Mod+ 242. OLIVER HOCKENHULL, NEURONS TO NIRVANA

Or, it could be that the charge of 'aggressiveness' is just more name-calling.
In message 642, just above you DID try to use the false logic of numbers. I successfuly rebutted it with specific examples of why it's not valid.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

Or, it could be that the charge of 'aggressiveness' is just more name-calling.
No, I pointed out your aggressiveness as an example of you arguing in bad-faith. Your goal is not to be a free-thinker but instead to win the argument.

In message 642, just above you DID try to use the false logic of numbers. I successfuly rebutted it with specific examples of why it's not valid.
Repeating an accusation doesn't make it true. And what you're talking about is the Fallacy of Popularity (Argumentum ad populum). If I'd claimed that billions of people believing in God makes Him real, I'd be committing the fallacy.

But you were talking about how using God in an explanation will turn people off, by which I assume you mean the tiny population of materialist evangelists. My point is such a small group should open their minds to the possibility of God and not reject an argument that simply includes mention of a deity.
 
I think your aggressiveness is interfering with your interpretation of what is written.

Being open minded is different than accepting something. For example, I don't believe in God though I suspect I have more reason than most to do so. However I can be agnostic about the existence of such a being and not write off the possibility.
 
No, I pointed out your aggressiveness as an example of you arguing in bad-faith. Your goal is not to be a free-thinker but instead to win the argument.



Repeating an accusation doesn't make it true. And what you're talking about is the Fallacy of Popularity (Argumentum ad populum). If I'd claimed that billions of people believing in God makes Him real, I'd be committing the fallacy.

But you were talking about how using God in an explanation will turn people off, by which I assume you mean the tiny population of materialist evangelists. My point is such a small group should open their minds to the possibility of God and not reject an argument that simply includes mention of a deity.
Here is your direct quote, and from #158, not 642 as I stated before."Seeing as there are far more believers in the world than evangelical materialists, perhaps the latter should more open mindedness toward the former." Sure sounds like the false logic of 'arg. ad populum'.

Then too, you just didn't include a ''mention of a deity'', but exactly said; '''spring from god who grounds all Being'', which if way more flakey and will put off more than just secular people.

Even the phrase you use, 'evangelical materialist' is weird sounding. Sure I and most others here do believe in matter, as we determined in the thread on the periodic table of elements(I think only one guy didn't believe the elements are real), so they are also materialists, but just somehow expect me to believe in supernatural things TOO. But the 'evangelical' part is funny. I believe in freedom of religion, so if some guy says he's hindu, or wickan, or jewish, no problem for me. If fact I don't even care if people don't accept any of the elements proven to exist, but if they feel so strongly there should be no problem with them trying to defend their positions, instead of getting guys like me banned from challenging them.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

Sure sounds like the false logic of 'arg. ad populum'.
Nope. You'd have to show where I asserted the deity is real because so many believe.

Then too, you just didn't include a ''mention of a deity'', but exactly said; '''spring from god who grounds all Being'', which if way more flakey and will put off more than just secular people.
God as Ground of Being is something discussed in philosophy, going back to at least Plato. It's really not very "flakey" at all actually. As a self-proclaimed philosopher I'd have expected you to be aware of this.

Sure I and most others here do believe in matter, as we determined in the thread on the periodic table of elements(I think only one guy didn't believe the elements are real), so they are also materialists, but just somehow expect me to believe in supernatural things TOO.
You've misunderstood what it means to be a materialist, versus a dualist or panpsychist or idealist. I'd suggest looking up the bold words in Wikipedia.
 
Even the phrase you use, 'evangelical materialist' is weird sounding. Sure I and most others here do believe in matter, as we determined in the thread on the periodic table of elements(I think only one guy didn't believe the elements are real), so they are also materialists, but just somehow expect me to believe in supernatural things TOO. But the 'evangelical' part is funny. I believe in freedom of religion, so if some guy says he's hindu, or wickan, or jewish, no problem for me. If fact I don't even care if people don't accept any of the elements proven to exist, but if they feel so strongly there should be no problem with them trying to defend their positions, instead of getting guys like me banned from challenging them.
Do you think existence itself is natural? Do you believe in time? And what is the tactile sensation you call physical? Is it a mental constraint, the feeling of your particular locus perhaps? How do you explain origins without infinite regress? Then is causation necessary? Is that normal and natural from your locus?
 
Nope. You'd have to show where I asserted the deity is real because so many believe.



God as Ground of Being is something discussed in philosophy, going back to at least Plato. It's really not very "flakey" at all actually. As a self-proclaimed philosopher I'd have expected you to be aware of this.



You've misunderstood what it means to be a materialist, versus a dualist or panpsychist or idealist. I'd suggest looking up the bold words in Wikipedia.
I gave you your exact quote from message #158 ''Seeing as there are far more believers in the world than evangelical materialists, perhaps the latter should more open mindedness toward the former"" If you won't even stick up for your own direct quote, how can you talk to a guy like that?

Ah, so a 'materialist', is not just a guy that believes that matter actually exists, but is a euphemism for something else? But how then do we account for those who have said that they themselves, like me, did really believe in matter, but just criticize me for NOT believing in the supernatural?

I guess I can put you down then on my informal survey as one of those who does accept the periodic table of elements. So far only one of you doesn't.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

If you won't even stick up for your own direct quote, how can you talk to a guy like that?
Already stuck for it when I explained the difference between being open-minded vs accepting something as reality. A genuine free thinker isn't deterred by terms like "Ground of Being". Only someone who is more concerned with dogma would let the gustatory feeling of something being "flakey" put them off reading something.

Ah, so a 'materialist', is not just a guy that believes that matter actually exists, but is a euphemism for something else?
It's a philosophical term.
 
Already stuck for it when I explained the difference between being open-minded vs accepting something as reality. A genuine free thinker isn't deterred by terms like "Ground of Being". Only someone who is more concerned with dogma would let the gustatory feeling of something being "flakey" put them off reading something.



It's a philosophical term.
OHHH, you mean like this philosophical definition maybe; ''Philosophical materialism (physicalism) is the metaphysical view that there is only one substance in the universe and that substance is physical or material. Materialists believe that spiritual substance does not exist. Paranormal, supernatural, or occult phenomena are either delusions or reducible to natural forces."

By THAT definition I'm not a materialist, because I don't believe that there is only ONE substance in the universe. I believe there are about 114 or so, and I have really good reasons for it, not an irrational or dogmatic belief.

You didn't just say, ground of being, but did exactly say ''God as Ground of Being'', sounds kinda different, right? Why did you change the quote?
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

You didn't just say, ground of being, but did exactly say ''God as Ground of Being'', sounds kinda different, right? Why did you change the quote?
Typing quickly, no change in meaning intended. I'll concede perhaps lower case might be the better way to go about it.

Though "Being" refers to a specific philosophical consideration and God is usually capitalized.
 
Do you think existence itself is natural? Do you believe in time? And what is the tactile sensation you call physical? Is it a mental constraint, the feeling of your particular locus perhaps? How do you explain origins without infinite regress? Then is causation necessary? Is that normal and natural from your locus?
Yes, I believe that our existence if part of the natural world, and I believe in time. I shouldn't say I believe in it, I guess I should say I accept the evidence that proves it. Tactile, no problem, well described in biology and other fields, and various things going on like 'mental constrainsts', placebo effects etc. I don't have to explain origins, there is no shame in admitting you don't know something; maybe you feel ashamed, I don't, and neither do scientists. Causation/co-relation, not specific enough.
 
Yes, I believe that our existence if part of the natural world, and I believe in time. I shouldn't say I believe in it, I guess I should say I accept the evidence that proves it. Tactile, no problem, well described in biology and other fields, and various things going on like 'mental constrainsts', placebo effects etc. I don't have to explain origins, there is no shame in admitting you don't know something; maybe you feel ashamed, I don't, and neither do scientists. Causation/co-relation, not specific enough.
Okay, I see where you're comin from.
 
Typing quickly, no change in meaning intended. I'll concede perhaps lower case might be the better way to go about it.

Though "Being" refers to a specific philosophical consideration and God is usually capitalized.
Still sounds just as flakey upper or lower. Anyway I don't accept any of the 8 million + gods posited by man, so it doesn't matter. But if you did a street survey of regular people and asked them about ''God as ground of Being'', they'll probably think you're a hare krishna or some other religious fanatic.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

I want to start out by saying that I agree with Michael in that true spiritual growth can be a tricky business. The ego can have a million fingers, all in disguise it seems. There are traps and pitfalls and blind alleys that even very realized folks can wander into, lost for months or years until someone more experienced throws them a rope. But the beginner doesn't need to worry about those things. The beginner needs to sit on the cushion and see for the first time and watch their breath...

Michael’s appeal to doctrine is narrow minded and laughable. I would gladly wipe my bottom on the paper doctrine of the International Order of the Sufis and I think that Nasreddin would have a chuckle and understand exactly where I was coming from. That is only paper and paper is made for wiping bottoms. I have actually taken psychedelics. I know what the experience was for me. I don't need the International Order of the Sufis to tell me what is and what is not a genuine spiritual experience. I have my own spirit! I may be stupid from here to Sunday, but I have enough awareness to understand some very basic things about the nature of my own spirit, mind and ego.
Your post started off well, and I was preparing to give it a like until you strayed into bottom-wiping territory. Let me say first that I have no idea whether or not the International Order of Sufis is a genuine school: I only say that that particular statement reflects my own views on the subject of the use of psychedelics, and certainly comports with what I have studied about Sufism.

You may have noticed that the quote grants that drugs can bring a certain amount of insight, but that ultimately they are counterproductive. I am glad if using psychedelics opened your mind and hope that subsequently other kinds of researches have led you in fruitful directions. Maybe as an initial eye-opener, there's some merit in them, but my view is that beyond that they lead one down the wrong path and may eventually dull rather than sharpen the capacity for spiritual growth.

People seem to have the idea that Sufism is "classical", almost frozen in aspic. On the contrary, it's an extremely adaptive and organic thing. And some Sufis have actually tested out psychedelics to see how the experience compares with experiences gained through Sufi practices: the verdict is that the former are counterfeit. As to Sufi practices, those constantly evolve: ones that were effective in, say, mediaeval Turkey, like dervish whirling, aren't effective any longer; in fact, just like psychedelics, they may now be counterproductive. That's one aspect of Sufism's organic nature, showing how it is adapted by those competent to do so according to the particular constraints of time, place and people.

There's no substitute for reading Idries Shah on the topic. He wrote many books, but the seminal one is his "The Sufis", available on Amazon. You say psychedelics opened your eyes; well, that book is what opened my eyes some 40 years ago. It's quite astonishing, and will help people see how confusing things are these days: people aren't able to make out the characteristics of religion/cultism and distinguish it from spirituality, or how conventional religion can be of use as a stepping stone towards spirituality, at some stage to be discarded or interpreted in unaccustomed ways.

Loneshaman, I love ya ta bits and on many issues we are of one mind. I don't want any animosity between us, so on the issue of psychedelics we're going to have to agree to differ. We'd be here till kingdom come if I chose to deconstruct what I see as the fallacies in the points you have made, and it wouldn't achieve much. So to you and to Chuck, I make a offer. If you haven't read "The Sufis", I will happily let you each have a copy for free so long as you will agree to read it cover to cover. You may discover, as I did, that it's more than a book: it's an organic, living entity with the capacity to change people. If you want to take me up on this, please raise a private conversation so I can make the arrangements.
 
D. Shropshire, you're beyond stuck on stupid and IMO shouldn't be contributing to Mod+ threads. I have put you on ignore and hope others do the same. I've also reported you and hopefully this time you'll be banned permanently from Mod+ threads.
It's easy to SAY a person is stupid, but in my case you haven't SHOWN it. That's much harder, right? If all you've got is such name-calling, maybe you should be the one that is banned.
In fact today, one of you agree that nothing supernatural has ever been proven, do you propose to ban him too?
 
Top