11-05-2011, 12:00 AM
seesaw wrote:To a certain extent i agree with you about treating all info as fiction until verified. Its a nice concept but actually insanely difficult to do and potentially futile even should we start the task.
When you say we should empirically test everything, what everything? gravity thermodynamics electromagnetics conductance, maths, time, mass, (and this is just from physics.) Then counter check and verify every single one of our empirical verification tools with every single other empirically tested item of data we have gathered.
Realistically its not possible. What we end up doing is making generalisations about the world. A large amount of this is guess work, we accept stuff cos it feels right. Doesnt mean it is right. Its like this statement about empirically testing and verifying everything. If you really test everything then you must include testing the concept too. The moment you do subject the concept to scrutiny it starts to unravel. I am guessing its something that felt right to you but that you didnt check with the same amount of energy that it proposes. Thats a guess btw, a deduction of best fit. I am somewhat prepared to be wrong. Ie i would be surprised but I think i am probably right.
Yes certain people specialize in the empirical verification of phenomena. Engineers, scientists, even philosophers mathematicians and tax inspectors. But i am unaware of anyone who has personally verified every single item issue and subject to those levels. Even if they had, there would always be more knowledge sets outside of what they knew that they would have to check against in order to eliminate uncertainty. How many data samples do we need to be sure? How many data samples do we need before we use can use a concept? What about best fit and fuzzy logic? What about uncertainty, risk and the unknown.
Sorry to be a twat, other than that i have started to get into your posts. Great work on sustained reaction btw. I take my hat off to you for the shere energy and drive you demonstrated.
Your argument is black and white thinking. There is a difference between verifying and empirical testing. Notice how many take what they read as fact just because it feels right? There is a difference between acknowledging that one read something and perhaps maybe it could be...and turning it into fact. Amy Wallace says Castaneda abused her. Now maybe he did and maybe he didnt. Its possible. It is also possible that it is bs. Self importance makes it difficult for one to admit that they do not know.
I thought Castanedas books were great. I got alot out of them. Disbelieving the story doesnt change what I got out of them.
I read posts on consciousness. Some are filled with Castaneda like stories. Others are grounded in personal experience. However, try to bring any sense of realism and personal experience to the story tellers story and oh boy. When hundreds of people all share a similar experience (like in NDEs) that in itself is somewhat verifying. The continuium of consciousness after brain activity slows...the feeling of peace...being out of body...sounds nothing like an eagle that eats your awareness.
We all dream. All are capable of becoming aware of themselves dreaming. At that point the very real instruction of finding ones hand is something all can do. It is accessible. Plausible. Trying it verifies it.
However, running past the eagle doesnt start where one becomes aware that they have died. So it is not accessible. No one can verify it. It is not a shared experience.
When you say we should empirically test everything, what everything? gravity thermodynamics electromagnetics conductance, maths, time, mass, (and this is just from physics.) Then counter check and verify every single one of our empirical verification tools with every single other empirically tested item of data we have gathered.
Realistically its not possible. What we end up doing is making generalisations about the world. A large amount of this is guess work, we accept stuff cos it feels right. Doesnt mean it is right. Its like this statement about empirically testing and verifying everything. If you really test everything then you must include testing the concept too. The moment you do subject the concept to scrutiny it starts to unravel. I am guessing its something that felt right to you but that you didnt check with the same amount of energy that it proposes. Thats a guess btw, a deduction of best fit. I am somewhat prepared to be wrong. Ie i would be surprised but I think i am probably right.
Yes certain people specialize in the empirical verification of phenomena. Engineers, scientists, even philosophers mathematicians and tax inspectors. But i am unaware of anyone who has personally verified every single item issue and subject to those levels. Even if they had, there would always be more knowledge sets outside of what they knew that they would have to check against in order to eliminate uncertainty. How many data samples do we need to be sure? How many data samples do we need before we use can use a concept? What about best fit and fuzzy logic? What about uncertainty, risk and the unknown.
Sorry to be a twat, other than that i have started to get into your posts. Great work on sustained reaction btw. I take my hat off to you for the shere energy and drive you demonstrated.
Your argument is black and white thinking. There is a difference between verifying and empirical testing. Notice how many take what they read as fact just because it feels right? There is a difference between acknowledging that one read something and perhaps maybe it could be...and turning it into fact. Amy Wallace says Castaneda abused her. Now maybe he did and maybe he didnt. Its possible. It is also possible that it is bs. Self importance makes it difficult for one to admit that they do not know.
I thought Castanedas books were great. I got alot out of them. Disbelieving the story doesnt change what I got out of them.
I read posts on consciousness. Some are filled with Castaneda like stories. Others are grounded in personal experience. However, try to bring any sense of realism and personal experience to the story tellers story and oh boy. When hundreds of people all share a similar experience (like in NDEs) that in itself is somewhat verifying. The continuium of consciousness after brain activity slows...the feeling of peace...being out of body...sounds nothing like an eagle that eats your awareness.
We all dream. All are capable of becoming aware of themselves dreaming. At that point the very real instruction of finding ones hand is something all can do. It is accessible. Plausible. Trying it verifies it.
However, running past the eagle doesnt start where one becomes aware that they have died. So it is not accessible. No one can verify it. It is not a shared experience.