SriramHere is Andrew Newberg's web site ..... http://www.andrewnewberg.com/
the author of the link, Brandon Ambrosino , tells a good tale but I would rather read the actual papers of the scientists he refers to and get the real story . Interpretations can be misleading and biased
thanks anyway
Here is Andrew Newberg's web site ..... http://www.andrewnewberg.com/thanks for the link
Try the Neurotheology link.
Hi everyone,
Are spiritual beliefs an inevitable consequence of evolution?
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct
*************
Andrew Newberg, a neuroscientist who studies the brain in light of religious experience, has spent his career following this hunch. “If you contemplate God long enough,” he writes in How God Changes Your Brain, “something surprising happens in the brain. Neural functioning begins to change. Different circuits become activated, while others become deactivated. New dendrites are formed, new synaptic connections are made, and the brain becomes more sensitive to subtle realms of experience. Perceptions alter, beliefs begin to change, and if God has meaning for you, then God becomes neurologically real.”
When you begin to do some kind of practice like ritual, over time that area of brain appears to shut down,” he said. “As it starts to quiet down, since it normally helps to create sense of self, that sense of self starts blur, and the boundaries between self and other – another person, another group, God, the universe, whatever it is you feel connected to – the boundary between those begins to dissipate and you feel one with it.”
The other part of the brain heavily involved in religious experience is the frontal lobe, which normally help us to focus our attention and concentrate on things, says Newberg. “When that area shuts down, it could theoretically be experienced as a kind of loss of willful activity – that we’re no longer making something happen but it’s happening to us.”
**************
Cheers.
Sriram
Lost in the awe at the beauty around me, I must have slipped into a state of heightened awareness…It seemed to me, as I struggled afterward to recall the experience, that self was utterly absent: I and the chimpanzees, the earth and trees and air, seemed to merge, to become one with the spirit power of life itself…Never had I been so intensely aware of the shape, the color of the individual leaves, the varied patterns of the veins that made each one unique. It was almost overpowering. —Jane Goodall, Reason for Hope
Impossible to tell - since you never define those 'spiritual beliefs'.
Hi everyone,
Are spiritual beliefs an inevitable consequence of evolution?
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct
*************
Andrew Newberg, a neuroscientist who studies the brain in light of religious experience, has spent his career following this hunch. “If you contemplate God long enough,” he writes in How God Changes Your Brain, “something surprising happens in the brain. Neural functioning begins to change. Different circuits become activated, while others become deactivated. New dendrites are formed, new synaptic connections are made, and the brain becomes more sensitive to subtle realms of experience. Perceptions alter, beliefs begin to change, and if God has meaning for you, then God becomes neurologically real.”
When you begin to do some kind of practice like ritual, over time that area of brain appears to shut down,” he said. “As it starts to quiet down, since it normally helps to create sense of self, that sense of self starts blur, and the boundaries between self and other – another person, another group, God, the universe, whatever it is you feel connected to – the boundary between those begins to dissipate and you feel one with it.”
The other part of the brain heavily involved in religious experience is the frontal lobe, which normally help us to focus our attention and concentrate on things, says Newberg. “When that area shuts down, it could theoretically be experienced as a kind of loss of willful activity – that we’re no longer making something happen but it’s happening to us.”
**************
Cheers.
Sriram
Makes sense. All down to how the brain is wired.
hmm... so some people have brains that perceive (some kind of) god and some don't ... some can learn how to do it ... does this tell us anything about what is real or not?Nope!
hmm... so some people have brains that perceive (some kind of) god and some don't ... some can learn how to do it ... does this tell us anything about what is real or not?
Makes sense. All down to how the brain is wired.
Someone born blind can be convinced that light exists by the evidence: they know that people have eyes, even if theirs don't work, and they can understand how images are focussed on the retina. Similarly with sound for someone born deaf. There is, however, no organ you can point to which enables you to be aware of a spiritual realm, nor can you explain a mechanism whereby you pick up the signal, or what it consists of. Many people have religious experiences, and they may be of great value to them, and to others as well if they inspire great art or acts of altruism - I'm not ridiculing or down-playing them - but there's no evidence that they refer to anything objective.
Also, the experiences cannot be brushed off as 'its all just brain wiring'. Eye sight, hearing, taste etc. are all dependent on brain wiring, but that doesn't mean they don't connect us to real things.
Hi Steve,
The point is that, its not about evidence. Just as blind people realize that a majority of people experience something that they are not able to, because of the absence of a specific faculty, atheists also should realize that there is something that many people are able to experience that they themselves are not able to. The above article points out the fact that the brain wiring may be different or missing in some people, for whatever reason.
Its not just...'if you can't show us the evidence, it is obviously delusional'.
thanks for the linkI think he is exploring the possible link between religious and spiritual practices and psychology and neurology. I think neurotheology is not the best word to use as it implies a theo or god, whereas practices such as yoga and meditation are not necessarily associated with theology. He claims that many studies have demonstrated that religious and spiritual practices have a beneficial effect on human psychology and so I suppose that he might be motivated to spread the good news in a different way to religious scripture.
on reading I detect a religious bias on the part of Andrew Newberg . What do you think ekim?
I think he is exploring the possible link between religious and spiritual practices and psychology and neurology. I think neurotheology is not the best word to use as it implies a theo or god, whereas practices such as yoga and meditation are not necessarily associated with theology. He claims that many studies have demonstrated that religious and spiritual practices have a beneficial effect on human psychology and so I suppose that he might be motivated to spread the good news in a different way to religious scripture.from what I've seen on YouTube of him talking about his work , he seems to accept god as a reality (without actually saying it)but different people have their own description of it and its the individuals' perception that determines their experiences.
Rubbish. Many atheists have spiritual experiences. The difference is that they don't multiply entities in order to explain them.
Hi Steve,
The point is that, its not about evidence. Just as blind people realize that a majority of people experience something that they are not able to, because of the absence of a specific faculty, atheists also should realize that there is something that many people are able to experience that they themselves are not able to.
The above article points out the fact that the brain wiring may be different or missing in some people, for whatever reason.Or maybe they have extra wiring: a self bullshit detector, if you like.
Its not just...'if you can't show us the evidence, it is obviously delusional'.
Someone born blind can be convinced that light exists by the evidence: they know that people have eyes, even if theirs don't work, and they can understand how images are focussed on the retina. Similarly with sound for someone born deaf. There is, however, no organ you can point to which enables you to be aware of a spiritual realm, nor can you explain a mechanism whereby you pick up the signal, or what it consists of. Many people have religious experiences, and they may be of great value to them, and to others as well if they inspire great art or acts of altruism - I'm not ridiculing or down-playing them - but there's no evidence that they refer to anything objective.Slight quibble: 'religious experiences' are experiences which faith believers label religious, but which (most) non-believers do not.
Rubbish. Many atheists have spiritual experiences. The difference is that they don't multiply entities in order to explain them.
Or maybe they have extra wiring: a self bullshit detector, if you like.
The thing is that, even if it is true that the "wiring of the brain" makes you more susceptible or less susceptible to religious experiences (and, yes, I reckon it is plausible) it is fatal to your argument. If proved true, it would be absolute proof that religiosity and spirituality are phenomena of the human mind and not caused by something external to it.
I agree with you. The fact that some people are more susceptible to spiritual experiences than others in no way suggests that there is some sort of overlying consciousness at work. All it suggests is that the human brain is capable of such experiences which can be interpreted in a myriad of different ways, often linked to the culture and upbringing of the person experiencing such an experience. Much more sensible is to analyse and attempt to measure such experiences and attempt to find out as much as possible about such experiences, something which is being done and with some success.I tend to agree with your last paragraph enki .
Sriram's interpretation of such experiences is pure conjecture without any evidence whatever. He seems to me to be locked in to his own cultural background in seeking to explain such phenomena instead of trying to take a more objective and expansive approach. Perhaps, as you say, his skeptical abilities have not developed, and therefore we should not be too hard on him.
I am quite prepared to share a personal example of what could be classed as a 'mystical or religious ' experience which lasted about 3 days for analysis if that would persuade Sriram to share just one of his .Go ahead and see what happens.
So, there you go! As I keep saying, some people have a natural ability to experience spiritual aspects of life. Some don't. Maybe it can be learnt and depending on the person it may be relatively easy or very difficult. It shows that there is a 'faculty' that enables spiritual experience.
Its not just, 'if you can see it, why can't I'? Or...'If you can't show us the evidence, it cannot exist'!
Also, the experiences cannot be brushed off as 'its all just brain wiring'. Eye sight, hearing, taste etc. are all dependent on brain wiring, but that doesn't mean they don't connect us to real things.
Go ahead and see what happens.I want his agreement first .
Hi everyone,
The point is that you people are not honestly agreeing to the following...
1. Certain experiences such as spiritual experiences, depend on brain wiring. If the wiring is not right, the person will not be able to experience such matters. This is fact as per the article above.
2. Since it depends on brain wiring, the experiences need not be purely imaginary or wishful thinking. It could be our connection to a reality that some people are unable to experience. Just as brain wiring enables eyesight, hearing etc. these internal wiring could connect us to a reality that is not otherwise obvious. Since most spiritual people agree on the many beneficial effects of the experiences, they can be taken as real.
3. Evidence in objective terms cannot be provided. Only anecdotal accounts can be provided. So, stop asking for 'evidence...evidence'. If you can't see it...you just can't.
Cheers.
Sriram
But how do you know that the people with these capabilities are most certainly not experiencing anything real? That is just your assumption.
Hi everyone,
The point is that you people are not honestly agreeing to the following...
1. Certain experiences such as spiritual experiences, depend on brain wiring. If the wiring is not right, the person will not be able to experience such matters. This is fact as per the article above.
2. Since it depends on brain wiring, the experiences need not be purely imaginary or wishful thinking. It could be our connection to a reality that some people are unable to experience. Just as brain wiring enables eyesight, hearing etc. these internal wiring could connect us to a reality that is not otherwise obvious. Since most spiritual people agree on the many beneficial effects of the experiences, they can be taken as real.
3. Evidence in objective terms cannot be provided. Only anecdotal accounts can be provided. So, stop asking for 'evidence...evidence'. If you can't see it...you just can't.
Cheers.
Sriram
1. Certain experiences such as spiritual experiences, depend on brain wiring. If the wiring is not right, the person will not be able to experience such matters. This is fact as per the article above.
2. Since it depends on brain wiring, the experiences need not be purely imaginary or wishful thinking. It could be our connection to a reality that some people are unable to experience. Just as brain wiring enables eyesight, hearing etc. these internal wiring could connect us to a reality that is not otherwise obvious. Since most spiritual people agree on the many beneficial effects of the experiences, they can be taken as real.
3. Evidence in objective terms cannot be provided. Only anecdotal accounts can be provided. So, stop asking for 'evidence...evidence'. If you can't see it...you just can't.
Sriram - you have not yet provided any evidence or argument to show that your spiritual experiences refer to anything outside your brain, nor, in the nature of things, can you: it is fundamentally undemonstrable.
I give up. ::)
Sriram - you have not yet provided any evidence or argument to show that your spiritual experiences refer to anything outside your brain
To be fair to Sriram I don't think he has ever claimed on this site to have had a 'spiritual experience', nor has he so much as suggested that he has actually tried any of the 'objective methods' that he advocates, such as meditation and yoga. Indeed, his zealotry reminds me very much of the kind of brittle certainties one typically hears from the newly converted, blissfully free from the hard lessons of personal experience, who have discovered the one true way and can't wait to impose it on it upon an unreceptive world, whose duty it is to validate it lest undermining doubt set in. But, of course, Sriram is hardly new to this game: he has been hammering the same nail here since the site's inception, and before that for years on the BBC board, which makes me wonder why it remains so important to him that we, the unwashed, agree with him. He doesn't even seem to have changed his forceful (and sometimes quite insulting) proselytising approach, even though it must by now have occurred to him that keeping on doing the same thing whilst expecting a different result looks awfully like madness. But then I suppose it is our fault for not engaging in the techniques and methods he vaguely alludes to but never actually specifies or explains, such that one might follow up on them if one so chose. A potentially fatal flaw for him here, of course, is that plenty of folk do engage in many years (even decades) of meditation but fail to experience the 'truths' that he espouses. In fact, many come to very different realisations, which might explain why he doesn't seem to like Zen very much. Previous posts of his suggest that it is a significant part of his belief system that all of humanity - and indeed the rest of the animal kingdom too! - will somehow converge on a single shared experience of the gospel according to Sriram. But since he has recently stated that he thinks some people simply aren't 'wired' for this revelation of divine Truth I'm not sure how he can expect us to join the merry crowd at the gates of moksha. Perhaps we'll need first to reincarnate as vessels more worthy of his scattered pearls.
Yes...indeed. I do think that many people would need to reincarnate into suitable vessels to be capable of further realization. You got it!
To be fair to Sriram I don't think he has ever claimed on this site to have had a 'spiritual experience', nor has he so much as suggested that he has actually tried any of the 'objective methods' that he advocates, such as meditation and yoga. Indeed, his zealotry reminds me very much of the kind of brittle certainties one typically hears from the newly converted, blissfully free from the hard lessons of personal experience, who have discovered the one true way and can't wait to impose it on it upon an unreceptive world, whose duty it is to validate it lest undermining doubt set in. But, of course, Sriram is hardly new to this game: he has been hammering the same nail here since the site's inception, and before that for years on the BBC board, which makes me wonder why it remains so important to him that we, the unwashed, agree with him. He doesn't even seem to have changed his forceful (and sometimes quite insulting) proselytising approach, even though it must by now have occurred to him that keeping on doing the same thing whilst expecting a different result looks awfully like madness. But then I suppose it is our fault for not engaging in the techniques and methods he vaguely alludes to but never actually specifies or explains, such that one might follow up on them if one so chose. A potentially fatal flaw for him here, of course, is that plenty of folk do engage in many years (even decades) of meditation but fail to experience the 'truths' that he espouses. In fact, many come to very different realisations, which might explain why he doesn't seem to like Zen very much. Previous posts of his suggest that it is a significant part of his belief system that all of humanity - and indeed the rest of the animal kingdom too! - will somehow converge on a single shared experience of the gospel according to Sriram. But since he has recently stated that he thinks some people simply aren't 'wired' for this revelation of divine Truth I'm not sure how he can expect us to join the merry crowd at the gates of moksha. Perhaps we'll need first to reincarnate as vessels more worthy of his scattered pearls.I must have read the same line four times , paragraphs?
And what would be a suitable vessel, an ocean liner? ;D
Hi everyone,
The point is that you people are not honestly agreeing to the following...
1. Certain experiences such as spiritual experiences, depend on brain wiring. If the wiring is not right, the person will not be able to experience such matters. This is fact as per the article above.
2. Since it depends on brain wiring, the experiences need not be purely imaginary or wishful thinking. It could be our connection to a reality that some people are unable to experience. Just as brain wiring enables eyesight, hearing etc. these internal wiring could connect us to a reality that is not otherwise obvious. Since most spiritual people agree on the many beneficial effects of the experiences, they can be taken as real.
3. Evidence in objective terms cannot be provided. Only anecdotal accounts can be provided. So, stop asking for 'evidence...evidence'. If you can't see it...you just can't.
Cheers.
Sriram
I believe that you will accept my woo if I call it quantum
Yes...indeed. I do think that many people would need to reincarnate into suitable vessels to be capable of further realization. You got it!
I give up. ::)
He has said more than once that there is no concrete evidence.
I agree with you that we make a choice when it comes to faith but certain things have to fall in place first to convince us it is the right choice. Most people don't have a religious experience.
I believe that you will accept my woo if I call it quantum
quote from DEEPAK CHOPRA
Hi Robbie,Sriram
People don't understand that evidence of the kind they want, is not possible. In this thread I have linked an article that clearly demonstrates that certain brain wiring is necessary for spiritual experiences. It can happen both ways....the effort taken for the experience can create the necessary wiring and the existence of the wiring can create the experience.
It is clear that without the wiring (or the necessary effort) such experiences are not possible.
The experience itself is a glimpse of another aspect of reality.....though some people who cannot have these experiences, would like to believe that the experiences are just random or hallucinatory internal experiences not connected to any objective reality.
This battle will go on...! :)
Cheers.
Sriram
Hi Robbie,
People don't understand that evidence of the kind they want, is not possible. In this thread I have linked an article that clearly demonstrates that certain brain wiring is necessary for spiritual experiences. It can happen both ways....the effort taken for the experience can create the necessary wiring and the existence of the wiring can create the experience.
It is clear that without the wiring (or the necessary effort) such experiences are not possible.
The experience itself is a glimpse of another aspect of reality.....though some people who cannot have these experiences, would like to believe that the experiences are just random or hallucinatory internal experiences not connected to any objective reality.
This battle will go on...! :)
Cheers.
Sriram
Hi everyone,Why would I honestly agree to that since it is a deeply dishonest statement? First of all, it is not a fact, it is a hypothesis. Secondly, assuming atheists are wired differently, you characterise the difference in wiring as a deficiency when it is not necessarily any such thing. In fact, wiring that makes it easier to see through religious bulshit might bee considered to be an advantage.
The point is that you people are not honestly agreeing to the following...
1. Certain experiences such as spiritual experiences, depend on brain wiring. If the wiring is not right, the person will not be able to experience such matters. This is fact as per the article above.
Since it depends on brain wiring, the experiences need not be purely imaginary or wishful thinking. It could be our connection to a reality that some people are unable to experience. Just as brain wiring enables eyesight, hearing etc. these internal wiring could connect us to a reality that is not otherwise obvious. Since most spiritual people agree on the many beneficial effects of the experiences, they can be taken as real.
3. Evidence in objective terms cannot be provided. Only anecdotal accounts can be provided. So, stop asking for 'evidence...evidence'. If you can't see it...you just can't.
You,of course, would like to believe they are glimpses of another aspect of reality.
I have enough reasons toknowbelieve that there is a reality beyond the obvious physical one that we can sense through our five senses.
Of course I would!! I have enough reasons to know that there is a reality beyond the obvious physical one that we can sense through our five senses.
Believe, not know.
I 'know'! You like to think that I 'believe'.....which is different....
You believe, but like to think you know.
How do you know that?
I 'know'! You like to think that I 'believe'.....which is different....
I 'know'! You like to think that I 'believe'.....which is different....
Based on my experiences, I could quite easily say I 'know' that there is no such alternate reality. I wouldn't however because that would be ridiculously presumptuous of me.good post enki
Furthermore, if I am to be skeptical of your take on things because of your complete lack of evidence, then, to be scrupulously honest, I have to apply the same yardstick to my experiences which, similarly, have no evidence in and of themselves.
Hi everyone,
The point is that you people are not honestly agreeing to the following...
1. Certain experiences such as spiritual experiences, depend on brain wiring. If the wiring is not right, the person will not be able to experience such matters. This is fact as per the article above.
2. Since it depends on brain wiring, the experiences need not be purely imaginary or wishful thinking. It could be our connection to a reality that some people are unable to experience. Just as brain wiring enables eyesight, hearing etc. these internal wiring could connect us to a reality that is not otherwise obvious. Since most spiritual people agree on the many beneficial effects of the experiences, they can be taken as real.
3. Evidence in objective terms cannot be provided. Only anecdotal accounts can be provided. So, stop asking for 'evidence...evidence'. If you can't see it...you just can't.
Cheers.
Sriram
I couldn't help noticing this post of yours on one of my occasional browsings through this forum, you refer to some people who have brains that aren't wired in the right way, an unsupported assertion.
Now I'm not a great fan of woo in anything like the way you seem to be but having said that I was talking to an equally as non-religious as I am friend the other day about viewing a move to any new house my wife and I would be likely to move to and he doesn't share with me any of the admittedly not logical feelings I have about buildings.
My wife and I we both share these feelings about any potential home we're thinking of buying, we know more or less as we step over the threshold of any new place if it feels right, can't even consider a move unless we both have this feeling about a potential new home, it's a feeling we both have.
There's no logic or rational about this feeling we have about just bricks and mortar but we know it as soon as we enter the building, the yes we could live here feeling in spite of the fact that we're both realistic non-religious people.
I think it's partly akin to aesthetics when you like a piece of art or not, again without necessarily any supportable rational or logic to be offered.
Spititual?
Cheers Sri.
Yes ippy. That 'feeling' of a house being right or not is something most people around the world have. It is quite common. In India we attribute that to the aura or biofield that exists around us and all things. This aura is some kind of an energy field (like a magnetic field) that exists everywhere. It is not really anything to do with the spirit and hence not 'spiritual'.
Yes ippy. That 'feeling' of a house being right or not is something most people around the world have. It is quite common.
In India we attribute that to the aura or biofield that exists around us and all things. This aura is some kind of an energy field (like a magnetic field) that exists everywhere. It is not really anything to do with the spirit and hence not 'spiritual'.
The article I have referred merely says that certain brain connections are required for people to have certain 'religious' experiences. That seems quite obvious to me. But that fact highlights the point that everyone may not be able to have 'religious' experiences.
Sriram,
“Certain brain connections” is meaningless woo. If you’re trying to say that some people are more gullible or credulous than others, then just say it.
I think Sriram is just repeating what the neuroscientist Andrew Newberg has found in his studies of the neural functioning of the brain as a result of religious practices like prayer, contemplation, meditation "New dendrites are formed, new synaptic connections are made, and the brain becomes more sensitive to subtle realms of experience." I don't think it has anything to do with gullibility or credulousness but more to do with conditioning. and perhaps a desire for an inner experience like bliss, ananda, heaven etc. which transcends the sensational and psychological.
Swami Sivananda, a Hindu authority on meditation, who died in 1963, put it this way "You can distinctly feel the shift of consciousness as it leaves its seat in the brain, attempting to return to its original seat. You realise that it has left its former channels to enter into new ones. Its psychology is transformed. You now have a wholly new mind, new heart and noble sensations and feelings." Whether there is an 'original seat' or the situation is as Newberg suggests "Religious experiences satisfy two basic functions of the brain: self-maintenance (“How do we survive as individuals and as a species?”) and self-transcendence (“How do we continue to evolve and change ourselves as people?”), I don't know, and if the experience is the goal does it really matter.
Sriram,
Probably is – some people find certain environments more comfortable than others. It’s down to taste, culture, upbringing etc – no need to invoke woo to explain it though
And in my house we attribute it to the vaporised tears of unicorns, spread to the winds by the mystical power of Hertz van Rental, the Dutch god of transport.
See that’s the thing when you just make stuff up to explain an experience – any shit is as valid as any other, “aura or biofield” and vaporised unicorn tears alike.
“Certain brain connections” is meaningless woo. If you’re trying to say that some people are more gullible or credulous than others, then just say it.
Yes ippy. That 'feeling' of a house being right or not is something most people around the world have. It is quite common. In India we attribute that to the aura or biofield that exists around us and all things. This aura is some kind of an energy field (like a magnetic field) that exists everywhere. It is not really anything to do with the spirit and hence not 'spiritual'.
'vaporised unicorn tears', mmm, some people have a way with words and so deep too, after all of these years I've spent on this planet I hadn't realised, I can only offer you a humble fank you Blue, and there's me here finkin It's gotta be a bit of the old affetics that's affected us innit?
Reggs ippy
The article I have referred merely says that certain brain connections are required for people to have certain 'religious' experiences. That seems quite obvious to me. But that fact highlights the point that everyone may not be able to have 'religious' experiences.
'Aura' and 'biofield' are probably just woo. It can be quite valid to have a 'gut' feeling about something without invoking unevidenced energy fields as the explanation. It's simply your subconscious, doing what it does. Same thing when you fall in love, we might call it 'chemistry'. It's not that your loved one is emitting an energy field, it is that your subconscious mind has done complex work subliminally and found the pieces fit together.
There is nothing new or remarkable in the notion of neural plasticity. If you practice a faith, that will tend to induce religious experience. If I practice piano, I'll get a better ear for music, develop perfect pitch. Coaches who train world class athletes for the Olympics invest time in psychology, on the understanding that belief is half way to winning; if you really believe you can be the best in the world, you just might be. These are all ways of leveraging the plasticity of human mind.
It may be to do with what a person is brought up to believe. The brain is, I think, more plastic during early years but less so later. So someone
The point is that....without suitable neural connectivity the relevant experiences cannot be had. So, some people just miss out on the experiences. Not that the experiences are not real but that suitable circuits are not present in some people to enable them to have the experiences.
Aura and biofield are as much 'woo' as Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Parallel Universes.
Maybe much less so ...because the Aura can actually be felt and worked with for healing purposes. Most of our feelings and emotional states can also be explained by the Aura and chakras.
On the other hand, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Parallel Universes are all based on remote measurements and models that could be proved wrong sometime in the future.
You guys are typically programmed to react in an almost robotic fashion to such matters with no attempt at thinking out of the box at all. Pity! And this is something much more pronounced in the UK, I think. People from the US, Germany, Japan etc. seem much more receptive. They also seem much more capable of integrating diverse aspects of reality.
The point is that....without suitable neural connectivity the relevant experiences cannot be had. So, some people just miss out on the experiences. Not that the experiences are not real but that suitable circuits are not present in some people to enable them to have the experiences.
ekim,
(1) You have it backwards I think. Sriram was claiming that you need special brain wiring to have religious experiences in the first place (“The article I have referred merely says that certain brain connections are required for people to have certain 'religious' experiences.”). What Newberg (apparently) was saying was that religious practices caused a degree of neural re-wiring. Presumably moreover it doesn’t matter much which religion is involved, not for that matter whether similar practices (meditation, yoga etc) have the same effect so the religion bit is irrelevant.
(2) None of this of course tells you anything at all about whether the various claims of fact of the religious – gods etc – are real.
(3) As for gullibility, clearly some people are more suggestible than others. These are the ones that Derren Brown and similar look for, and there's no reason to think them to be less suggestible about religious beliefs than they are about anything else.
Aura and biofield are as much 'woo' as Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Parallel Universes. Maybe much less so ...because the Aura can actually be felt and worked with for healing purposes. Most of our feelings and emotional states can also be explained by the Aura and chakras. On the other hand, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Parallel Universes are all based on remote measurements and models that could be proved wrong sometime in the future.
You guys are typically programmed to react in an almost robotic fashion to such matters with no attempt at thinking out of the box at all. Pity! And this is something much more pronounced in the UK, I think. People from the US, Germany, Japan etc. seem much more receptive. They also seem much more capable of integrating diverse aspects of reality.
Are you so steeped in your cultural traditions, Sriram, that you can't see the wood for the trees?
enki,
Woo for the trees surely?
Oh.....its so much fun seeing all of you reacting so uniformly and vociferously. :D Fun......but so much ignorance...! Tut!...Tut!
Oh.....its so much fun seeing all of you reacting so uniformly and vociferously. :D Fun......but so much ignorance...! Tut!...Tut!
Oh.....its so much fun seeing all of you reacting so uniformly and vociferously. :D Fun......but so much ignorance...! Tut!...Tut!
the Aura can actually be felt and worked with for healing purposes.No it can't.
Most of our feelings and emotional states can also be explained by the Aura and chakras.
On the other hand, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Parallel Universes are all based on remote measurements and models that could be proved wrong sometime in the future.And you think being based on measurements and falsifiable models is a disadvantage?
You guys are typically programmed to react in an almost robotic fashionNo, you are programmed to react credulously to any snake oil bullshit that your religious and "spiritual" leaders want to peddle to you.
I think what your detractors are saying is that it's OK to think outside of the box but any suggested conclusions should be analysed using the scientific method and a probability assessment made as there may be other interpretations especially if there are attempts made to link a proposed spiritual realm with a physical reality. An example is when Kirlian photography was developed, a connection was automatically made with aura detection. This link gives a reasonable account of all that followed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirlian_photography
You guys are typically programmed to react in an almost robotic fashion to such matters with no attempt at thinking out of the box at all. Pity! And this is something much more pronounced in the UK, I think. People from the US, Germany, Japan etc. seem much more receptive. They also seem much more capable of integrating diverse aspects of reality.
I think what your detractors are saying is that it's OK to think outside of the box but any suggested conclusions should be analysed using the scientific methodWhat other methods is there that works?
I think what your detractors are saying is that it's OK to think outside of the box but any suggested conclusions should be analysed using the scientific method and a probability assessment made as there may be other interpretations especially if there are attempts made to link a proposed spiritual realm with a physical reality. An example is when Kirlian photography was developed, a connection was automatically made with aura detection. This link gives a reasonable account of all that followed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirlian_photography
The point is that....without suitable neural connectivity the relevant experiences cannot be had. So, some people just miss out on the experiences. Not that the experiences are not real but that suitable circuits are not present in some people to enable them to have the experiences.
By the way ....you guys should thank me for resurrecting the board every now and then from its near death state. The vigor and energy with which you guys collectively react to my posts is palpable! :D
I think what your detractors are saying is that it's OK to think outside of the box but any suggested conclusions should be analysed using the scientific method and a probability assessment made as there may be other interpretations especially if there are attempts made to link a proposed spiritual realm with a physical reality. An example is when Kirlian photography was developed, a connection was automatically made with aura detection. This link gives a reasonable account of all that followed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirlian_photography
On the contrary it's sad to see anyone taking on baseless irrational beliefs that can't be ratified in any sensible way by anyone; how empty.Seconded. It is always cheering to read the rational posts here, which is why I only catch up on threads like this if the last post is not by Sriram.
cheers
The issue is with the 'subjective' and 'objective' realities. We have today managed to separate them and keep them apart as though they are two different worlds.
In actuality, certain subjective experiences are related to objective reality. They can and do merge. But they will nevertheless remain subjective observations only and are unlikely (as far as I can see) to become objective observations any time soon in the sense of being measured by instruments.
The biofield is one such phenomenon that remains (for now) only a subjective observation. It has not moved into the objective area. But there are millions of people who do recognize this aspect of their lives and are working with them normally. Only problem is that it takes a personal involvement and a personal way of sensing it, without any external instruments etc.
Well...I know that. But the problem is that the 'scientific method' has its limitations. It basically assumes a materialistic basis for life. It is dependent on sense related methods to identify so called 'objective reality'. That is fine in its place. No problems. But it is not everything.
As far as mind related phenomena are concerned such physical methods with external measurements, are unsuitable. We have to depend on subjective methods only. Problem with this is that subjective reality is normally assumed (by scientist folk) as brain generated having no connection with objective reality. Personal experiences are taken as entirely of internal origin not related to external reality. This is a mistake.
The issue is with the 'subjective' and 'objective' realities. We have today managed to separate them and keep them apart as though they are two different worlds.
In actuality, certain subjective experiences are related to objective reality. They can and do merge. But they will nevertheless remain subjective observations only and are unlikely (as far as I can see) to become objective observations any time soon in the sense of being measured by instruments.
The biofield is one such phenomenon that remains (for now) only a subjective observation. It has not moved into the objective area. But there are millions of people who do recognize this aspect of their lives and are working with them normally. Only problem is that it takes a personal involvement and a personal way of sensing it, without any external instruments etc.
We are too dependent on instruments and have sadly rejected the importance of our own personal experiences.
I am not worried about any detractors at all. :D I know plenty of people with whom I can discuss such matters in a very positive way. I am only giving this board a fresh lease of life every now and then...! ;) That is all. If someone understands what I write, fine...if not, no problem at all. :)
Well...I know that. But the problem is that the 'scientific method' has its limitations.
It basically assumes a materialistic basis for life.
It is dependent on sense related methods to identify so called 'objective reality'. That is fine in its place. No problems. But it is not everything.
As far as mind related phenomena are concerned such physical methods with external measurements, are unsuitable.
We have to depend on subjective methods only. Problem with this is that subjective reality is normally assumed (by scientist folk) as brain generated having no connection with objective reality. Personal experiences are taken as entirely of internal origin not related to external reality. This is a mistake.
The issue is with the 'subjective' and 'objective' realities. We have today managed to separate them and keep them apart as though they are two different worlds.
In actuality, certain subjective experiences are related to objective reality.
They can and do merge.
But they will nevertheless remain subjective observations only and are unlikely (as far as I can see) to become objective observations any time soon in the sense of being measured by instruments.
The biofield is one such phenomenon that remains (for now) only a subjective observation. It has not moved into the objective area. But there are millions of people who do recognize this aspect of their lives and are working with them normally. Only problem is that it takes a personal involvement and a personal way of sensing it, without any external instruments etc.
We are too dependent on instruments and have sadly rejected the importance of our own personal experiences.
I am not worried about any detractors at all.
I know plenty of people with whom I can discuss such matters in a very positive way. I am only giving this board a fresh lease of life every now and then...! That is all. If someone understands what I write, fine...if not, no problem at all.
The problem with subjective experiences is they tend to be personal and are difficult to communicate to others (especially verbally) in a way that they can be shared.
They are also open to be viewed by others as delusional or invented. Bluehillside's latest post to me sums it up like this "I’m not arguing that the scientific method is the only one he should use, but I am saying that he has to have a method of some kind to distinguish his claims from mindless assertion."
Much, if not most, of Hindu philosophy is subjective in nature and uses a subjective based language which I don't think it is wise to confuse with objective scientific language. You say 'it takes a personal way of sensing it' and there are a variety of 'ways' or methods within, say, Vedanta which can, if practised, throw some light on the subjective language used. Whether these methods would satisfy Bluehillside's point of view I don't know.
ekim,
(!) Yes, but that’s not a positive claim that the personal experience (of auras or of leprechauns alike) are necessarily delusional or invented. Either or both may just as a matter of dumb luck be true. What it is though is an argument to explain that Sriram has no grounds to insist his subjective experience “aura” should be epistemically privileged over my subjective experience “leprechauns”.
(2) That’s a category error. Philosophy is fine, but philosophers don’t make claims about the objective existence of phenomena in the world. If Sriram wants to assert there to be “auras” and “biofields” and expects the claims to be taken seriously then he has all his work ahead of him to propose a method to investigate the claim.
(1)Maybe, but if he can provide a method for another person to experience within themselves what he terms "aura" and you can't produce a subjective experience of what you mean by "leprechaun" then he might have a privileged position.
(2)That depends upon whose category you are using. I believe that the Indian schools of philosophy would see that term in its original meaning i.e. love of wisdom, rather than as a study of fundamentals or a sytem of thought. As I see it, to them, wisdom is more about clarity of inner vision or subject consciousness rather than the subjective/objective auras, biofields and other concepts. These tend to be related more to harmonising the body and mind so that they function well and don't distract from the prime goal.
The problem with subjective experiences is they tend to be personal and are difficult to communicate to others (especially verbally) in a way that they can be shared. They are also open to be viewed by others as delusional or invented. Bluehillside's latest post to me sums it up like this "I’m not arguing that the scientific method is the only one he should use, but I am saying that he has to have a method of some kind to distinguish his claims from mindless assertion." Much, if not most, of Hindu philosophy is subjective in nature and uses a subjective based language which I don't think it is wise to confuse with objective scientific language. You say 'it takes a personal way of sensing it' and there are a variety of 'ways' or methods within, say, Vedanta which can, if practised, throw some light on the subjective language used. Whether these methods would satisfy Bluehillside's point of view I don't know.
Yes...subjective experiences are personal. That is their nature. And that is why they cannot be shown or shared with others.
But that does not mean they are merely baseless internal brain generated images entirely unconnected to external reality.
In fact, I have always pointed out that such experiences can be learnt and produced at will through certain practices and methods.
The mind has many layers. Some layers are connected to the body and produce the mind-body effect. Some layers are imaginary and produce illusionary images. Some layers are connected to higher levels of reality that give us insights into new realities.
Next argument will be....'ok then...prove that the mind is connected to higher realities'...
This is silly because as already pointed out, these are subjective experiences and only people who take the trouble to undertake certain practices can understand it. Period!
Blind people cannot 'see' light unless certain things are done to enable eye sight. No other way!
Hi ekim,
(1) Not really. It’s possible for example to induce a religious experience in someone else, either mechanically or by suggestion (Derren Brown did it to someone in one of his programmes). Of course the gods the subjects think they’ve experienced are always the gods with which they happen to be most familiar, but notwithstanding even if I could be made to “experience” what Sriram experiences about auras etc (or vice versa re my experience of leprechauns) that would tell you nothing about whether there actually were auras (or leprechauns) because our interpretation of the experience could be equally at fault.
Leaving that aside though, he can’t do that in any case. All he can do is to assert certain claims to be true because well, he really thinks they are true. The problem with that though is that anyone can to that about any “experience” they think they truly have too.
(2) No it doesn’t, and you’ve missed the point in any case. Philosophical systems aren’t concerned with establishing claims of objective facts about the world. No matter how much philosophising I may do, that does not tell me whether auras, leprechauns or anything else exist “out there” in the objectively verifiable world.
To be frank though there’s little point in discussing it. No matter how frequent or egregious his mistakes, every time they are explained to him he just ignores the rebuttals and carries on as if nothing had happened. It’s deeply dishonest behaviour, but he shows no sign of doing otherwise.
Next argument will be....'ok then...prove that the mind is connected to higher realities'... This is silly because as already pointed out, these are subjective experiences and only people who take the trouble to undertake certain practices can understand it. Period!
OK but I think part of bluehillside's point was unless you disclose the 'certain practices' that he can use then he has only got your word for it and you could be biased or delusional.
(1) I'm probably not explaining myself well enough, but to comment on what you say, yes, it is possible to employ suggestion and other methods to induce an illusion but if you know that possibility then you can guard against it and not jump to conclusions.
Many of the Eastern methods are about inner stillness rather than mental agitation.
As regards 'aura' (a western word not Hindu, Sriram would have done better to use prana) it can be demonstrated to yourself by holding your hands about two inches apart and very slowly moving them towards each other and back again several times and you will feel a kind of sponginess appear between your hands, this has been labelled by some as 'aura'.
I will now implant the suggestion in your mind that you will not be able to sense it and then you can label it woo. Now it's your turn to tell me where I can go and see a leprechaun.
(2) I think you have misunderstood what I have said in answer to you comment 'category error'. The Oxford English dictionary categorises philosophy as : "The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. A particular system of philosophical thought." I just provided an alternative category for Indian philosophy which differs from the western version .... probably another reason for not using western terminology in a discussion with Hindu connotations.
OK but I think part of bluehillside's point was unless you disclose the 'certain practices' that he can use then he has only got your word for it and you could be biased or delusional.
But I have already pointed out many times that serious Yogis and meditative practices are required. Again and again asking the same 'objective' measurable proof for 'subjective' phenomena is silly.
But I have already pointed out many times that serious Yogis and meditative practices are required. Again and again asking the same 'objective' measurable proof for 'subjective' phenomena is silly.
My point here is that there is nothing unscientific about Christianity. It is simple: everybody is a sinner and needs forgiveness.
Hi ekim,
(1) No, that’s the point – the person Derren Brown induced into a religious experience knew full well what DB was about; the subjects in the experiments in which religious experiences were induced artificially also knew what the experimenters were trying to achieve. When these procedures cause an overwhelming but involuntary sense of transcendence, “oneness” etc then the temptation is to reach for the mystical deities culturally most proximate to you – Neptune the christian god, Allah, whatever – for the cause.
(2) No doubt, but practice these things as you might they will still tell you nothing about the existence or otherwise of of objective objects in the universe.
(3) And if you stand in a doorway with your arms down, push your hands as hard as you can against the door frame for 30 seconds, then step away you’ll find that your arms raise themselves without your conscious control.
Should we conclude that this is due to the presence of the mystical force we gurus call “spudulika”, of that’s it’s just a physiological response?
That’s your problem here – not that you “feel” a sponginess between your hands, but rather that you reach for an explanatory narrative for it (aura/prana) with no evidence for it whatsoever, and with no attempt to investigate the physical, material, common-or-garden (but perhaps less thrilling) explanation that may be the actual cause.
(4) You’re missing it still. The leprechaun analogy applies because Sriram seems to think that his just “experiencing” something means that the logic- and evidence-free explanation he reaches for to explain it must be true, only not all of us have the same magic brain wiring he has to see it. And the problem with that is that I can say exactly the same about the logic-and evidence-free explanation “leprechauns” I reach for to explain my experience of hearing Irish jugs in my head.
And that’s why the label “woo” applies – either both are woo or neither are: you can’t arbitrarily separate them because one suits you and the other doesn’t.
(5) Again though, while even at its broadest level philosophy will consider questions like whether the world is “out there” or mind-created (see Bishop Berkeley) you can no more philosophise your way to a specific claim of an objective fact about the world (“aura” etc) than you can to another claim about there being aliens on Alpha Centauri.
The closest perhaps that you can get to that is an argument from necessity – eg, the Higgs-Boson was potentially at least necessary to explain the observable facts before the evidence for it was in – but that’s a different matter. There’s argument from necessity for “aura”, “biofield” etc because there’s requirement in the first place to explain observable phenomena.
My point here is that there is nothing unscientific about Christianity.
(1) In which case it appears that the experience of the individual is what he would call 'transcendence, oneness' which is a 'real' experience but he has not learnt to resist the temptation to extend that experience to mystical deities. You are also making the assumption that every human being would react in exactly the same way. Would you?
(2) They are not meant to as this would be not much different to the mental agitation I mentioned in my last post.
(3) That's something of a straw man by adding the word 'mystical'. As regard 'spudulike', you can call it what you like especially if you come from the land of Spudula. You might want to choose a best fit English expression for the physiological response if communicating to an English person. Similarly 'aura' is just an ancient name for a particular inner experience rather than an explanation of cause.
(4) No, I don't think I am missing it. What you are not doing is explaining the method you use to experience Irish jugs in your head so that others who might be interested can try it out and witness it for themselves.
(5) Yes, and that is why I would be reluctant to use the word 'philosophy' to describe what is at the basis of certain eastern religions. However I would concede that there are a variety of schools of thought associated with those religions but my view is that, at their base, they are more about experience resulting from inner stillness practices rather than explanations. Here are two quotes which are variations of this. One is by Tilopa a 10th Century Indian Buddhist " Do not imagine, do not think, do not analyse; Do not meditate, do not reflect: Keep consciousness in its natural state. " and the other by the Greek philosopher Socrates "Individual must experience life directly and not depend upon logic or borrowed learning. Experience and achieve union with ultimate love by first knowing the beauty of the body, then the beauty of the soul and at last the impersonal beauty of the universe pulsating inside and outside the silent being."
But I have already pointed out many times that serious Yogis and meditative practices are required. Again and again asking the same 'objective' measurable proof for 'subjective' phenomena is silly.
He's a stage magician. Stage magicians often seem to be able to do impossible things, but it's all tricks. If he could do the things that those snake oil salesmen could do, then it's not because he's got any kind of magical abilities, it's because he knows the tricks they use.
I've also been watching a video by Derren Brown in which he traveled to the US and met up with certain people who make a lot pf money through stuff like Dream therapy, writing about alien abduction, and contacting the dead. He pretended to be able to do the same stuff and fooled them into thinking he could do it. The idea was to expose them as fakes, I think, but he seemed to be 'doing the impossible', which confused me. I will have to read up on him in more detail.
My point here is that there is nothing unscientific about Christianity. It is simple: everybody is a sinner and needs forgiveness. Repentance and faith in Jesus leads to peace with God, which will be manifested in the physiology and anatomy. The biblical accounts contain enough information for a firm foundation for Christian faith (although this information would originally have been and can still be transmitted orally).Can you think of a way to falsify the above? If not, then Christianity is unscientific.
SpudHi Susan,
Explain to me, if you think you can, why I am a sinner!
Explain to me, if you think you can, why I am a sinner!
I climbed up a very high tree today because I was in a wood to keep cool, and I felt in need of some exercise.
At the top, I started taking pictures to pu on facebook, but afterwards thought, why did I keep taking pictures. Just so I can show off that I climbed a tree. Then I knew what sin is and why I sun.
We don't care about your excuses. Just stop expecting us to believe you. And stop claiming that we are somehow lesser beings because we don't believe you.
What you claim here is indistinguishable from bullshit. Unless you provide us with a satisfactory methods for distinguishing what you believe from bullshit, there's no reason to suppose it isn't.
My point here is that there is nothing unscientific about Christianity. It is simple: everybody is a sinner and needs forgiveness.
As far as mind related phenomena are concerned such physical methods with external measurements, are unsuitable. We have to depend on subjective methods only. Problem with this is that subjective reality is normally assumed (by scientist folk) as brain generated having no connection with objective reality. Personal experiences are taken as entirely of internal origin not related to external reality. This is a mistake.
The issue is with the 'subjective' and 'objective' realities. We have today managed to separate them and keep them apart as though they are two different worlds.
In actuality, certain subjective experiences are related to objective reality. They can and do merge. But they will nevertheless remain subjective observations only and are unlikely (as far as I can see) to become objective observations any time soon in the sense of being measured by instruments.
The biofield is one such phenomenon that remains (for now) only a subjective observation. It has not moved into the objective area. But there are millions of people who do recognize this aspect of their lives and are working with them normally. Only problem is that it takes a personal involvement and a personal way of sensing it, without any external instruments etc.
Vision is a subjective experience of an external reality. We know that light exists, a blind person can easily measure it with a light meter. If there is no equivalent instrument for measuring 'biofields' then how can claim that it has an external reality. Just because lots of people believe in it does not count as justification, people believe in all sorts of unevidenced nonsense.
You don't have to believe me. Blind people are free not to believe in the existence of Light. Just don't keep demanding that I should prove the existence of light through your ears. That is all. That can't be done.
A stubborn blind man could easily dismiss the existence of light as a 'belief'....just because he is unable to see it.
Also, the blind man has no way of knowing that the meter is actually measuring light. He has to accept it on faith finally.
Experience of the aura is also experience of an external reality.
Knowledge of the aura is not a belief. It is an experience similar to vision. One should be able to perceive it, that is all.
A stubborn blind man could easily dismiss the existence of light as a 'belief'....just because he is unable to see it. Also, the blind man has no way of knowing that the meter is actually measuring light. He has to accept it on faith finally.
Experience of the aura is also experience of an external reality. Only problem is that no one has yet developed a meter to measure it. Knowledge of the aura is not a belief. It is an experience similar to vision. One should be able to perceive it, that is all.
Spud,That is the outcome when a person has committed no sin.
There is when the claims it makes are material in nature - like there being someone who was alive, then dead for a bit, then alive again.
Such a person is defined by his 'stubbornness' in that case. You can't establish sound principles on the basis of stupidity. In the real world, blind people do accept that light exists, not everyone who is blind is also stupid.
Hi Susan,What utter, meaningless drivel!!! Unless of course you can explain why that explains why you think I am a sinner!
I climbed up a very high tree today because I was in a wood to keep cool, and I felt in need of some exercise.
At the top, I started taking pictures to pu on facebook, but afterwards thought, why did I keep taking pictures. Just so I can show off that I climbed a tree. Then I knew what sin is and why I sun.
Hi Susan,Yes, it is extraordinary, and really sad. Here they are, in a real world, with real evolved people and Nature, with all its modern benefits, vastly outweighing its faults, with just this one chance to experience it, and they can't seem to face it.
It's because a book he's decided must be correct tells him so. Only he doesn't care much about some of these "sins" (wearing mixed fibres, gathering kindling on the sabbath, eating shellfish etc) so he's not so fussed about those. Other of these "sins" that play to his preferences and prejudices on the other hand he cares about quite a bit, so he'll judge you harshly if you do them.
And yes there really are people like that still in the 21st century. Extraordinary isn't it?
Subjective experience alone does not justify objective reality. You are just expressing a faith position in the above. When we have some instrumental measurement of an 'aura' or a 'biofield', then, like with light, we would have justification to accept it as a real phenomenon rather than just a product of mind. This is a sound principle, and avoiding such principles lets in gods and ghosts and spooks and alien abductions and all manner of fantastical unhinged nonsense. Serious enquiry, as suitable for grown ups, requires better mental discipline than that.
You are not getting the point. People do actually perceive the aura and even work with it. It is not based on faith or belief as you keep asserting. And others can also be trained to perceive it.
You are not getting the point. People do actually perceive the aura and even work with it. It is not based on faith or belief as you keep asserting. And others can also be trained to perceive it.
A stubborn blind man could easily dismiss the existence of light as a 'belief'....just because he is unable to see it. Also, the blind man has no way of knowing that the meter is actually measuring light. He has to accept it on faith finally.
Experience of the aura is also experience of an external reality.
Only problem is that no one has yet developed a meter to measure it.
Knowledge of the aura is not a belief.
It is an experience similar to vision. One should be able to perceive it, that is all
Sriram,This site has a history of repeated discussions which is probably one reason why it is falling into disuse.
I corrected you (again) on this stupidity a few posts ago. Why then have you just repeated it?
The analogy fails because you just assume your premise (“aura”) and claim it to be the fault of potential perceivers of it that they can’t perceive it. Auras though aren’t analogous to light at all – leprechauns are. If I said “a stubborn leprechaun non-perceiver could easily dismiss the existence of leprechauns as just a “belief”” then we’d have an analogy.
It’s not my job to stop you making a fool of yourself, but you’re doing yourself no favours at all when you keep doing it.
This site has a history of repeated discussions which is probably one reason why it is falling into disuse.
Perhaps you could convince Sriram by demonstrating to him how one could share the experience of, say, a rainbow, with a group of congenitally blind people so that they experience its beauty and colours also.
Once Sriram has been driven off the site, you'll be at peace to discuss crosswords and politics, and religion can be deleted from the title.
You are not getting the point. People do actually perceive the aura and even work with it. It is not based on faith or belief as you keep asserting. And others can also be trained to perceive it.
People perceive an aura if they are trained to perceive it. Right. Let's go back to fundamentals of perception yet again.
The experience of perception is inherently subjective and we cannot derive objectivity from singular personal experience alone. We need some form of independent verification to be able to discriminate between externalities that have some real existence outwith human mind, and externalities which are only apparent, ie they are artefects of human mind. We can do this with light, we know it actually exists because we can measure it with a simple light meter. If the alleged external phenomenon cannot be detected with any instrument, then our presumption would be it is an artefact of mind.
All perception is construction of mind, 100%; our minds make a best guess about what is 'out there' based on past experience and expectation and our higher cognitive beliefs feed into that expectation. Since perception is derived from a best-guess approach, it sometimes gets things wrong, and there are many well known optical illusions such as the Ebbinghaus illusion, that demonstrate this simply and powerfully.
So, if I cannot perceive auras but someone who has been 'trained' to see them can, in the absence of any instrumental validation for auras, the presumption would be that it is the mind training that is at work, it is the mind training that is giving rise to the perception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebbinghaus_illusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebbinghaus_illusion)
This site has a history of repeated discussions which is probably one reason why it is falling into disuse.
Perhaps you could convince Sriram by demonstrating to him how one could share the experience of, say, a rainbow, with a group of congenitally blind people so that they experience its beauty and colours also. Once Sriram has been driven off the site, you'll be at peace to discuss crosswords and politics, and religion can be deleted from the title.
You just don't want to accept it....that is all. Why don't you join some Yoga class and then see what you 'see'.... You guys want to stay on the periphery and keep shouting out your abuses...! ::)
Get into the water and see what it is all about for yourself.
I'd sooner keep a clear head, thanks ;)
Never mind that they are only repeating over and over again what they have been asserting for years...!
They are here just to convince themselves again and again that their fondly held beliefs on atheism and materialism are still valid. Their inability to integrate information is amazing!
A site full of 'blind' people insisting stubbornly that 'Light' does not exist! What can one do?!! Tut! Tut! :-\ :D
ekim,
(1) Again, you miss the point entirely. In fact you’ve repeated Sriram’s mistake here. Essentially he takes something that’s agreed to be real (ie, light/rainbows) and then attempts the argument that some people not seeing these things doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Well that’s right, it doesn’t.
His epic (and repeated) mistake though is to insinuate that somehow light/rainbows are analogous to “auras” for this purpose. They’re not analogous at all though for the reasons I keep explaining and he keeps ignoring. On the other hand, auras and leprechauns would be analogous because there’s absolutely no evidence for either, but again he just ignores that too.
(2) Nope. No-one wants to drive anyone from this site. Rather what some of us at least hope for is a little honesty – ie, when someone makes a bad argument and has explained to him why it’s a bad argument, then he should at least have the decency to address the rebuttal. Instead Sriram just pretends it hasn’t been explained to him, then repeats exactly the same mistake of assuming the premise he's trying to argue for over and over again.
What then do you suggest I should do instead – just agree that his mindless nonsense is fine and dandy or something?
You just don't want to accept it....that is all.
Why don't you join some Yoga class and then see what you 'see'....
You guys want to stay on the periphery and keep shouting out your abuses...! ::)
Get into the water and see what it is all about for yourself.
So, if I cannot perceive auras but someone who has been 'trained' to see them can, in the absence of any instrumental validation for auras, the presumption would be that it is the mind training that is at work, it is the mind training that is giving rise to the perception.
(1) I may be mistaken over what Sriram means but I see what he is saying differently. I think he is using the analogy to compare the faculties that one human may have that others do not and how difficult it is to demonstrate this objectively rather than comparing the validity of auras against light or leprechauns. I am quite happy to accept the possibility that some people may have sensory abilities I do not have. If a blind person told me that they could hear the song of a distant bird which I could not, I would not accuse them of woo but accept the possibility that their hearing may have been honed to a higher level than mine and maybe they could tell me how to achieve the same. Similarly, if I was so inclined, I would ask how I could detect an aura. Like so many topics, nobody has stated what they mean by aura.
(2) Well, I have disagreed with Sriram on occasions but have not found him lacking in decency and honesty.
Perhaps I don't have sufficient emotional investment in winning an argument, I'm just interested in other people's experiences and their opinions about them.
I'm quite happy to agree to disagree if I come to an impasse.
Sometimes it seems like a childhood game where there is one Indian and a group of cowboys trying to shoot him down. Still, judging by his comments he seems to enjoy it.
Not necessarily, it might mean that one individual has a sensory faculty which is dormant in others. The training is to awaken that faculty. The error might come in the interpretation of the resulting experience, especially if an expectation is suggested before the event.
It's not science that is the problem with this, it's logical self-consistency. It's a basic contradiction with the other Christian doctrine of a just and fair god. If everybody is a sinner, then that isn't a choice, it's a design flaw.How do you know the tendency to sin is a design flaw rather than that everyone chooses to sin?
That would mean it was the creator's fault, not ours. That's even before we get to the utter nonsense of the idea of "free will" with respect to an omnipotent, omniscient creator god that would effectively control all of our nature and all of our nurture...Being all powerful doesn't mean God would necessarily use his power to control us. And being all-knowing doesn't mean he wouldn't create us with free will.
Hi Susan,
It's because a book he's decided must be correct tells him so. Only he doesn't care much about some of these "sins" (wearing mixed fibres, gathering kindling on the sabbath, eating shellfish etc) so he's not so fussed about those. Other of these "sins" that play to his preferences and prejudices on the other hand he cares about quite a bit, so he'll judge you harshly if you do them.
And yes there really are people like that still in the 21st century. Extraordinary isn't it?
ekim,
Yes it might, just as it might be that some people have dormant leprechaun-sensing faculties.
Sriram's huge error though is to jump straight from "might" to "is" without any connecting logic to validate the claim.
How do you know the tendency to sin is a design flaw rather than that everyone chooses to sin?
Being all powerful doesn't mean God would necessarily use his power to control us. And being all-knowing doesn't mean he wouldn't create us with free will.
So in that respect Christianity is logically consistent.
In which case those who might wish to have the leprechaun experience could seek a way to awaken that dormant faculty.
Perhaps it is a fact to Sriram because he has the faculty to sense what he calls an aura and he has no way to validate the claim through words.
People do actually perceive the aura and even work with it.
Incidentally Robin Dunbar, whose work on empathy and social linking, was mentioned as part of the original article by Sriram, was interviewed this morning by Jim Al Khalili on Radio 4. The same interview is repeated tonight at 9.30pm. It is well worth listening to in my estimation. :)
The Aura/Prana are all facts as far as I am concerned and there are millions perhaps billions, who also know these to be a fact.
Now, that is not what I am trying to establish here.
That some atheist folk don't have a clue, is neither here nor there.
Perceiving these energies requires certain faculties and a certain type of training (which obviously enables suitable neural connectivity to grow). It is not something that can be perceived normally even though everyone can see its effects subjectively in terms of how our emotions and feelings get churned everyday. Ippy's post about his house is one example. Almost all other feelings such as love, hate, jealousies, sexual attractions etc.etc. can be understood through these energies/chakras. Quite commonly, many people use chakra cleansing and energizing for health reasons and for mental harmony and peace.
Chakras by the way, are only vortices that form at various points due to the flow of energies in and around the body. The Aura and its energies form a fundamental part of the mind and our conscious experience.
If any of you want, you can take up serious Yoga practices and maybe after 10-15 years you might get somewhere. However, most of you would recoil at the idea, I know. That is because of the very restricted cultural background in some places.
Most of you probably wouldn't even join Yoga classes for health reasons, let alone for deeper aspects. That is the amazing level of fear and reluctance to venture into unknown areas that is in evidence among certain groups. Thankfully most people around the world are not like that.
And the continued asking for 'evidence' is childish and shows a complete lack of understanding of what the discussion is about. ::)
Hi everyone,
The Aura/Prana are all facts as far as I am concerned
and there are millions perhaps billions, who also know these to be a fact.
Now, that is not what I am trying to establish here. That some atheist folk don't have a clue, is neither here nor there.
Perceiving these energies requires certain faculties and a certain type of training (which obviously enables suitable neural connectivity to grow). It is not something that can be perceived normally even though everyone can see its effects subjectively in terms of how our emotions and feelings get churned everyday. Ippy's post about his house is one example. Almost all other feelings such as love, hate, jealousies, sexual attractions etc.etc. can be understood through these energies/chakras. Quite commonly, many people use chakra cleansing and energizing for health reasons and for mental harmony and peace.
Chakras by the way, are only vortices that form at various points due to the flow of energies in and around the body. The Aura and its energies form a fundamental part of the mind and our conscious experience.
If any of you want, you can take up serious Yoga practices and maybe after 10-15 years you might get somewhere. However, most of you would recoil at the idea, I know. That is because of the very restricted cultural background in some places.
Most of you probably wouldn't even join Yoga classes for health reasons, let alone for deeper aspects. That is the amazing level of fear and reluctance to venture into unknown areas that is in evidence among certain groups. Thankfully most people around the world are not like that.
And the continued asking for 'evidence' is childish and shows a complete lack of understanding of what the discussion is about. ::)
Cheers.
Sriram
:D :D And that reluctance for new information and new experiences, is the problem..! How can you understand even a word of what I am saying? Your are looking out of one window and don't even want to look out of the window on the other side to see the other side of reality.
The Aura/Prana are all facts as far as I am concerned and there are millions perhaps billions, who also know these to be a fact. Now, that is not what I am trying to establish here. That some atheist folk don't have a clue, is neither here nor there.
Perceiving these energies requires certain faculties and a certain type of training (which obviously enables suitable neural connectivity to grow). It is not something that can be perceived normally even though everyone can see its effects subjectively in terms of how our emotions and feelings get churned everyday. Ippy's post about his house is one example. Almost all other feelings such as love, hate, jealousies, sexual attractions etc.etc. can be understood through these energies/chakras. Quite commonly, many people use chakra cleansing and energizing for health reasons and for mental harmony and peace.
Chakras by the way, are only vortices that form at various points due to the flow of energies in and around the body. The Aura and its energies form a fundamental part of the mind and our conscious experience.
If any of you want, you can take up serious Yoga practices and maybe after 10-15 years you might get somewhere. However, most of you would recoil at the idea, I know. That is because of the very restricted cultural background in some places.
Most of you probably wouldn't even join Yoga classes for health reasons, let alone for deeper aspects. That is the amazing level of fear and reluctance to venture into unknown areas that is in evidence among certain groups. Thankfully most people around the world are not like that.
And the continued asking for 'evidence' is childish and shows a complete lack of understanding of what the discussion is about. ::)
Sriram,
Arrogant ignorance from beginning to end. I could falsify every part of this nonsense line-by-line just I've done several times already, but as we both know you'll just ignore every falsification there's not much point is there.
Let's just dismiss it as arrant nonsense then and save time.
Hi everyone,
The Aura/Prana are all facts as far as I am concerned and there are millions perhaps billions, who also know these to be a fact. Now, that is not what I am trying to establish here. That some atheist folk don't have a clue, is neither here nor there.
Perceiving these energies requires certain faculties and a certain type of training (which obviously enables suitable neural connectivity to grow). It is not something that can be perceived normally even though everyone can see its effects subjectively in terms of how our emotions and feelings get churned everyday. Ippy's post about his house is one example. Almost all other feelings such as love, hate, jealousies, sexual attractions etc.etc. can be understood through these energies/chakras. Quite commonly, many people use chakra cleansing and energizing for health reasons and for mental harmony and peace.
Chakras by the way, are only vortices that form at various points due to the flow of energies in and around the body. The Aura and its energies form a fundamental part of the mind and our conscious experience.
If any of you want, you can take up serious Yoga practices and maybe after 10-15 years you might get somewhere. However, most of you would recoil at the idea, I know. That is because of the very restricted cultural background in some places.
Most of you probably wouldn't even join Yoga classes for health reasons, let alone for deeper aspects. That is the amazing level of fear and reluctance to venture into unknown areas that is in evidence among certain groups. Thankfully most people around the world are not like that.
And the continued asking for 'evidence' is childish and shows a complete lack of understanding of what the discussion is about. ::)
Cheers.
Sriram
If there really was some 'other side of reality', then it would be fundamental physics that would guide us to an understanding of it. If it cannot be found by science, then probably that other reality is just an induced state of mind, a mental intoxication that distances people from a sober grip.
In the era of climate change, the last thing we need, is more delusion. We all need to wake up, do the maths, and get real. Otherwise, our inability and unwillingess to let go of our fantasies about the human condition and confront reality will be the end of us all.
ekim,
(1) Why do you keep ignoring the point of the argument? Do you think that the assertion “some people lack the leprechaun-perceiving faculty that I have, therefore leprechauns are real” is a good argument for leprechauns or not?
If you do, you’re as lost in a world of illogic as Sriram is.
If you don’t, you need to ask Sriram why he’s trying precisely the same argument for “auras”.
(2) Except of course of all the millions of possible logic- and evidence-free claims someone could make, why would you invest time in the practices that supposedly lead to any one of them specifically rather than to any other and, even if you did and you decided that what you were experiencing were auras (or leprechauns), how would you propose to eliminate all the other possible explanations for what you’d actually experienced?
(3) Still not getting it then. Yes, “perhaps it is a fact to Sriram because he has the faculty to sense what he calls an aura and he has no way to validate the claim through words” just as perhaps leprechauns are a fact to bluehillside because I have the faculty to sense leprechauns and I have no way to validate the claim through words.
You can “perhaps” anything you like. His epic mistake though is to jump straight from a “perhaps” to an “is” with no connecting logic to bridge the gap. I just explained this to you though, but for some reason you’ve ignored it.
You just keep assuming that all this is delusion. And that is the problem...!!!
Microscopic thinking.....what cannot be seen through the little hole you are used to looking through, cannot exist. Wrong!
Some of you continue to connect these matters with religion and belief rather than as natural phenomena that are yet uncharted. Long way to go....guys! Lots of religious baggage and programming to be deleted before any progress can be made in understanding such matters. :)
Possibly youngsters growing up in a broader cultural environment will find it easier.
BHS, I agree with your arguments but not with your conclusion. We just end up in endless repetitions of these arguments following that line - in "Searching for God" just as in Sriram's threads.
Some people see auras and associate them with particular emotions or meanings.
The arguments about whether they are "real" or not is pointless –
…what might be interesting is knowing how or why they come to see them and associate them with other characteristics - or what they think they can do with them.
Sriram, do you see auras?
If so, how many years of study or yoga have you spent to get to that point? How is it that some people see auras without any training? What meaning or purpose do you ascribe to auras?
Not necessary that science should automatically 'know' or indicate anything about such matters. Just as Physics cannot automatically extrapolate or indicate about matters connected with biology or psychology.
You just keep assuming that all this is delusion. And that is the problem...!!! Microscopic thinking.....what cannot be seen through the little hole you are used to looking through, cannot exist. Wrong!
Some of you continue to connect these matters with religion and belief rather than as natural phenomena that are yet uncharted. Long way to go....guys! Lots of religious baggage and programming to be deleted before any progress can be made in understanding such matters. :)
Possibly youngsters growing up in a broader cultural environment will find it easier.
(1) Why do you keep changing what I have said to a false assertion of your own making and comment on that?
(2) Why does anybody do anything? It could be potentially beneficial, satisfy a desire, expand knowledge, experience something new, escape from the straight jacket of logic and live a little.
As regards exploring possible explanations, for a start I wouldn't be interested in leprechauns but if I were interested in the possibility of auras I might join a group of parapsychologists and engage with the instruments that they use.
(3) Still not getting it then. "Perhaps" is a tentative expression that one might use as a preliminary to an exploration of possibilities and I have not jumped from a "perhaps" to an "is".
If you think Sriram has then take it up with him, not me.
I'll end with a quote from you as you seem fond of that style .... "Try reading what I said. Try to grasp this because you keep not getting it. Got it yet? Good."
bluehillside #96 and #97
A pleasure to read both and I do of course, nod in agreement. It really is sad how the woo pedlars persist in ignoring rational argument.
I think what is most worrying is that there is a persistent refusal even to admit or own that they might be wrong.
Oh...oh.....so many words....so much emotion....but so little understanding! Painful!!
Oh...oh.....so many words....so much emotion....but so little understanding! Painful!!
Oh...oh.....so many words....so much emotion....but so little understanding! Painful!!
Hi Udayana,
I think you’re overstating it: some people believe they “see auras" – a very different thing.
Why? When people believe things to be real they act accordingly, which has a real world effect (not seeing a doctor for example because you think the alternative will cure you instead). Actually I think the arguments about whether something is real are anything but pointless – without them we have no means to distinguish reality from fantasy.
But if the answer to “how they came to see them” is the disastrously wrong arguments that Sriram attempts, then there’s no reason to think they came to see them at all.
Wrong question. Rather the relevant question is “why do you think you see auras?” And when the answers continue to be laughably wrong, then we can safely conclude that there’s no good reason to think he does see auras even though he may think he does.
There’s no cogent reason to think anyone “sees auras”, or that they exist at all in order to be seen. You may as well ask me how many years of four-leaf clover burning on a full moon it took me to see leprechauns.
Everybody having a "tendency to sin" would be a design flaw in itself. If people had genuine freedom (leaving aside the logical impossibility for a moment - see below), then at least some would choose to be 'good'.Understood, I think.
No - you've missed the point. We, as people, are the products (in some combination) of our nature and nurture. An omniscient and omnipotent creator would, in the very act of creation, be deciding everybody's nature and nurture and would know exactly what that would mean and what our choices would be (unless there is some genuine randomness).
The only notion of "free will" that makes any sense at all is compatibilism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism) - which makes no sense for an omniscient and omnipotent creator, because it would necessarily be making all our choices for us at the moment of creation, unless there is some element of true randomness. We could not be sensibly (or justly) blamed by such a god for the choices we make.
From an individual's subjective view there is little difference between seeing something and believing that they saw something, but quite a lot between seeing and imagining or fabricating an event.
If someone says they've seen something that has no known physical basis I think it is worth investigating why they are "seeing" it and the neurological or psychological effects involved.
I'm not interested in your leprechauns since I expect you've made them up to to make a point
Udayana,
Yes, but no-one’s saying that Sriram is fabricating something – what’s actually being said (rightly so) is that the reasons he essays for the thing he thinks he perceives actually being the thing he thinks he perceives are hopeless. He could yet be right nonetheless just as a matter of dumb luck (see also leprechauns), but so far at least he’s offered nothing at all to suggest that he is right.
I agree, and that’s exactly what I’ve asked him to explain – why he thinks he’s right. Asking for details about what he thinks he perceives on the other hand is pointless until and unless he ever manages a valid “why” in the first place.
Ah, but that’s missing the point again. This isn’t about being interested in the object of the belief – whether the object is leprechauns or auras equally. Rather it’s about evaluating the validity of the arguments used to justify the belief "aura" (or the belief leprechauns).
The arguments Sriram has attempted to justify his belief that there are auras are terrible, but if you choose to accept them nonetheless then you have no choice but to accept the identical arguments when they lead to a different object, eg leprechauns.
Why Sriram will never address the falsifications that undo him is anyone’s guess (a bad case of cognitive dissonance I think) but that doesn’t change the logic of the matter.
Yes, I agree.
Clearly he does not know "why", unless he's decided to keep it secret. But one might be able to work backwards from the "what" and information about the cultural context.
Yes, the arguments don't work. The nature of "reality" and how we decide what is real or exists or not could be discussed (preferably in a philosophy or philosophy of science thread rather than religion) but no valid case has been made for auras.
Nevertheless, there are many people who think they have seen them and I think it is worth trying to understand what is going on in their heads.
ekim,
(1) I haven’t. Sriram attempts a disastrously wrong line of reasoning – “auras are real; other people don’t have my magic aura-detecting ability; therefore auras are real”. It’s a basic common-or-garden fallacy of the premise and the conclusion being the same (called "affirming the consequent"), and I’ve explained it to you by substituting leprechauns for auras and asking whether you’d give the same house room to that argument too. If you don’t want to answer that’s fine, but it’s still what he’s trying.
(2) You think logic is a straight jacket? Well, as philosophy, technology, medicine and pretty much anything else I can think of that enables you to “live a little” relies on it, we’ll have to disagree about that.
The question though was why anyone would invest time in practices that allegedly lead to un-evidenced outcome A rather than to un-evidenced outcome B. And if even if you did have an answer to that, the a priori question is why you’d even begin without first establishing some basis to determine whether you’d actually experienced that outcome rather than just reached for it as a conveniently persuasive but wrong answer.
(3) What instruments?
(4) No-one said that you did. Try again – you were defending Sriram’s mistakes by saying that perhaps he was right. No-one says otherwise, but it’s a vacuous point – perhaps anything at all is right. You cannot though defend his practice of jumping straight from a perhaps to an is.
You were defending him remember, albeit wrongly (see above).
(5) Oh dear. By all means go back and re-read to see where you’ve gone wrong. Or don’t. It’s up to you, but the arguments are the same either way.
Very nice, but, as with Mr Burns, it is all assertion without evidence. Things don't become real by force of assertion. We know gravity is real because we can measure it with a gravity meter. We know light is real because we can measure it with a light meter. We know the Earth has a magnetic field because we can find North with a simple hand held compass. When we can measure something, reliably and consistently, then we are entitled to claim that the something is real, until that time it is just an unevidenced claim, like so many others.
Go build us an aura meter, surely it should be child's play to measure something so ubiquitous. You'd find fame and fortune, and your claims would then be taken seriously.
You need a gravity meter to know that gravity exists and a light meter to know that light exists??!! :-\ Really??!! Ooh...You are taking dependence on instruments to another level altogether.
Well...since you seem to need meters to even identify and measure your own emotions, you just have to wait till someone invents a Aura meter, I suppose. :(
6. How do I know it exists? I can feel it around me all the time and sometimes even see it visually. So can many others. Nothing extraordinary or 'supernatural'about all this. No need to go all 'Ooh..haa' about it. Just as I can feel my body, I can feel the Aura also. I can feel it expanding and depleting at various times. I have always felt it from as far back as I can remember. I learnt about it much later and started working on it.
Frankly, I don't know what this discussion is about anymore.....
While most of you would dismiss it as just a feeling (based on external conditions that we sense), I and most people like me would attribute it to the Aura that exists in and around us (in addition to normal sensory matters. They have their contribution too).
1. It is not a religious belief. Let us get that clear. Nor is it anything 'supernatural' or something connected to God or Jesus or angels..... It is a natural part of our being.
2. The Aura is a energy system that exists everywhere connecting all objects, similar to the magnetic field. It also has its individual component just as individual magnets have their own magnetism, which is our individual aura.
3. This energy system keeps moving about in and around us all the time and is the principle component of what we call the Mind. It connects to the brain and other organs and influences physiological reactions. The Mind is not just brain generated. The Aura is deeply connected with the body also (Mind - body connection).
4. The movement of the energies in the Aura decides our health and mental makeup at any point of time.
5. What is the Aura and what is its chemical composition, specific gravity etc. etc.? No Idea. No one knows any great detail about it. We only know that it exists all around us and influences us in various ways, as part of our mind.
...
7. The Aura obviously (mind - body) influences the body and generates chemical changes that make the body behave in certain ways. The body in turn influences the Aura and any changes in the health or chemical balance of the body can change the aura. Besides normal medication, working on the chakras and energizing them can add to health benefits.
6. How do I know it exists? I can feel it around me all the time and sometimes even see it visually. So can many others. Nothing extraordinary or 'supernatural'about all this. No need to go all 'Ooh..haa' about it. Just as I can feel my body, I can feel the Aura also. I can feel it expanding and depleting at various times. I have always felt it from as far back as I can remember. I learnt about it much later and started working on it.
9. Why don't people know about it normally? We don't know about our brain, liver, kidneys and lungs also...till we learn about them. Its the same.
10. Why hasn't science found out anything about it? Science did not find gravity waves till very recently. Does not mean they didn't exist all along. X-rays and Gamma rays have always existed but we did not know about them till recent centuries.
Even now we don't know anything about Dark Matter or Dark Energy....and many other things.
You people can keep battering on and on about evidence, proof, logic and so on and so forth.....but the Aura is not going to go away.
It is there around you as you read this. Every time you feel joyful about something, it is the heart chakra expanding . Every time you feel fear or envy in the pit of your stomach, it is the solar plexus chakra depleting. Every time you feel a strong sexual urge towards someone, it is your sex chakra expanding. Every time you have a eureka moment, it is the forehead chakra expanding.
Hi everyone,
Frankly, I don't know what this discussion is about anymore.....
Let me clarify my point.
ippy had raised the matter about how he moves into a house after identifying how he 'feels' about it. That is a very common occurrence, perhaps in all countries. Almost everyone does that.
While most of you would dismiss it as just a feeling (based on external conditions that we sense), I and most people like me would attribute it to the Aura that exists in and around us (in addition to normal sensory matters. They have their contribution too).
Now...what is this aura?
1. It is not a religious belief. Let us get that clear. Nor is it anything 'supernatural' or something connected to God or Jesus or angels..... It is a natural part of our being.
2. The Aura is a energy system that exists everywhere connecting all objects, similar to the magnetic field. It also has its individual component just as individual magnets have their own magnetism, which is our individual aura.
3. This energy system keeps moving about in and around us all the time and is the principle component of what we call the Mind. It connects to the brain and other organs and influences physiological reactions. The Mind is not just brain generated. The Aura is deeply connected with the body also (Mind - body connection).
4. The movement of the energies in the Aura decides our health and mental makeup at any point of time.
5. What is the Aura and what is its chemical composition, specific gravity etc. etc.? No Idea. No one knows any great detail about it. We only know that it exists all around us and influences us in various ways, as part of our mind.
6. How do I know it exists? I can feel it around me all the time and sometimes even see it visually. So can many others. Nothing extraordinary or 'supernatural'about all this. No need to go all 'Ooh..haa' about it. Just as I can feel my body, I can feel the Aura also. I can feel it expanding and depleting at various times. I have always felt it from as far back as I can remember. I learnt about it much later and started working on it.
7. The Aura obviously (mind - body) influences the body and generates chemical changes that make the body behave in certain ways. The body in turn influences the Aura and any changes in the health or chemical balance of the body can change the aura. Besides normal medication, working on the chakras and energizing them can add to health benefits.
8. How can anyone know about it? Well...if you can't feel it around you, you can learn about it in Yoga (or Pranic healing) classes. Its easy.
9. Why don't people know about it normally? We don't know about our brain, liver, kidneys and lungs also...till we learn about them. Its the same.
10. Why hasn't science found out anything about it? Science did not find gravity waves till very recently. Does not mean they didn't exist all along. X-rays and Gamma rays have always existed but we did not know about them till recent centuries. Even now we don't know anything about Dark Matter or Dark Energy....and many other things.
You people can keep battering on and on about evidence, proof, logic and so on and so forth.....but the Aura is not going to go away. It is there around you as you read this. Every time you feel joyful about something, it is the heart chakra expanding . Every time you feel fear or envy in the pit of your stomach, it is the solar plexus chakra depleting. Every time you feel a strong sexual urge towards someone, it is your sex chakra expanding. Every time you have a eureka moment, it is the forehead chakra expanding.
Nothing to get alarmed about. The aura is part of the same mind that you have been having all along. It is not some ghost from external sources that is suddenly taking over your personality. It is just a deeper understanding of the mind without confining ourselves only to the workings of the brain.
Cheers.
Sriram
This is an example that highlights the need for some kind of objective method of confirming these 'auras'.
One one hand you say they are visible, since you and others can see them, but on the other hand other people can't see them: assuming that; a) the 'aura' is something that manifests from people, and b) we exclude people observing 'aura' who have known visual problems, then this it makes no immediate sense that an 'auras' wouldn't be visible to all whose vision was within the normal range of sensitivity.
The implication is, presumably, that some people must have extra or more sensitive visual attributes that can detect 'auras' but since the visual system is a physical one (eyes, retina, optic nerve, brain etc) then anyone claiming to 'see' an 'aura' could only do so via this biology - yes?
It is probably something to do with conscious awareness, focus and concentration. Its not just about biology.
When we are children we are not even conscious of our heart beat or breathing....until someone told us. Even as adults we are not conscious of our many bodily functions including breathing and heartbeat until something goes amiss. Lot of things including our own thoughts, that we have to learn to focus on, it doesn't happen automatically.
Our awareness of our own self, our emotions and behavior is not automatic. It has to be learnt. Similarly with the Aura. Much of Yoga and meditation is about learning to get rid of mental clutter and to focus.
All of which involve biology.
That there are aspects of our biology such as the autonomic nervous system that we are usual unaware of, though we may become aware of its consequences, is irrelevant to the point of these 'auras' being described as being a visual experience. You haven't dealt with the point I was making: which was on what basis 'auras' can be seen, where 'seen' implies a visual experience.
It sounds to me like you are using 'seen' to imply something non-visual (not involving eyes, retina, optic nerve, brain), and it is a source of confusion when you use 'seen' in a way that doesn't accord with being a visual experience.
(1) Yes you have and you've done it again. Firstly you confuse what I say with what Sriram has said, then you add a bit of loaded language with the word 'magic' just to bias the statement. If you want me to answer your question you will first need to define 'aura' (which as I said to you before, nobody has done so far) and then define 'real'.
(2) Yes we will have to disagree. I can live quite joyfully without the need to logically analyse it.
As regards the second paragraph, I 'm not quite sure what you are asking but if un-evidence outcome A is to win an Olympic gold medal in the 100 metres and B to win a crossword competition a person might invest the appropriate time, training and energy to achieve that end. There is no guaranteed outcome as success or failure could result. The motive for doing so is probably varied from parental pressure/encouragement, financial reward, ego trip or it might even be driven by what this thread indicated ... Newberg's postulate of a 'self transcendence basic function of the brain (“How do we continue to evolve and change ourselves as people?”)'
(3)I think they use a variety of electronic imaging and recording equipment. There may be something here if you are really interested ...... https://www.parapsych.org/articles/34/39/united_kingdom.aspxIf they have reliable instruments then they can do science with them. Why haven’t they?
(4)Jumping to conclusions again. I think you have a Sriram obsession. I was not defending him, that is your inference. I said this at the beginning 'I may be mistaken over what Sriram means but I see what he is saying differently. ' I can't defend what I am not clear about and in any case Sriram doesn't need defending even though there is 5 to 1 balance of attack against him.
Frankly, I don't know what this discussion is about anymore.....
Let me clarify my point.
ippy had raised the matter about how he moves into a house after identifying how he 'feels' about it. That is a very common occurrence, perhaps in all countries. Almost everyone does that.
While most of you would dismiss it as just a feeling (based on external conditions that we sense), I and most people like me would attribute it to the Aura that exists in and around us (in addition to normal sensory matters. They have their contribution too).
Now...what is this aura?
1. It is not a religious belief. Let us get that clear. Nor is it anything 'supernatural' or something connected to God or Jesus or angels..... It is a natural part of our being.
2. The Aura is a energy system that exists everywhere connecting all objects, similar to the magnetic field. It also has its individual component just as individual magnets have their own magnetism, which is our individual aura.
3. This energy system keeps moving about in and around us all the time and is the principle component of what we call the Mind. It connects to the brain and other organs and influences physiological reactions. The Mind is not just brain generated. The Aura is deeply connected with the body also (Mind - body connection).
4. The movement of the energies in the Aura decides our health and mental makeup at any point of time.
5. What is the Aura and what is its chemical composition, specific gravity etc. etc.? No Idea. No one knows any great detail about it. We only know that it exists all around us and influences us in various ways, as part of our mind.
6. How do I know it exists? I can feel it around me all the time and sometimes even see it visually. So can many others. Nothing extraordinary or 'supernatural'about all this. No need to go all 'Ooh..haa' about it. Just as I can feel my body, I can feel the Aura also. I can feel it expanding and depleting at various times. I have always felt it from as far back as I can remember. I learnt about it much later and started working on it.
7. The Aura obviously (mind - body) influences the body and generates chemical changes that make the body behave in certain ways. The body in turn influences the Aura and any changes in the health or chemical balance of the body can change the aura. Besides normal medication, working on the chakras and energizing them can add to health benefits.
8. How can anyone know about it? Well...if you can't feel it around you, you can learn about it in Yoga (or Pranic healing) classes. Its easy.
9. Why don't people know about it normally? We don't know about our brain, liver, kidneys and lungs also...till we learn about them. Its the same.
10. Why hasn't science found out anything about it? Science did not find gravity waves till very recently. Does not mean they didn't exist all along. X-rays and Gamma rays have always existed but we did not know about them till recent centuries. Even now we don't know anything about Dark Matter or Dark Energy....and many other things.
You people can keep battering on and on about evidence, proof, logic and so on and so forth.....but the Aura is not going to go away. It is there around you as you read this. Every time you feel joyful about something, it is the heart chakra expanding . Every time you feel fear or envy in the pit of your stomach, it is the solar plexus chakra depleting. Every time you feel a strong sexual urge towards someone, it is your sex chakra expanding. Every time you have a eureka moment, it is the forehead chakra expanding.
Nothing to get alarmed about. The aura is part of the same mind that you have been having all along. It is not some ghost from external sources that is suddenly taking over your personality. It is just a deeper understanding of the mind without confining ourselves only to the workings of the brain.
You people can keep battering on and on about evidence, proof, logic and so on and so forth.....but the Aura is not going to go away.
As I have said....visual seeing is not automatic. It happens only sometimes when I am particularly focused. I see it as a fuzzy moving thing like one sees steam rising. Otherwise I normally feel it around me like a thin shawl. It is normal to me and I cannot unfeel it.
The Aura and the body are interconnected. They work together (mind-body). But lot of concentration is required for such matters because the conscious mind is otherwise engaged.
ekim,(1) I agree, and so have I.
(1) The conversation has moved on now
(2) If they have reliable instruments then they can do science with them. Why haven’t they?
Sriram
You need a gravity meter to know that gravity exists and a light meter to know that light exists??!! :-\ Really??!! Ooh...You are taking dependence on instruments to another level altogether.
Well...since you seem to need meters to even identify and measure your own emotions, you just have to wait till someone invents a Aura meter, I suppose. :(
I have said everything I have to say on this subject.
Your questions will be never ending…
…and you are not going to understand any of the answers.
I am not responsible for the programming in your minds or your memes that fear for their survival. You sort it out in your heads.
I have said everything I have to say on this subject. Your questions will be never ending and you are not going to understand any of the answers.
I am not responsible for the programming in your minds or your memes that fear for their survival. You sort it out in your heads.
Ok guys.
I have said everything I have to say on this subject. Your questions will be never ending and you are not going to understand any of the answers.
I am not responsible for the programming in your minds or your memes that fear for their survival. You sort it out in your heads.
I am however glad the board is buzzing along nicely. ;)
Have fun.
Sriram
Hi everyone,Evidence please.
Frankly, I don't know what this discussion is about anymore.....
Let me clarify my point.
ippy had raised the matter about how he moves into a house after identifying how he 'feels' about it. That is a very common occurrence, perhaps in all countries. Almost everyone does that.
While most of you would dismiss it as just a feeling (based on external conditions that we sense), I and most people like me would attribute it to the Aura that exists in and around us (in addition to normal sensory matters. They have their contribution too).
Now...what is this aura?
1. It is not a religious belief. Let us get that clear. Nor is it anything 'supernatural' or something connected to God or Jesus or angels..... It is a natural part of our being.
2. The Aura is a energy system that exists everywhere connecting all objects, similar to the magnetic field. It also has its individual component just as individual magnets have their own magnetism, which is our individual aura.
3. This energy system keeps moving about in and around us all the time and is the principle component of what we call the Mind. It connects to the brain and other organs and influences physiological reactions. The Mind is not just brain generated. The Aura is deeply connected with the body also (Mind - body connection).
4. The movement of the energies in the Aura decides our health and mental makeup at any point of time.
5. What is the Aura and what is its chemical composition, specific gravity etc. etc.? No Idea. No one knows any great detail about it. We only know that it exists all around us and influences us in various ways, as part of our mind.
6. How do I know it exists? I can feel it around me all the time and sometimes even see it visually. So can many others. Nothing extraordinary or 'supernatural'about all this. No need to go all 'Ooh..haa' about it. Just as I can feel my body, I can feel the Aura also. I can feel it expanding and depleting at various times. I have always felt it from as far back as I can remember. I learnt about it much later and started working on it.
7. The Aura obviously (mind - body) influences the body and generates chemical changes that make the body behave in certain ways. The body in turn influences the Aura and any changes in the health or chemical balance of the body can change the aura. Besides normal medication, working on the chakras and energizing them can add to health benefits.
8. How can anyone know about it? Well...if you can't feel it around you, you can learn about it in Yoga (or Pranic healing) classes. Its easy.
9. Why don't people know about it normally? We don't know about our brain, liver, kidneys and lungs also...till we learn about them. Its the same.
10. Why hasn't science found out anything about it?
Science did not find gravity waves till very recently. Does not mean they didn't exist all along. X-rays and Gamma rays have always existed but we did not know about them till recent centuries. Even now we don't know anything about Dark Matter or Dark Energy....and many other things.
You people can keep battering on and on about evidence,
Just as I can feel my body, I can feel the Aura also. I can feel it expanding and depleting at various times. I have always felt it from as far back as I can rememberWhat is it's frequency?
Evidence please.
Because it vanishes as soon as anybody tries to do a systematic study of it.
But we find out about these things because they have an effect on stuff. They are observable.
You don't get it do you. When we ask for evidence, we are asking you to show it is not made up. When you say "I don't need evidence" you are saying "it is made up".
Yeah...yeah...yeah. I get it! I get it!
Since you guys seem to need gravity meters to detect gravity and light meters to detect light....I can see your problem...!! Ha! Ha! Ha!
My point about you guys lacking certain faculties gets emphasized, much more.....! :D :D Yes...I do understand and....sympathize. :(
Hi Susan,Prohibition of wearing mixed fibres or eating shellfish was a bit like wearing a uniform. The idea was to distinguish the people of Israel from the other nations. The ten commandments were moral laws that apply to all people.
It's because a book he's decided must be correct tells him so. Only he doesn't care much about some of these "sins" (wearing mixed fibres, gathering kindling on the sabbath, eating shellfish etc) so he's not so fussed about those. Other of these "sins" that play to his preferences and prejudices on the other hand he cares about quite a bit, so he'll judge you harshly if you do them.
And yes there really are people like that still in the 21st century. Extraordinary isn't it?
Sriram,
I experience auras, have done for many years. In fact I experienced one only three days ago. They are often preceded by periods of concentration and focus, and I often get a feeling of warmth and relaxation just before one begins. My auras take the form of visual distortions, and are quickly followed by a period of moving and flickering light, often in the form of a semi circle. They are not a fault of my eyesight because both my eyes are involved equally. I know that many other people experience these auras too, but not everyone.
Now this could be because my brain has the facility at times to spot energy disturbances in the surrounding ether where others have not this ability. In my case however, as with the large number of other cases similar to mine, there is not the slightest evidence that this is so. On the other hand there is a scientific explanation with mounting evidence that it is purely a neurological phenomenon aasociated with migraines, often called aural migraines. This, unless evidence accrues to the contrary, I am happy to accept.
Yeah...yeah...yeah. I get it! I get it!
Since you guys seem to need gravity meters to detect gravity and light meters to detect light....I can see your problem...!! Ha! Ha! Ha!
My point about you guys lacking certain faculties gets emphasized, much more.....! Yes...I do understand and....sympathize.
Has any scientist looked for evidence for an external stimulus? Is there any evidence as to what initiated the associated migraine? As it is your experience do you just wait for somebody else to provide the evidence of have you looked for it yourself?
Sometimes (if I focus) I can also visually see the movement of energies. It is not a disturbance or any flash of light. It is just a part of myself (or someone else). Like you might feel a piece of clothing on yourself or see it on someone else. My vision is just fine and I have no headaches.
Maybe this does not fit in with any phenomenon known to you but that does not mean you can explain it away casually as though you know everything about everything. I know what I experience and what it means.
Migrane aura is to do with visual disturbances. Flashes of light, colour patterns and so on. It is just called an 'aura'. Just because it is the same word does not mean it is the same thing.
What I am talking about has nothing to do with visual disturbances. It is about feeling energy movement in and around me as part of the body. It is a stable situation not something sudden. The feeling is almost permanent and does not in any way cause me any disturbance.
Sometimes (if I focus) I can also visually see the movement of energies. It is not a disturbance or any flash of light. It is just a part of myself (or someone else). Like you might feel a piece of clothing on yourself or see it on someone else. My vision is just fine and I have no headaches.
Maybe this does not fit in with any phenomenon known to you but that does not mean you can explain it away casually as though you know everything about everything. I know what I experience and what it means.
Why do you dismiss out of hand the distinct possibility that your aura experiences are not the result of neurological activity? There is no evidence whatever that they are a reflection of some sort of mind existing outside your brain. All you have to go on is that you experience something, and that others also experience something similar too. Why would you reject the idea that it is due to neurological activity, rather than some sort of unknown energy? You could at least say that the jury is out, and that we don't have enough evidence yet to come to any conclusion. That might well be a rational way of approaching it.
Maybe this does not fit in with any phenomenon known to you but that does not mean you can explain it away casually as though you know everything about everything.
I know what I experience and what it means.
Hold on guys..!
When I feel (and sometimes see) energy movement around me why would I think it is something other than what it is?
More so when it has been confirmed by other people experiencing a similar thing?
It also works very well in terms of my body and mental state at any point of time.
Why are you guys telling me it could be 'something else' merely because it doesn't fit in with your world view?
Why should I wait for someone to invent a aura meter to tell me that indeed I am experiencing an aura...! That is ridiculous! Personal experiences need not be doubted to THAT extent. We don't need meters and instruments for everything.
Science may not have identified what it is...so what? It didn't identify gravity waves for so many years, does not mean it did not exist. It'll probably get there by and by.
I agree that if we personally don't experience something, we tend to doubt it, but there is a limit to skepticism. Compulsive skepticism can be dysfunctional.
When I feel (and sometimes see) energy movement around me why would I think it is something other than what it is?
More so when it has been confirmed by other people experiencing a similar thing?
Why are you guys telling me it could be 'something else' merely because it doesn't fit in with your world view?
I agree that if we personally don't experience something, we tend to doubt it, but there is a limit to skepticism. Compulsive skepticism can be dysfunctional.
Ok....thanks.
Cheers.
Thanks for your reply. Compared to you, it has happened relatively recently to me and it takes the form of black and white rotating zigzag lines and my optician told me it was nothing to do my eyes but more associated with migraines. As I don't get headaches, migraines didn't feature in my thoughts about it. As regards a spiritual explanation, I suppose it could be the Gates of Hell beckoning me because of the sinful life I have led. I've tried to discover if there is a common event which triggers them but to no avail. You mention electrical waves, I did wonder with all the variety of transmitters about if I might be sensitive to certain electromagnetic waves. If so, I'm not getting a very good reception and its only in black and white, but I'm not yet at the stage where I need to go around wearing a metal foil helmet, a kind of reverse of Persinger's helmet. :) However, I do find that I can quickly slip into meditation mode and the sensations quickly disappear.
Although the causes of aural migraines are only partly understood, they seem to be associated with some sort of electrical wave which interferes with the signals from the visual cortex.
Hold on guys..!
When I feel (and sometimes see) energy movement around me why would I think it is something other than what it is? More so when it has been confirmed by other people experiencing a similar thing? It also works very well in terms of my body and mental state at any point of time.
Why are you guys telling me it could be 'something else' merely because it doesn't fit in with your world view? Why should I wait for someone to invent a aura meter to tell me that indeed I am experiencing an aura...! That is ridiculous! Personal experiences need not be doubted to THAT extent. We don't need meters and instruments for everything.
Science may not have identified what it is...so what? It didn't identify gravity waves for so many years, does not mean it did not exist. It'll probably get there by and by.
I agree that if we personally don't experience something, we tend to doubt it, but there is a limit to skepticism. Compulsive skepticism can be dysfunctional.
I don't think you do.
Yeah...yeah...yeah. I get it! I get it!
Since you guys seem to need gravity meters to detect gravity and light meters to detect light....I can see your problem...!! Ha! Ha! Ha!What do you think a gravity meter looks like? Galileo used things as simple as balls rolling down slopes to measure the effects of gravity.
My point about you guys lacking certain faculties gets emphasized, much more.....! :D :D Yes...I do understand and....sympathize. :(
Just a thought Sriram, I was wondering this energy you think you're perceiving, it isn't dynamic, is it?Definite LOL for that one!!
I think a lot of us here on this forum would like if this is so.
Cheers
Perhaps a definition of "energy " from Sriram would be useful. At least we might be able to establish an agreed starting point of understandingWhat if his definition disagrees with the standard one which Wikipedia defines as
Sriram , please help me to understand . You might be on to something !
In physics, energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object
What if his definition disagrees with the standard one which Wikipedia defines as
We established quite some time ago that Sriram doesn't understand the scientific concept of energy (Energy Life - Neil Tyson (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11716.0)).i think sriram sees himself as another "Deepak Chopra" character inserting scientific terms into sentences to give them credibility
i think sriram sees himself as another "Deepak Chopra" character inserting scientific terms into sentences to give them credibility
It might work in his own community but not on a world stage . And that is his downfall.
Big fish , little pond syndrome has given him false confidence
India ..'little pond'..and Britain 'Big pond'??!! That's an illusion alright!
Sriram,Looks very like an ad populum fallacy
Wrong again. Little pond: people who think you have something of interest to say; big pond: people who can identify the numerous mistakes in reasoning you make when you try it.
You’re (presumably) a big fish in the former, and a tiny one in the latter.
Looks very like an ad populum fallacy
NS,You implied a bigger pond was right. Ad populum and your reply shows that. Size doesn't matter.
Not at all - I made no connection between the popularity or otherwise of Sriram's claims and their wrongness (which is demonstrated by other means). Rather I was just cautioning him against his microscopic thinking of assuming the relative sizes of "ponds" to be geographical.
You implied a bigger pond was right. Ad populum and your reply shows that. Size doesn't matter.why do you insist in twisting what people say ?
why do you insist in twisting what people say ?Heavy night?
Do you get some kind of perverted kick out of it ?
Heavy night?NS
You implied a bigger pond was right. Ad populum and your reply shows that. Size doesn't matter.
You used the terms little pond and big pond,…
…and portrayed the big pond as right –
…if it is of no significance, why state that it is the big Pond?
NS,Actually having read what your second last post again I can see that there was no ad pop and so I withdraw the claim.
Yes, in the context of a discussion about how “pond” should be defined.
Not sure why you keep fibbing about this. If you seriously think I “portrayed” that though then why not just quote where I did it?
Because (fairly obviously I’d have thought) I said it in the context of Sriram assuming that the “ponds” already being discussed were India and the UK, whereas I explained that the frame of reference for “pond” could be defined very differently. That of course has absolutely bugger all to do with the rightness or otherwise of his position, which is why is why I made no allusion to that of any kind.
You do this sometimes – for the most part I agree with your views, but every now and then you get something wrong and then double down on it when the error is shown to you. Would it really kill you this time to say something like, “actually having read what you said again I can see that there was no ad pop and so I withdraw the claim”?
Really though?
The first paragraph would have been sufficient !But the second para applies.
Wrong side of bed?
Actually having read what your second last post again I can see that there was no ad pop and so I withdraw the claim.
So maybe you might want to withdraw the accusation of lying? And I think you need to consider the worth of your frequent attempts at the imputing of motives.
NS,
Thank you.
My rule of thumb is that when someone misrepresents me I assume it to be an innocent mistake so I explain the error. I did this twice (in Replies 235 and 240). Only when the person repeats the misrepresentation nonetheless do I assume the motive to be a bad actor.
Does this seem unreasonable to you? (Oh, and what happened to your penultimate post to which my 240 replied by the way?)
Do you carry your handbag like a bandolier or in the Cruck of your elbow ?😱The spirit of Wilde posts
I had removed the post as I considered it wrong before reading your reply. Your assumption as to my intention is wrong - so I would like you to withdraw it.
The spirit of Wilde posts
NS,
Happy to withdraw it - again though, having corrected a misrepresentation twice only to have it repeated twice (one time it seems subsequently withdrawn) do you not think it reasonable to think someone to be acting dishonestly? How about three times? 30 times?
If you want to say "And I think you need to consider the worth of your frequent attempts at the imputing of motives" then we need to be clear that I do it only after several attempts at non-motive based rebuttals that have been ignored.
NS,If you like jejune sexist and gender based humour, then I am sure it would have provided a chortle.
Actually i thought it was rather witty, but that's just me I guess.
If you like jejune sexist and gender based humour, then I am sure it would have provided a chortle.NS
NS
just so's you know I prefer the bandolier style .
It leaves your arms and hands free for putting on lipstick 😘
luscious , I imagine 💋
My scarlet lips need no artificial burnishment.
No, I don't think it's reasonable, and given you were wrong here, that underlines it.
If you like jejune sexist and gender based humour, then I am sure it would have provided a chortle.
NS,So when you withdrew the accusation of lying, you were lying.
Doesn’t work though. Imagine you were to post, say, “you said the moon is made of cream cheese”. I replied that I’d done no such thing and invited you to identify where I’d said it and, in reply, you just repeated “you said the moon is made of cream cheese”. And let’s say that this exchange happened several times.
And then let’s say that eventually I said “you’re fibbing then” and you answered that I was wrong about that. Then what? All I’d have would be your assertion that you weren’t fibbing on the one hand, and evidence of your repeated untruth despite being corrected on the other. Either no-one could ever be accused of fibbing (because they’d just say “no I wasn’t”) or they can be when the multiplicity of the untruth is big enough. If you think the former, fair enough; if not though then where would you draw the line?
Oh give your head a wobble willya? “…jejune sexist and gender based humour” in response to Walter’s mild Hinge & Brackett type imagery is going it a bit don’t you think?
luscious , I imagine 💋You would struggle not to drown in their lusciousness. Passing a mirror is a real challenge.
So when you withdrew the accusation of lying, you were lying.
That you find sexist gender humour funny is obviously your business.
You would struggle not to drown in their lusciousness. Passing a mirror is a real challenge.
NS,Indeed - you must find it hilarious
Typical stereotypical, anti positive body image-based humour then...
NS,
No, just giving you the benefit of the doubt is all. More to the point though, do you think an accusation of lying is ever possible no matter how strong the evidence for it when the accused merely has to say “no I wasn’t” to rebut it?
“Sexist gender humour eh”? Well, I was going to tell you a joke about a chicken crossing a road but as I don’t want you to think of me of indulging in accident-based anti-poultryism I guess I’d better not.
Indeed - you must find it hilarious
So you didn't withdraw it. That's ok.
Nice to know that you think sexist humour is the same as talking about chickens.
NS,
It was your “joke” remember?
Nice non sequitur – there’s no “so” about it. I withdrew it because I gave you the benefit of the doubt and accepted your assertion that you weren’t fibbing. No lying was necessary for me to do that. Whether in your head you actually were fibbing though is knowable only to you.
More to the point, the question you’ve avoided twice now concerns whether even in principle an accusation of lying can ever be made given that your defence of “no I wasn’t” seems to be sufficient to get you off the hook.
If you don’t want to reply to that though, that’s up to you.
More head wobbling needed I think. Not sure why you’re so against equating animal rights with human rights even in principle, but perhaps some Peter Singer would change your mind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
So you think women are chickens.
NS,
I takes some effort to construct a sentence in which the "so", the "you think" and the "women are chickens" are all so self-evidently wrong.
By all means though have a go at identifying where I implied any such thing.
Oh, and I take it then that your continued silence on the lying question means you have no intention of answering it. Fair enough.
Don't you just love it when a rail gets dethreaded ?!?!
😴
The spirit of Wilde postsjeez , it was a gag !!!!!
Well, it raises a smile and is something which is more interesting to read than most of the topics on GH at the moment!