|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 7, 2024 23:19:09 GMT -5
Ok, but in a scientific experiment, you'd have to tell a scientist what the thought was that you were projecting, and then they'd make sure you didn't have a chance to influence this other person in advance. For example, you would not have a chance to meet or speak to or in any way communicate with this other person in advance. You could be physically near them, but people would be watching what was happening. And then this other person would be asked afterwards what thoughts occurred to them, to make sure that the thought they reported was what you said you would be implanting. Do you think you could implant your thoughts under these sorts of conditions? Do you understand what I am getting at? Scientists are trying to ensure that what is going on is actually telepathy and not merely someone playing a trick -- on either themselves or someone else. There is a matter of degree going on here. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) Anyone who's had the experience of making a sale or seducing an object of affection understands the language underneath the language, the communication unspoken. And that's just common mind. Just the sort of non-verbal communication that ultimately can be reduced to a set of rational explanations. Beyond that, the metaphor of the individual as an antenna can be useful to explain more ... uncommon experiences. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) The experiment you describe is on one extreme end of that spectrum. All quite true ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) ... it's just that when someone makes a claim like Gopal's, I can't resist a challenge.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 7, 2024 23:21:27 GMT -5
Ok, but in a scientific experiment, you'd have to tell a scientist what the thought was that you were projecting, and then they'd make sure you didn't have a chance to influence this other person in advance. For example, you would not have a chance to meet or speak to or in any way communicate with this other person in advance. You could be physically near them, but people would be watching what was happening. And then this other person would be asked afterwards what thoughts occurred to them, to make sure that the thought they reported was what you said you would be implanting. Do you think you could implant your thoughts under these sorts of conditions? Do you understand what I am getting at? Scientists are trying to ensure that what is going on is actually telepathy and not merely someone playing a trick -- on either themselves or someone else. It's not possible to ask them because it's a kind of sexual influence. So what? Of course you can ask people whether they experienced a sudden surge of sexual attraction.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 7, 2024 23:23:09 GMT -5
Ok, but in a scientific experiment, you'd have to tell a scientist what the thought was that you were projecting, and then they'd make sure you didn't have a chance to influence this other person in advance. For example, you would not have a chance to meet or speak to or in any way communicate with this other person in advance. You could be physically near them, but people would be watching what was happening. And then this other person would be asked afterwards what thoughts occurred to them, to make sure that the thought they reported was what you said you would be implanting. Do you think you could implant your thoughts under these sorts of conditions? Do you understand what I am getting at? Scientists are trying to ensure that what is going on is actually telepathy and not merely someone playing a trick -- on either themselves or someone else. People have done experiments like that. They are difficult to design, because there are so many ways to cheat or accidentally skew results. For example, take a random playing card from a deck, and see if another person can guess the card with better than chance odds (about 2%). If telepathy were occurring you'd see closer to 100%. The experiments find either nothing, or next to nothing, and the "parapsychology" field has devolved into debates about the statistical significance of a 2.0% vs 2.1% result. Never have they found someone who can just blow a test away and leave no doubt. That still leaves the possibility that telepathy has occurred in non-repeatable, spontaneous events, not under the control of the human ego.
Sure, absolutely, and in fact I think that is very likely the case. It's simply that I doubt, to say the least, people who claim to have undoubted control over these things.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 7, 2024 23:25:24 GMT -5
It's good to see that some people can go deep into spirituality while also having critical thinking skills, and not succumbing to gullibility and delusions of grandeur. Realizing the irrational nature of 'Self' surpasses telepathy in the 'abandonment of critical thinking' department. How would we scientifically test for 'Self', or for realization of 'Self'? From the perspective of rational science, the self-realized are surely gullible. Realization is not making an empirical claim: it's not making a claim about the publicly observable world. Claiming the power of thought implantation certainly is making such a claim.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 7, 2024 23:46:39 GMT -5
Realizing the irrational nature of 'Self' surpasses telepathy in the 'abandonment of critical thinking' department. How would we scientifically test for 'Self', or for realization of 'Self'? From the perspective of rational science, the self-realized are surely gullible. Realization is not making an empirical claim: it's not making a claim about the publicly observable world. Claiming the power of thought implantation certainly is making such a claim. It's not making a claim about the observable world, it's making a significantly more profound claim. What we talk about is so irrational it can't even be tested for. 'Beyond form'? It would surely seem absurd to a rational thinker. Doesn't that make us hugely gullible? (Waves my gullible and proud flag ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) )
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 8, 2024 0:03:34 GMT -5
Realization is not making an empirical claim: it's not making a claim about the publicly observable world. Claiming the power of thought implantation certainly is making such a claim. It's not making a claim about the observable world, it's making a significantly more profound claim. What we talk about is so irrational it can't even be tested for. 'Beyond form'? It would surely seem absurd to a rational thinker. Doesn't that make us hugely gullible? (Waves my gullible and proud flag ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) ) ![](https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MTc2NDYxOTM0MzI4MDMwNDIx/how-does-a-person-become-gullible-and-why-how-can-it-be-corrected.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 8, 2024 0:15:29 GMT -5
Realization is not making an empirical claim: it's not making a claim about the publicly observable world. Claiming the power of thought implantation certainly is making such a claim. It's not making a claim about the observable world, it's making a significantly more profound claim. What we talk about is so irrational it can't even be tested for. 'Beyond form'? It would surely seem absurd to a rational thinker. Doesn't that make us hugely gullible? (Waves my gullible and proud flag ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) ) Not at all. It's not irrational. Realization is itself ultimately not a claim or a belief, so it's not something that can be classified as rational or irrational. The philosophy surrounding it can of course be criticized, but on those grounds the philosophy supporting the idea of realization has IMO impeccable claims to the very highest rationality, far superior to materialism. And those are the grounds on which any claims about realization and its possibility must be judged: as philosophical claims... philosophical claims do not have the same truth criteria as scientific claims. And science itself rests on many philosophical claims which cannot themselves be proved by science (because of the circularity involved).
|
|
|
Post by DonHelado on Feb 8, 2024 1:30:05 GMT -5
People have done experiments like that. They are difficult to design, because there are so many ways to cheat or accidentally skew results. For example, take a random playing card from a deck, and see if another person can guess the card with better than chance odds (about 2%). If telepathy were occurring you'd see closer to 100%. The experiments find either nothing, or next to nothing, and the "parapsychology" field has devolved into debates about the statistical significance of a 2.0% vs 2.1% result. Never have they found someone who can just blow a test away and leave no doubt. That still leaves the possibility that telepathy has occurred in non-repeatable, spontaneous events, not under the control of the human ego. Sure, absolutely, and in fact I think that is very likely the case. It's simply that I doubt, to say the least, people who claim to have undoubted control over these things. Yup, same here.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 8, 2024 1:43:00 GMT -5
It's not making a claim about the observable world, it's making a significantly more profound claim. What we talk about is so irrational it can't even be tested for. 'Beyond form'? It would surely seem absurd to a rational thinker. Doesn't that make us hugely gullible? (Waves my gullible and proud flag ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) ) Not at all. It's not irrational. Realization is itself ultimately not a claim or a belief, so it's not something that can be classified as rational or irrational. The philosophy surrounding it can of course be criticized, but on those grounds the philosophy supporting the idea of realization has IMO impeccable claims to the very highest rationality, far superior to materialism. And those are the grounds on which any claims about realization and its possibility must be judged: as philosophical claims... philosophical claims do not have the same truth criteria as scientific claims. And science itself rests on many philosophical claims which cannot themselves be proved by science (because of the circularity involved). Surely 'realization' is a claim. Tolle, Ramana, Niz etc....they all claim realization, don't they? What is it a realization of? 'Beyond form', right? We know that science can't prove 'beyond form', but doesn't that just make it even MORE woo-woo, silly, irrational, gullible, than...say....a telepathy claim? I mean, what kind of religious nut would claim to have realized there is 'beyond form'? I don't mind if you want to challenge a telepathy claim on science grounds, but it strikes me as weird that you would then accept a realization claim without science basis.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2024 6:11:50 GMT -5
This discussion starts to get off the "AI &related" topic ... "Critical thinking" is often just another manifestation of ignorance, and attempt to bully those who think differently. "Belief in science" is on the same lines with believing in anything: you believe (firmly) in something you don't understand. My reference to the possibility of large scale communicating through telepathy was just meant to give an example of how a change in paradigm could obsolete some current professions, while opening possibilities and freeing the mind and other resources. Critical thinking can also be a way to ferret out someone who is trying to deceive, or, instances where someone has been deceived and is propagating the deception. But it certainly is situational. For example, late-stage self-inquiry doesn't involve any sort of thinking, much less critical thinking.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2024 6:19:50 GMT -5
Artificial intelligence, as its name suggests, is about "intelligence". This means that it diminishes the effect of emotions, inherently still reflecting to some degree the emotions of its designers, and of the data it works with. On the other hand, AI lacks intuition, and there is no algorithmic way to compensate for it, because intuition implies a mind, and it means tapping into non-physical resources of knowledge and guidance.Nailed it. I'd also put 'imagination/inspiration' in that category The word "artificial" makes it quite clear that AI is a simulation. So, not the real deal. But I can map, functionally, how we would define/describe human intuition to the design principles and techniques to build a neural network. That's because the goal of the simulation is to try to replicate functionality of the human mind. People who blur the distinction between artificial and human intelligence miss something very important, no doubt. But the blur happens for a reason, or really, a set of circumstances related to and giving rise to their set of beliefs. I would doubt anyone who posts here is in that situation, but it still is fascinating to examine the WIBIGO of culture at large on the topic.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2024 6:24:37 GMT -5
This discussion starts to get off the "AI &related" topic ... "Critical thinking" is often just another manifestation of ignorance, and attempt to bully those who think differently. "Belief in science" is on the same lines with believing in anything: you believe (firmly) in something you don't understand. ... said every fool ever who had to protect his beliefs from examination and open inquiry. Truth is not brittle. Truth survives being subjected to rational thinking. Pure spirituality does not require gullibility, belief in the tooth fairy, etc. Well, an open mind need not be a gullible mind, but every rational truth has some point where it has to bend into a pretzel to avoid breaking. And there are plenty of people steeped in rational thought these days who have been convinced of one foolishness or another.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2024 6:32:49 GMT -5
Artificial intelligence, as its name suggests, is about "intelligence". This means that it diminishes the effect of emotions, inherently still reflecting to some degree the emotions of its designers, and of the data it works with. On the other hand, AI lacks intuition, and there is no algorithmic way to compensate for it, because intuition implies a mind, and it means tapping into non-physical resources of knowledge and guidance. Well, there is such a thing as "emotional intelligence".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2024 6:39:56 GMT -5
There is a matter of degree going on here. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) Anyone who's had the experience of making a sale or seducing an object of affection understands the language underneath the language, the communication unspoken. And that's just common mind. Just the sort of non-verbal communication that ultimately can be reduced to a set of rational explanations. Beyond that, the metaphor of the individual as an antenna can be useful to explain more ... uncommon experiences. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) The experiment you describe is on one extreme end of that spectrum. All quite true ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) ... it's just that when someone makes a claim like Gopal's, I can't resist a challenge. (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2024 6:41:44 GMT -5
Realization is not making an empirical claim: it's not making a claim about the publicly observable world. Claiming the power of thought implantation certainly is making such a claim. It's not making a claim about the observable world, it's making a significantly more profound claim. What we talk about is so irrational it can't even be tested for. 'Beyond form'? It would surely seem absurd to a rational thinker. Doesn't that make us hugely gullible? (Waves my gullible and proud flag ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) ) (** shakes head sadly **)
|
|