Tippaporn

But . . . but . . . but they're not wrong wrong. It may seem to be wrong but it's not wrong at all. At least not that kind of wrong. Wrong to an extent maybe but not totally wrong. The twisted logic used to explain that wrong is not wrong is awesome to behold.

The writing is all over the wall. One just needs to read it. One can, however, choose to ignore it. And pretend that the people seeing what they clearly see are making it all up. Don't trust your lyin' eyes would then be the advice given by those who can't see the obvious.

I'm not quite in favour of social engineering by some of the worst qualified people in the world who want to control every aspect of my life. But hey, that's just me. Anyone who wants to freely walk into a jail cell is free to do so. I'd think a bit deeper before making that choice. Watch for the multitude of unintended consequences soon to develop. All bad ideas produce one guaranteed result . . . problems. Lots and lots of them.

How does one discuss ludicrous ideas in a civil, open and honest manner? "Are you in favour of restricting your freedoms in order to deal with a fictitious problem?" What's to discuss? Except perhaps how to put an end to the madness which seems to afflict so many.

Its just a common joke among scientists. Of course physics works, you only have to look at all the technology around you to know that. Just because one points out science's self-imposed limitations doesn't mean that they reject physics. The joke employs fallacious logic. The conclusion doesn't follow the premise. Which doesn't reflect well on those scientists who laugh at the joke since they obviously accept the fallacious logic as valid. They show themselves to be quite stupid in this case. And if the fallacious logic of the joke is beyond their understanding then I shudder to think of what else is beyond their comprehension.

Listen to the sound of my voice, Amy. Block out everything and empty your head. Listen only to the delightful nonsense I will fill your brain with. You will be happy. You will be sad. You will know everything but know nothing. And you will be at peace and one with the God-fountainhead-eternal-bliss of all that is in the universe and beyond. Beyond God even. Your mind will be empty yet overflowing. All will be you and you will be all and all will be yours. Trust in me only and do not listen to the voices of reason here for they will tempt you into a sanity filled world not of your choosing. Choose not what you will but only what I will for you. All for you. Only for you. Take my wrinkled and leathery hand and follow me. Meld with me. Orgasm awaits you!!! I am the Cowboy. You are the Cowgirl. We will ride each other into the sunset of stars as they fall over the edge of the universe. Outta sight and outta mind, forgotten forever. Until you awake in the land of the forever moons.

I'll bet your ar$e is still sore from the whoopin' your mum must have given you. My mum once experimented with sticking her head in a hot oven. Her hair did eventually grow back. Science is a dangerous thing. I'm actually fearful of these science-minded posters. They're mad, I tell ya. You never can tell when they'll decide to go nuclear. The religious types aren't much to worry about for me. Damn me to hell but what the hey? I live in Thailand so I like it hot.

Ever hear about mind over matter? Well, truth be told mind creates matter. But I can tell you're not ready to hear the how and why. Just to note. The emoticon is applicable to only the last sentence above. I'm quite serious about the others.

One of the go-to, automatic-knee jerk assumptions by the science-minded is to accuse me of not understanding what science is, or not understanding the scientific method. I guess the assumption is due to the idea that if I don't view the world strictly through the lens of scientific belief then it must be because I don't understand science. Or something like that. I dunno. You'll have to explain to me how the idea popped into your head that I'm not yet able to wrap my head around what science is and what other thoughts produced that thought. But it's something I'm accused of again and again. My dear Fat is a type of crazy. I'm well aware of what science and the scientific method is. I was a science-minded guy once, too. As a youth I almost burned down our family home with a bunsen burner whilst performing a chemistry experiment. I was lucky to get out alive. Fortunately no one in my family was home at the time and I was able to dispose of all of the evidence (except the smell) before my parents returned. I claimed ignorance about the burnt smell and it worked! My dad and mum fell for it.

I denote a contradiction gleaned from your above story. ". . . and I don't like violence. " "and making love in the hotel room . . . " On the one hand you don't believe in violence. But, on the other hand you believe in making violent love. Don't worry. You'll get used to my odd sense of humour sooner rather than later.

Thanks for being right gracious, Woof. It's much appreciated. And yes, we are all on the same side. The dark side.

Didn't we used to have a welcome shingle to hang out for newbies? Anyways, a formal welcome to Amy! In lieu of the welcome shingle this will have to suffice: Oh, I did find it after all! Someone obviously didn't put it back where it belongs.

Hi Amy! [wink, wink] Good to see you drift over here from another reality [forum]. No coincidence there. All by design. See, folks, other realities do exist! Amy is our latest evidence. Proof positive! Since you're new here (but old elsewhere - we were just recently talking about the paradox of simultaneous time) just an FYI for ya. Rule No. 1: BYO stimulants. No selling going on around here. Scout's honour!

You're crazy? When was the last time you visited your shrink? You know I'm joking. Thanks for sharing. Nice to know in case one day my source for mushrooms gets busted or something. Your friendly neighborhood cowboy, Tippers

Sorry, Woof. I was out of line with my response. I read you wrong.

Nothing is beyond criticism. If I may make an assessment I would say that the seeming dilemma the science-minded here have is that it has to be one or the other. It's either science or spirituality - or whatever other meaningless label one wants to apply to subjective reality. The science-minded cannot accept unscientific ideas and assume that if one doesn't adhere strictly to scientific principles then they conclude, erroneously, that those folk are anti-science. Rubbish. The posters here coexist with both science and un-science (I just made up a new word). There's a place in this world, an important place, for both. Science-minded folks appear to believe that it's gotta be science ONLY. Again, rubbish.

Rather than ask questions for which you will never receive satisfactory answers why not just put out the effort to find out yourself? It's easily done. But it does require effort. If anyone wants to know then it's their responsibility to find out. It's not the responsibility of any other to provide the evidence so that another can finally believe. Do the work.

The roadblock which many cannot find a way around is taking one's current beliefs about what is true or not with them while they consider ideas which are different or new. You cannot explore new ideas while at the same time comparing them with currently held ideas every step of the way. It doesn't work. It is, as you say, Sunmaster, the inability of temporarily setting aside your prejudices. Your prejudices being your current beliefs. Also known as bias. AKA preconceived notions. AKA prejudgment. AKA presumption.

The problem there, Fat is a type of crazy, is that you cannot measure, statistically or otherwise, subjective reality. Yoga may or not benefit a person. If one believes that yoga will then yoga will. If one believes that yoga won't, or can't, then no benefits are possible to be derived. To test statistically whether or not yoga is beneficial for anyone who practices it one must first know what everyone's true beliefs about yoga are. And that, sir, is an impossibility. The same for kundulini. The stickler here, Fat is a type of crazy, is the idea that thoughts have zero effects upon one's experience, let alone on reality itself. It's really a contradiction in play here. On the one hand no one believes that changing one's beliefs would change their experience - because thoughts can't do that - while on the other hand recognising quite clearly instances where the effects of thoughts on experience are quite clear. What is a hypochondriac, for instance? Everyone recognises and accepts the fact that people with no symptoms can produce illness via an irrational fear of illness. There are two separate, and contradictory beliefs in play, both held in the mind of the individual. And they flip from one to the other without the slightest awareness of holding contradictory beliefs simultaneously. Science works great when it applies itself to the purely objective world. That world is, after all, very r-e-a-l and very functional, too. It works as it does due to the laws which govern objective reality. Science has made great strides in divining those laws which exist. Yet science fails miserably as soon as it attempts to cross into subjective territory. It fails miserably because science believes subjective reality to be untrustworthy, unpredictable, and therefore unreliable. So why, then, Fat is a type of crazy, is it then inappropriate to criticise science? It's almost like taking the attitude of those devoutly religious who consider it blasphemy to criticise God. Is science God, too, in that sense? Beyond anyone's critique of it? Science is wonderful. While at the same time science sucks. It's not some paradox which can't be solved.

Imagine that there's an informational source out there which is vastly more aware than us. Maybe it's true and maybe it's not. There is, however, one very easy way to find out. By checking it out. By seeing for one's self what's there. Granted, it may be true or it may not be true. That's the risk one takes. But, if it is true then one now has access to information which can be transformation on a level that is difficult to image, The risk? Reading some books. Investing a bit of time. Why, it doesn't even require the investment of one's precious time as one can make use of idle time spent while squeezing out the turds in the loo once or twice (or more) in a day. The risk now has been entirely mitigated. I find it kinda mind blowing that there are so very, very few who would take such a risk-free proposition with such vast potential and actually act upon it. Here's what happens most of the time: "I read a few paragraphs and the ideas are contrary to the ideas which I've been taught are true. If these ideas were true then they would agree with everything I believe to be true. Even though I am fully aware that I do not know everything that is true and furthermore, there is a good chance that some of what I think is true may not be. So . . . " Now I ask, are these the thoughts of a rational mind or an irrational mind? Hmmm. Tough question there.

Oh, I wouldn't say that assessment is cynical. It's not. It is, however, very accurate.

The issue here, as I've repeated many times, is that science is incapable of proving or disproving anything which is subjective. Science confines itself to the objective world. No matter how many time that simple, easily understood concept is stated the science minded here cannot wrap their heads around it. They flatly insist that only the objective world exists. I'm not a Seth follower as follower implies being a groupie. Seth provides an explanation of ourselves and reality. That's all. If I were to study math would you call me a math follower? To call anyone who accepts the information Seth provides as valid a follower is a subtle device as follower tends to imply mindless. Okay, with that out of the way let's look at the examples of random issues you provide for which those accepting the validity of Seth's information should be able to provide evidence or better yet, proof. Proof which represents science's Holy Grail. Nothing else will do. None of your examples could ever be proven per science's methodology. Which makes the request absurd. ". . . come up with a theory that could be tested." Here's an example of why science's methodology is useless when it is applied to subjective reality. Consider this claim: You create your reality using ideas. Science can neither prove or disprove the statement. For one cannot measure thoughts. One cannot even know what anyone's thought are. Thoughts are part of subjective reality. They have no mass, no weight, no dimensions, colour, smell, taste, feel (well, your body can feel thoughts) and you can't see them. Yet they exist. Science cannot determine their effects. If they were to even grant that thoughts do produce effects. So we go round and round and round as long as the science-minded insist on ignoring subjective reality. Or insist on denying the existence of other realities. The science-minded are tethered to their limited beliefs and never even consider whether what they believe to be true is true, or whether anything exists outside of their precious objective reality. Eventually they get bored here because they just can't get their way with the folks here who understand science's self imposed limitations.

Or subjectivity. Spirituality, subjectivity - maybe same same.

????️ That's me raising my hand.

In your example you are using a friend who is receiving audio information from you, which would be slower than light. Sound travels at a much slower speed than light. Whilst technically correct . . . it takes time to receive communication, regardless, there is no such time lapse for you as you think the thought that you are then conveying to another. So your thoughts are happening in the now. And while, yes, it takes time to receive communication from another once that communication is received then the reception of is happening for the friend in his now. If you were communicating via email, or a physical letter, then of course it takes time for the communication to be received by the recipient. You, though, are typing the email or writing the letter in your now. Once the communication is received then the recipient is reading it in his now. Again, experience happens in the now moment point. Never in the past or future. The past is only the perception of experience moving in linear fashion from moment to moment. If you have any other explanations which would contradict that and prove it to be wrong then I'm more than willing to hear and consider it. If you're interested in learning more then read Seth's many explanations regarding time, what it is and our experience of it - how and why we experience it as such. This he explains in great detail as time is an integral part of our physical experience. As is space. Both must be well understood for what they are in order for other information to make sense. In the meanwhile you can't honestly claim Seth is wrong since 1) if you haven't read his explanations it would then be impossible to say he's wrong since you don't know what he's saying and 2) you can make the assumption that your ideas are correct but the possibility exists that they are not. Once you become aware of Seth's ideas then you may well indeed find your ideas to be incorrect. Perhaps not. But it may well be a fatal error to dismiss that very real possibility. For myself I don't care which answer is correct or incorrect but I will choose the one which is correct. I will not, though, defend an idea which is incorrect for the sole reason of wanting to be right in what I believe to be true. I make this point not to accuse you of trying to attempt to defend an incorrect idea. But to simply make you aware that this is a pitfall which many unwittingly fall into. One always needs to ask themselves whether this may be the case during an exchange of ideas. For if one is arguing not for truth but merely to be right then one is only fooling themselves. And if one is seeking true knowledge it will never, ever happen if one is not brutally honest with one's self.