Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Interview with african shaman about creatures from other dimensions

I guess the fact that people would rather bash the views exposed instead of trying to research them in a minium decent way, (I believe that if the view exposed was more in tune with the current reality paradigm followed by the majority the person would be more inclined to do a little research) says a lot.

Bel, I used to be really interested in conspiracy theories and read tons of shit on the subjects, I've read books on magical practice and even experimented with magic rituals. Before that, I also used to be a Christian and I once thought that Final Fantasy was the greatest game series of all time, Laughing my Fucking Ass Off. Then I stopped going to Church and began playing good video games and reading serious books on philosophy, sociology and history and looking at the world around me decided that magic, God, alien abductions, etc.. are the easiest answers to really complex questions. This is my above-requested opinion, maybe if I escape my current reality paradigm (lol) via heavy drug use and paranoia it'll change.

OK. Try a harder drug next time.

Thanks for the enlightening response bro. Of course I offered no "proof of absence" -- if something doesn't exist there's no way to disprove or prove its existence! This should be painfully obvious. And all statements about the world are at base hypotheses, as we might actually be living in the matrix, or in some butterfly's dream, or as brains in jars or whatever. I can't disprove those claims either, but they don't help me explain the world and there are no real indications that they're true.

Hmmmm, so you believe there's no way to prove the non-existence of something which doesn't exist nor the existence of something which does exist? On what basis, then, do you presume to distinguish between the illusory and the real? As I understand it, something that possesses a relative quality--in this case information possessing a relative likelihood of being true or false in the sense of which hypothesis is more or less likely than the other--this relativity is always a matter of degrees, which is to say that these degrees aren't totally random but rather refer back to an established spectrum or schema. For example if you had no definition whatsoever of "true" and "false", then assigning hypotheses relative likelihoods of being "true" or "false" is by extension also absolutely nil in substance (and accordingly couldn't possibly help in finding the slightest shred of substance about anything, either). So in other words if you recognize no certainties, then how can you in contrast measure levels of doubtfulness?

I understand your view that some types of thinking are delusional, but in my view I consider the delusion to be far more widespread, and in that context drug-induced concepts and so-called 'conspiracy theories' aren't necessarily far-fetched (in comparison to other things).

I think "reality" is quite a misleading term.  We use it to suggest some kind of eternal, transcendental collection of matter and information, exterior to the human individual and his own concepts and thoughts.  However, no-one can know this kind of "reality", in any way (we know representations and interpretations but not the reality itself), thus how can we know it to be real, in any other way than by accepting our own suggestions that it is real?  I certainly accept that I am observing a physical world through the senses of a physical body, and that this body interprets "real" things in ways incredibly similar to, if not the same as, those in which other beings interpret that which is "real".  However, I do not know the extent to which anything outside of this physical reality is "real" or not.  I couldn't tell you if my dreams were real, though, at one time, I would have firmly said that they were not, because they were non-physical.  At this point, then, what is "reality"?  Do we simply mean "the physical universe" when we say "reality", or do we literally mean "that which is real", and, if the latter, what is "real" and what is "not real"?  How do we distinguish between the two?

I'm going to go away and think about this for a while, until I fall asleep.

I think "reality" is quite a misleading term.  We use it to suggest some kind of eternal, transcendental collection of matter and information, exterior to the human individual and his own concepts and thoughts.

But exterior as opposed to what? Interior? Interior or exterior to what?

I certainly accept that I am observing a physical world through the senses of a physical body, and that this body interprets "real" things in ways incredibly similar to, if not the same as, those in which other beings interpret that which is "real".

But what is this "I" that observes a physical world through its senses? You've just isolated something not external but not part of the physical either, unless you think a person can be totally reduced to physical processes (which judging by your reply in the other thread about free will I seriously doubt).