• The Spiritualism, Sacred Geometry, and Consciousness thread! Complete with huge OP!
    133 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sdwise;35693322]1) You obviously watched none of the videos. As I explained to a previous user, they are the hub of the thread. My little introductions make no sense without them. 2) You did exactly what I requested you avoid. This shows both how well you read and how much you respect the ideas and opinions of your fellow man. Great job, scientist. Just ponder this for a second: "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and the wiser people are so full of doubts." Which are you, my friend?[/QUOTE] Well almost everyone in this thread is doubting the shit out of everything you posted so I guess we're the wiser ones.
[QUOTE=J Paul;35693359]Well almost everyone in this thread is doubting the shit out of everything you posted so I guess we're the wiser ones.[/QUOTE] Wow, that went way over your head. Ok, let me put it this way: There is no wisdom in steadfast, unshakable belief. A true thinker will question his beliefs all the time. Kind of a Socratic thing, you may have heard of it.
[QUOTE=sdwise;35693322]1) You obviously watched none of the videos. As I explained to a previous user, they are the hub of the thread. My little introductions make no sense without them. 2) You did exactly what I requested you avoid. This shows both how well you read and how much you respect the ideas and opinions of your fellow man. Great job, scientist. Just ponder this for a second: "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and the wiser people are so full of doubts." Which are you, my friend?[/QUOTE] it doesn't take watching a video to know that this is all superstitious hooey
[QUOTE=sdwise;35693392]Wow, that went way over your head. Ok, let me put it this way: There is no wisdom in steadfast, unshakable belief. A true thinker will question his beliefs all the time. Kind of a Socratic thing, you may have heard of it.[/QUOTE] What you don't realize is that I'm aware that was the point of the post. I was making a joke. But beyond that, you can use that very line of thinking to start doubting this crazy garbage and open your mind to a textbook or at the very least to Carl Sagan's Cosmos or Connections.
[QUOTE=J Paul;35693405]What you don't realize is that I'm aware that was the point of the post. I was making a joke. But beyond that, you can use that very line of thinking to start doubting this crazy garbage and open your mind to a textbook or at the very least to Carl Sagan's Cosmos or Connections.[/QUOTE] I have doubted, I do doubt, and I have yet to find a system I think works better. [editline]23rd April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lord of Ears;35693398]it doesn't take watching a video to know that this is all superstitious hooey[/QUOTE] Hard thinker.
everything that a person is is electricity channeling from neuron to neuron anything that can't be directly affected by that should be debunked as voodoo bullshit [editline]23rd April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sdwise;35693422]Hard thinker.[/QUOTE] malleable minded
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;35693427]everything that a person is is electricity channeling from neuron to neuron anything that can't be directly affected by that should be debunked as voodoo bullshit [editline]23rd April 2012[/editline] malleable minded[/QUOTE] This is the exact philosophy that creates dissension among people. The inability to consider that maybe, just maybe, none of us knows a damn thing. Isn't that the true theory of knowledge? We do the best with what we have and the knowledge that we know nothing.
[QUOTE=sdwise;35693422]I have doubted, I do doubt, and I have yet to find a system I think works better. [editline]23rd April 2012[/editline] Hard thinker.[/QUOTE] The thing is, though, that while you might have had some doubt in this, or maybe you still do, you clearly don't have much, because you appear very invested in it. But that's not even the issue here, the real issue is that most everything that you explain with mysticism is in fact explained much better by a much better system called the scientific method, but you might not have actually looked into it because you don't seem to have heard of any of it because you're, well, you can read your own OP, you don't refer to any of it, you only ever refer to, well... bullshit. Basically what I'm saying is, we've read this. In fact I've heard of pretty much all of this stuff. Most of these ideas have existed since pre-history. But the fact that you seem so invested in it is what leads us to believe that while we've read this and we don't believe it because we've also studied natural sciences, you've read this and you appear not to have studied natural sciences, therefore you believe it, and that's what separates you from us. Or if you have studied it, you definitely didn't pay much attention, because I can't think of a single thing in your entire post that can't be explained from a rational, reasonable, natural standpoint and proven using empirical data.
[QUOTE=sdwise;35693322]1) You obviously watched none of the videos. As I explained to a previous user, they are the hub of the thread. My little introductions make no sense without them.[/QUOTE] I did. They are full of shit. [QUOTE=sdwise;35693322]2) You did exactly what I requested you avoid. This shows both how well you read and how much you respect the ideas and opinions of your fellow man. Great job, scientist.[/QUOTE] All ideas must be put up for criticism. If it turns out that 1. It has no evidence, and 2. Somebody makes up shit/denies shortcomings in it, then it is bullshit. [QUOTE=sdwise;35693322]Just ponder this for a second: "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and the wiser people are so full of doubts." Which are you, my friend?[/QUOTE] I can quote mine too, just watch. "Certain shortcomings in your education and upbringing may cause you to read into the relationships between astral bodies that you believe to influence your life". The fools and the cranks are people who ignore evidence when presented to them, and regurgitate bullshit. The wise people are the ones who debunk the bullshit and back things up with knowledge.
[QUOTE=J Paul;35693479]The thing is, though, that while you might have had some doubt in this, or maybe you still do, you clearly don't have much, because you appear very invested in it. [/QUOTE] He told me that he didn't believe a lot of it.
[QUOTE=sdwise;35693471]This is the exact philosophy that creates dissension among people. The inability to consider that maybe, just maybe, none of us knows a damn thing. Isn't that the true theory of knowledge? We do the best with what we have and the knowledge that we know nothing.[/QUOTE] we have evidence and proof of this can you say the same?
[QUOTE=ILY;35693494]He told me that he didn't believe most of it.[/QUOTE] How he could be so invested in [i]any[/i] of it is what boggles the mind, but of course, nobody could realistically admit to believing all of this without immediately losing all credibility and he knows it.
[QUOTE=J Paul;35693479]The thing is, though, that while you might have had some doubt in this, or maybe you still do, you clearly don't have much, because you appear very invested in it. But that's not even the issue here, the real issue is that most everything that you explain with mysticism is in fact explained much better by a much better system called the scientific method, but you might not have actually looked into it because you don't seem to have heard of any of it because you're, well, you can read your own OP, you don't refer to any of it, you only ever refer to, well... bullshit. Basically what I'm saying is, we've read this. In fact I've heard of pretty much all of this stuff. Most of these ideas have existed since pre-history. But the fact that you seem so invested in it is what leads us to believe that while we've read this and we don't believe it because we've also studied natural sciences, you've read this and you appear not to have studied natural sciences, therefore you believe it, and that's what separates you from us. Or if you have studied it, you definitely didn't pay much attention, because I can't think of a single thing in your entire post that can't be explained from a rational, reasonable, natural standpoint and proven using empirical data.[/QUOTE] Which is the problem. I've said numerous times that all of this is based on one's own experience. It does not, and should not, be concrete. In fact, a guy asked "Patch," who made these videos, if he treats this stuff like a bible, a religion that is not to be disputed. "Patch" said no, that no one really knows what their beliefs will be in 10, 20, or 30 years. What's important is to know that everything came from somewhere and, based on that fact, everything has a grain of truth. [editline]23rd April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lord of Ears;35693509]we have evidence and proof of this can you say the same?[/QUOTE] Absolutely. My personal experience is just as reliable as any data.
[QUOTE=sdwise;35693540] Absolutely. My personal experience is just as reliable as any data.[/QUOTE] no it isn't
There's a lot of inaccuracy in the math video. Plus a fact he seems to just have pulled out of his ass.
[QUOTE=J Paul;35693528]How he could be so invested in [i]any[/i] of it is what boggles the mind, but of course, nobody could realistically admit to believing all of this without immediately losing all credibility and he knows it.[/QUOTE] And I took that risk, friend. I know the majority of people can't comprehend or accept these concepts. And there is plenty of it that I find a bit too outrageous or better explained through other means. [editline]23rd April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lord of Ears;35693549]no it isn't[/QUOTE] To you, maybe. Again, and I don't really get why this is so hard for you to understand, all of this is based on personal experience with it. [editline]23rd April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35693551]There's a lot of inaccuracy in the math video. Plus a fact he seems to just have pulled out of his ass.[/QUOTE] Inaccuracy?
[QUOTE=sdwise;35693540]What's important is to know that everything came from somewhere and, based on that fact, everything has a grain of truth.[/QUOTE] But this simply isn't true. There are quite a lot of things out there that have no truth in them because they're completely made up by someone. It's called fiction, and it has existed since communication. Some things literally are just bullshit that someone made up. Maybe not on the spot, but made up none the less. Every thought has an anchor in experience. The important thing to remember, though, is that your interpretation of the experience is what anchors the thought, and human interpretation is not infallible, sometimes people are blatantly wrong, period. I know your 'everything comes from somewhere and has a grain of truth' ideology sounds nice, but it's just wrong. There are plenty of things that are complete and total absolute bullshit, and you can find a lot of them in the OP of your thread, coincidentally. But, like I said, there are other types of literature and film called 'non-fiction', they don't suffer from this problem. You're welcome to explore those further.
[QUOTE=sdwise;35693561]To you, maybe. Again, and I don't really get why this is so hard for you to understand, all of this is based on personal experience with it.[/QUOTE] no to everyone personal experience has no scientific basis or quality at all, in any way want proof? go drop some acid and tell me what you saw is real
[QUOTE=sdwise;35693561]Inaccuracy?[/QUOTE] I haven't watched the whole thing but he continually refers to phi as a sequence, which it is not.
[QUOTE=sdwise;35693540]Absolutely. My personal experience is just as reliable as any data.[/QUOTE] Reading this is painful. This is anecdotal evidence. Subject to bias. It is not blinded or controlled. It is not FUCKING RELIABLE. If you want to prove your shit works, do some of the following: Double blind testing (Removes bias, this is important) Collecting large amounts of data (Very important, Andrew Wakefield used 12 kiddies to confirm that vaccines caused autism) Recording it accurately (This is important too) Accounting for other factors (Global temperature goes up, pirates goes down. Pirates cause global cooling.)
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35693600]I haven't watched the whole thing but he continually refers to phi as a sequence, which it is not.[/QUOTE] Fibonacci is a sequence based on the Phi ratio. I believe that is the distinction. [editline]23rd April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=J Paul;35693593]But this simply isn't true. There are quite a lot of things out there that have no truth in them because they're completely made up by someone. It's called fiction, and it has existed since communication. Some things literally are just bullshit that someone made up. Maybe not on the spot, but made up none the less. Every thought has an anchor in experience. The important thing to remember, though, is that your interpretation of the experience is what anchors the thought, and human interpretation is not infallible, sometimes people are blatantly wrong, period. I know your 'everything comes from somewhere and has a grain of truth' ideology sounds nice, but it's just wrong. There are plenty of things that are complete and total absolute bullshit, and you can find a lot of them in the OP of your thread, coincidentally. But, like I said, there are other types of literature and film called 'non-fiction', they don't suffer from this problem. You're welcome to explore those further.[/QUOTE] And all fiction has no inspiration from the real world? Well, isn't that interesting.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience[/url] "Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories."
[QUOTE=sdwise;35693649]Fibonacci is a sequence based on the Phi ratio. I believe that is the distinction.[/QUOTE] It isn't. He makes clear reference to the "phi sequence" and Fibonacci sequence as being different things.
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;35693594]no to everyone personal experience has no scientific basis or quality at all, in any way want proof? go drop some acid and tell me what you saw is real[/QUOTE] 70% of what we "see" is made up by our minds anyway, so are all your precious "scientific observations" baseless on that principle?
[QUOTE=sdwise;35693668]70% of what we "see" is made up by our minds anyway, so are all your precious "scientific observations" baseless on that principle?[/QUOTE] [citation needed]
Also, phi being the root of all sequences because it can be determined from two terms and every other sequence needs three is made-up hogwash. It does't make any sense. I can come up with a sequence that mimics whatever the "phi sequence" he refers to is for any number of terms but is distinct from it.
[QUOTE=sdwise;35693649]Fibonacci is a sequence based on the Phi ratio. I believe that is the distinction. [editline]23rd April 2012[/editline] And all fiction has no inspiration from the real world? Well, isn't that interesting.[/QUOTE] INSPIRATION, yes. Inspiration means nothing. We were inspired to build high artificial structures because spatially speaking, you can build up and out, some people chose one over the other, those people happened to all build either pyramids or dirt mounds. But that doesn't necessarily have some kind of supernatural meaning. Also you entirely misconstrued my statement and then failed to realistically address any of it so you are clearly a troll. And this wasn't the first time, it's happened with pretty much every response you've made to every post I've made. So I feel betrayed good sir.
[QUOTE=sdwise;35693668]so are all your precious "scientific observations" baseless on that principle?[/QUOTE] No, since the whole basis of science is repeatable, publicly verifiable experiment to remove such bias.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35693487]I did. They are full of shit. All ideas must be put up for criticism. If it turns out that 1. It has no evidence, and 2. Somebody makes up shit/denies shortcomings in it, then it is bullshit. I can quote mine too, just watch. "Certain shortcomings in your education and upbringing may cause you to read into the relationships between astral bodies that you believe to influence your life". The fools and the cranks are people who ignore evidence when presented to them, and regurgitate bullshit. The wise people are the ones who debunk the bullshit and back things up with knowledge.[/QUOTE] neither of you have put up proof or evidence just a bunch of questions and tbh i thought this was a joke thread when i first entered haha
[QUOTE=sdwise;35693668]70% of what we "see" is made up by our minds anyway, so are all your precious "scientific observations" baseless on that principle?[/QUOTE] Source: Mein Arse.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.