Does anyone believe supernatural rubbish?

[Front bottom]

I don't read fiction, I prefer autobiographies tbh. I assume the poster has no reason to lie, after all, he says he doesn't believe in that sort of thing.

I enjoyed reading it though.

[drainbrain]

p1stonhead said:

drainbrain said:

Does the Advanced Wisdom of the PH unbelieving cabal believe this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardo_Thodol

to be utter nonsense dreamt up by fantasising savages as well?

The Tibetan text describes, and is intended to guide one through, the experiences that the consciousness has after death, in the bardo, the interval between death and the next rebirth.

Yep.

“I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud. ” – Dr. Carl Jung

[p1stonhead]

drainbrain said:

p1stonhead said:

drainbrain said:

Does the Advanced Wisdom of the PH unbelieving cabal believe this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardo_Thodol

to be utter nonsense dreamt up by fantasising savages as well?

The Tibetan text describes, and is intended to guide one through, the experiences that the consciousness has after death, in the bardo, the interval between death and the next rebirth.

Yep.

“I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud. ” – Dr. Carl Jung

Well seeing as there isnt any evidence of an afterlife or anything after someone takes their last breath, I just class it as fiction same as many many millions of other books. Why would I treat it any differently?

If this book was proven as fact everyone would know about it and it would be the biggest thing in the history of the world. Literally everyone in the world would treat it as the most important text ever written.

Surprisingly, they dont....

Me writing that when you die, a giant 300ft octopus whisks you away to the afterlife is just as plausible and worthy of having its own (fiction) book - I just havent bothered to write one.

Edited by p1stonhead on Monday 15th May 16:18

[drainbrain]

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/01/29/neu...

[steveL98]

Petrolhead95 said:

Please settle an argument I'm having.

A family member is saying they had a supernatural experience where a 'spirit' turned around pictures on their landing while there were out. Me, being a person of science, can't see any logical explanation to how it's possible for a 'spirit' to have moved them.

Please tell me I'm not the only one that thinks it's all a bunch of rubbish.

I'm also a person of science (Biomedical Engineer for the NHS) and to reject something we don't understand simply because their is no hard evidence to prove it is likened to thinking fire and electricity is something similar to paranormal activity and to avoid being ridiculed we simply say its rubbish without proving that it does not exist.

Maybe it does or maybe it doesn't, but like all good engineers and scientists, we keep an open mind.. The key word here is 'ridicule', which is what some of us are more afraid of that than spirits. Think about what we have today and how that would have been perceived 500 years ago...

[Efbe]

Nanook said:

Efbe said:

There is a huge amount of arrogance in science. What we know now as fact will change. Science always changes. To laugh at people for following a knowledge that was the science previously, because what we know must be true; is ridiculous.
We think we know how the universe works, but actually we don't. We can't really explain anything fully. There isn't one single area we know completely.

I’ve never met an arrogant scientist.

I used to believe dinosaurs were green and kinda scaly.

Now we believe some may have been feathered. Science does change. But you’re suggesting it’s wrong to laugh at someone that follows a knowledge that was ‘the science’ previously, because we know what must be true?

So religious peeps that claim dinosaurs aren’t real, and never existed, aren’t fair game for a piss-taking?

Think that through.

There is no arrogance in Science. Religion on the other hand, claiming things to be true with precisely fk all evidence to support it, that's arrogant.

Whilst you should know that I completely understand your argument, I think you may be missing quite what I am saying.
The arrogance is not in knowing, but it is in not knowing. Easier to say that read/write!

How can science be so certain there is no soul.
Take a look at the Orch-OR theory I mentioned before. It is a thoery, which so far holds water, based on quantum theory and the operation of the brain.

The research started with the basis that computationally, synapses and neurons are not enough to provide our brain's computing power. Whether or not this is true matter little. What the research found is collapsing quantum waves in microtubules in the brain.

I am vastly over-simplifying here, but activity in these microtubules is seen after activity in the synapses/neurons has ceased. Additionally chemical influences on the microtubules have been able to induce a coma. These would indicate that our consciousness is not solely linked to the brain as we know it, but operates quite quite differently.
This really is cutting edge science, research is being carried out currently. Though conclusions should not be drawn yet, it could indicate that consciousness is independent from the brain's neural network.

So do we know the soul does not exist, life after death cannot exist, consciousness ceases after the brain stops working? No.
What do we really know on this subject? Absolutely nothing

[steveL98]

p1stonhead said:

Well seeing as there isnt any evidence of an afterlife or anything after someone takes their last breath, I just class it as fiction same as many many millions of other books. Why would I treat it any differently?

Ok, could you please present your findings to us as to how the afterlife and it's effects upon the living is fiction then?

Or are you just another who ridicules that which you fail to understand?

[drainbrain]

Efbe said:

So do we know the soul does not exist, life after death cannot exist, consciousness ceases after the brain stops working? No.
What do we really know on this subject? Absolutely nothing

There are quite few folks who might disagree with that and who think we actually know quite a lot about this subject. The authors of the book ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardo_Thodol ) I quoted above, for example, plus all those who have read it, understood it and agree with it.

And about a zillion other texts and treatises by all sorts of bods since time immemorial.

[steveL98]

drainbrain said:

Efbe said:

So do we know the soul does not exist, life after death cannot exist, consciousness ceases after the brain stops working? No.
What do we really know on this subject? Absolutely nothing

There are quite few folks who might disagree with that and who think we actually know quite a lot about this subject. The authors of the book ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardo_Thodol ) I quoted above, for example, plus all those who have read it, understood it and agree with it.

And about a zillion other texts and treatises by all sorts of bods since time immemorial.

Problem is, we always try to use our earth bound knowledge and analysis to figure this out and as a scientist myself, I realise that these techniques are inadequate. One day we'll have this sorted like lightspeed intergalactic travel or time travel, odd how people accept that these subjects will be understood one day yet not paranormal energies and the application of them..

Edited by steveL98 on Monday 15th May 16:43

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Efbe said:

We think we know how the universe works, but actually we don't. We can't really explain anything fully. There isn't one single area we know completely.

.

We know the Earth goes around the sun, and not visa versa, as was believed for hundreds of years. This is known to, and because of, science. We know it completely. It ain't gonna be overturned.

[Efbe]

Nanook said:

Well, you're right, I'm missing the point in what you're saying slightly.

You're calling science arrogant, and asking how science can possibly know there's no such thing as a soul, whilst also telling us about these scientists that are investigating this, right now.

Where's the arrogance? They're not saying "Don't be silly, there's no such thing"

They're looking into it. Carrying out research, composing theories, etc.

It is not science itself that is arrogant, as you quite rightly state, it is just a process. Instead it is how science is used.

Look at the responses from P1stonhead. there is the arrogance.

Similarly:
Sir Penrose, of the Orch-OR theory is a world renowned mathematical physicist who has come up with ground breaking research alongside Hawking on quantum mechanics, blackholes etc etc.
When he carried out this research it was warmly received. When he brought about the Orch-OR theory that consciousness is beyond neuroscience, and the implications of this, I am sure you can work out how it was received. Mass ridicule. Even with evidence and provable research the criticism still swarms in.
What should be a ground breaking new area is being barely touched upon.

[drainbrain]

steveL98 said:

drainbrain said:

Efbe said:

So do we know the soul does not exist, life after death cannot exist, consciousness ceases after the brain stops working? No.
What do we really know on this subject? Absolutely nothing

There are quite few folks who might disagree with that and who think we actually know quite a lot about this subject. The authors of the book ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardo_Thodol ) I quoted above, for example, plus all those who have read it, understood it and agree with it.

And about a zillion other texts and treatises by all sorts of bods since time immemorial.

Problem is, we always try to use our earth bound knowledge and analysis to figure this out and as a scientist myself, I realise that these techniques are inadequate. One day we'll have this sorted like lightspeed intergalactic travel or time travel, odd how people accept that these subject will be understood one day yet not paranormal energies and the application of them..

You're kind of falling into the same error. Could you imagine yourself in the company of people who DO understand what others term as 'paranormal' or 'supernatural' ? Because many such people exist whether or not what they understand is challenged by others who usually require everything to be quantifiable, empirical and material in order to 'exist'.

To them, what you think 'will be understood one day' is commonplace knowledge.

[SpeckledJim]

Efbe said:

Nanook said:

Well, you're right, I'm missing the point in what you're saying slightly.

You're calling science arrogant, and asking how science can possibly know there's no such thing as a soul, whilst also telling us about these scientists that are investigating this, right now.

Where's the arrogance? They're not saying "Don't be silly, there's no such thing"

They're looking into it. Carrying out research, composing theories, etc.

It is not science itself that is arrogant, as you quite rightly state, it is just a process. Instead it is how science is used.

Look at the responses from P1stonhead. there is the arrogance.

Similarly:
Sir Penrose, of the Orch-OR theory is a world renowned mathematical physicist who has come up with ground breaking research alongside Hawking on quantum mechanics, blackholes etc etc.
When he carried out this research it was warmly received. When he brought about the Orch-OR theory that consciousness is beyond neuroscience, and the implications of this, I am sure you can work out how it was received. Mass ridicule. Even with evidence and provable research the criticism still swarms in.
What should be a ground breaking new area is being barely touched upon.

I think you're doing scientists a disservice there.

'Real' science would be delighted to find a genuine development in any area.

If science isn't convinced, then perhaps the work this chap is doing simply isn't persuasive.

[Christmassss]

Many moons ago when i was 18, i dated someone whose parents lived in a a house dating back to the 1700's i think.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0...

for the people who like to do background checks on posts..

Anyway, the first time i stayed over, her parents wouldn't let us stay in the same room so i had to sleep in a room at the top of the building. I shut the door and went to sleep. In the middle of the night (half asleep) i turned over and the door was open and i swear someone was standing there, but half asleep i didnt think much of it.

When i awoke the door was still open

So at breakfast i mentioned it to the parents and everyone looked at each other and told me the house was haunted and someone (they went into more detail) was hung in the property back in the day.

After that they let me sleep in the same room as her, which was a massive deal for them.

Same house....

Couple of months later, I was in the kitchen with Her and her sister and we heard footsteps of someone walking along the long hallway above us...not noises, not bangs, actual footsteps walking at normal walking pace. We were the only ones in the house.

I was bought up in an area where all of the houses are incredibly old and have a lot of history and there are so many stories of various incidents.

So whilst i am also sceptical of 'supernatural' stuff, i cant explain the things that i saw and heard myself.

[drainbrain]

Nanook said:

As an engineer, I tend to stick with that is repeatable, what can be proven, either mathematically, or empirically, not what sounds fun.

Can you accept that other people might tend to stick with another way of thinking which may not require repetition or mathematics or empirical proof as a basis of reality?

[SpeckledJim]

drainbrain said:

Nanook said:

As an engineer, I tend to stick with that is repeatable, what can be proven, either mathematically, or empirically, not what sounds fun.

Can you accept that other people might tend to stick with another way of thinking which may not require repetition or mathematics or empirical proof as a basis of reality?

As a basis of belief, absolutely.

As a basis of reality, not at all.

Science is reality, reality is science. The one describes the other.

[drainbrain]

SpeckledJim said:

Science is reality, reality is science. The one describes the other.

And that's your unshakeable belief, right?

[jmorgan]

Efbe said:

Take a look at the thoery of Orch-OR (Hameroff/ Penrose)

Interesting stuff. Controversial as well. And still in limbo.

If/When he proves it, it will be an interesting read.

[drainbrain]

Nanook said:

If you can't see it (empirical), or prove it with maths or similar (theoretical/logical) then how else do you prove it's real?

Like the origin of life, for example?

Is there any need to 'prove' life originated (how when where of what and by whom etc) to know that life exists? Does being unable to prove it make it any less 'real'?

[jimreed]

I'd just like to point out that Orch-Or in no way supports any 'supernatural' occurrences such as life after death or spooks or whirling pictures and mediumistic visitations.
It attempts to use testable physical phenomena to explore the ramifications of a certain philosophic viewpoint.

Quite a few of its implications have been falsified by biologic studies of the relevant brain structures.
There seems to be widespread cherry picking of some of the more esoteric and poorly understood scientific theories by certain woo minded individuals who use them to improperly validate their chosen nonsense.