force, but that doesn't change the facts - probability describes the way the world works - and it is most times amazingly accurate. If it wasn't, then casino's would be going out of business left and right. Since probability works in practice, I see it as an effective tool in weeding out B.S.

rem

logansrun

rem,

You didn't define love, you gave me a description of what goes on in the brain when we have feelings of love. And, even then, it would be impossible to quantify a subjective feeling. Saying that love is not in "your heart" is a straw man since no one is saying that that is where it is.

B.

logansrun

Oh, and I'm still waiting for a reason why something which is unverifiable should be viewed as false.

B.

rem

Bradley,

I don't see why my definition of love is inadequate - it is simply a testable definition - a definition that provides the possibility of testing the *existence* of love. I brought up the warm feeling in the heart because that is just another definition, though it is not testable. The thing is, we know that emotions happen in the brain and brain chemistry affects the body. How do we know that? Because we've poked and prodded brains - we now know that emotions aren't in the literal heart. Yahoo for science. I can take your word that you feel love, or I can hook you up to monitors to prove that you are in the love brain-state... but asking me to define the subjective experience of what love feels like is not the point. We are talking about the *existence* of love.

What you are basically doing is asking me to define the color "green". I can make a testable definition - the color green is between such and such range on the visual spectrum... but I don't know what green looks like to you. I'm not interested (well, actually I am, but that's another discussion) in the subjective experience - just in the *existence* of green.

I've never said something unverifiable should be viewed as false. I can simply choose not to *believe* in such things without taking a gnostic stand on the issue (i.e. remain agnostic until further information is available). Zeus is not verifiable... I can't prove he doesn't exist, but I choose not to believe in him because I don't see enough evidence and as far as I can tell it makes no difference to my life.

As far as the paranormal is concerned, I've never stated that it's impossible - just that it seems highly improbable knowing what we know today and the many experiments done over the past decades. I don't believe in it, and I don't see any point in really taking it too seriously anymore. If some evidence comes up, I'm open to hearing about it, though.

rem

sleepy

"Oh, and I'm still waiting for a reason why something which is unverifiable should be viewed as false."

Thats a straw man!
Something that is unverifiable has no basis for positive belief.
if I can't verify that ghosts exist for example I can't really insist that they do.i should not expect other people to believe or make decision as to their life bassed on my belief in ghosts.

myelaine

EL Blanko, I too have had experiences like you. It is hard to explain, it is almost like "living in de ja vu land" not living in the present but in the presently. It does feel empowering, and in most cases I personally feel a great sense of urgency.

It is mystical, when It happens to me I know that it is very real and I know that I am being led by the spirit of God. It only happens to me when I step outside of myself and my concern for someone else is of utmost importance.

michelle

rem

>>It is mystical, when It happens to me I know that it is very real and I know that I am being led by the spirit of God.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I annoyed of believers claiming that skeptics have a closed mind when they hypocritically use language like this. Please show me once where I have ever said I "know" something. All I'm providing is probabilities and alternatives or saying "I don't know". Is that so closed minded?

No offense to Myelaine... (I've never heard her make the above claim) this is just an example - one of many that I have come accross.

rem

LittleToe

MAF:

(That is supposed to be a flirt emoticon but I don't know, she just looks kind of psycho to me.)

Ok, now I'm afraid. Very afraid!!!

REM:Are you saying that by stimulating certain brain centers (which have been evidenced to show activity) you can cause someone to love another person?
Boy, you should bottle that!!!

Can you stimulate "commitment" centers, too? The gals would love to know how to do that one.
I can see them running out to buy the electrodes right now!!!

Into the mystic (an experience).

Share this