Fat is a type of crazy

20 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Still many areas of Pattaya that exhibit post Covid recession. Flight prices are deterring many still. I would not say we have recovered yet.... what we got is Russian draft dodgers and Indians opening grotty cafes. 

I must admit some places have pretty cheap accommodation for my upcoming trip, indicating low demand, whereas in some main tourist areas it is a bit expensive. Airfares have gone back to normal in Australia but maybe not elsewhere. 

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

FYI: 

A girl once give me a book called "The Five Tibetans". 

It's yoga from Tibet designed to 'raise the Kundalini.' 

Never did the exercises.

But later I read that there are some 'dangers' with 'raising the kundalini'.

But I really never looked into it much.

Watch out with that stuff. Make sure you know what you're doing. 

Sounds like it could turn into a "bad acid trip". 

 

They seem to say it can happen from taking drugs too. Hard to comment on something I haven't experienced. A bit suspicious of things that cause such a big reaction. It either means you are opening things up and it's a good thing or you are holding something back, akin to holding or limiting your breath, and causing the brain to react in an extreme way. 

10 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's fair enough, no one can deny your common sense, but perhaps a little more general interest in spiritual research could add some ethics to science. 

If you don't see the slippery slope of a science without ethics it's ok, i guess, surely you are not alone.

Ethics can come from intuition and experience rather than from god. Not sure where ethics comes from in terms of spiritual research if not religion. 

Failings in ethics is not science's fault but discoveries make terrible outcomes possible.

The answer may lie with real world solutions and laws rather than looking for answers through spirituality. The latter may be good for some things but giving a surge of ethics to the whole world through spirituality is not something I see as realistic at this point. 

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yet, those science's limitations, which can be called sometimes aberrations, you seem to be not too willing to discuss.

In other words, science seems quite willing to help the development of technology, even when that technology is obviously unethical, for a price.

Someone may not see anything wrong with it, after all, making money is important.. yet i have the feeling that this is a wrong path for the whole world to follow..

Happy to acknowledge that science is a bit scary in its applications. Everything from atomic bombs, to artificial intelligence and chat gpt, and what technology is doing to the planet, to our psyches, etc is terrifying if you think about it. So many positives too though. 

For me the answer isn't to look for a god as gods have a bad track record both with practical ethics and of intervening and fixing things. Spiritual endeavours might help bring a kind of peace. 

I suppose the answer is to see what is reality and adapt both to the world, and to my own circumstances, as the decades pass. 

29 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

If it doesn't work it's physics.

It is a self deprecating comment among physicists saying that it is hard to make experiments work as expected - maybe due to complexity, funding, etc.

It has nothing to do with those pointing out science's limitations and whether or not in turn they reject physics.

Sometimes you think too much and miss the point. Then come to some unwarranted conclusions. 

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Why is it doing a good thing ???

It highlights that people can potentially stay a few years before getting caught !!...

 

But really, what is the harm to the public caused by overs-stayers in Thailand ?

Are they draining any resources ? taking jobs from Thais ?... those sorts of usual excuses.

 

The only difference between this guy and a ThaiElite visa holder is the amount of money paid that permits circumnavigation of the regulations.

 

The point I want to make here is that the ‘over-stay’ itself harms no one - its just a law made up by a committee of policy makers, unless of course this guy was also involved in illegal activity to maintain is stay here.

 

I get that the overstay is wrong / illegal - but bigger picture thinking makes me wonder, what harm is it actually doing to anyone & why do some people want to see these over-stayers hung from the rafters ?  

 

 

Surely a country would want to control who comes and goes.  Is your opinion the same for other countries? Use resources paid for by local taxes?  The alternative of saying anyone can come and go from any country sounds impractical and chaotic for a range of reasons. 

Somebody out there loves you

Or is confused by you, saddened by you, or wishes to present you with a trophy. But now you'll never know who that is. 

I had a beauty two nights ago. They said there had been a $800 withdrawal from my Commonwealth Bank account and did I approve it.

Don't bank with Commonwealth Bank.

They can fix it.

So I let them go through the process till they attempted to access my computer, and I got bored, and left it there. Seen lots of scammers from Bangalore and Mumbai and Kolkata on youtube, such as Scambaiter and Kitboga and Scammer payback,   so that I pretty much knew the script myself. 

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I don't criticize science because I have a grudge or agenda towards it. Far from that. I appreciate science just like you. The idea that if one is interested in spirituality he must reject science, is a fairytale. 

I know science is not hindering me and I'm not seeking for science to validate my subjective experiences. 

The problem is that whenever we talk about such experiences, the white knights of scientific inquiry here state quite unequivocally that these experiences are worthless/delusions/attempts at manipulating gullible people/ outright deceptions/lies/crazy-talk/mumbo jumbo....take your pick.

So, while you say that science as a discipline is not hindering me in my pursuit of knowledge (thank you science), it is also true that many science followers use it as a measuring tape to judge what is supposed to be real and what is not. Science itself doesn't make that claim.

Yes, Kundalini awakenings are not common, but they are also not so rare that they are statistically irrelevant. 
One may be able to facilitate its rising (I'm not sure about that), but it's not possible to predict it in any meaningful manner so that it can be researched it in a controlled environment. 

What to do?
At this point you can either forget about it, if you think there is no value in it and don't believe that's it's possible to start with.

Or, you can set your prejudice aside for a while and approach the subject with curiosity and a willingness to be surprised.
Learning opportunities often lie in the most unexpected places. Do you agree?

My previous post was about the criticism of science. It is fine though as you say to keep an open mind and see what can be from meditation or other thought or non thought processes. But I stick to my point that whatever you are doing is not inconsistent with science. Some of your conclusions may be  inconsistent with what science indicates is most likely based on the evidence. I would find some peace in that and say I can either work to develop some sort of evidence or be happy on my personal quest. 

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

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.
 

I totally accept that thoughts can affect our experience of life and have said so. Psychology. Psychiatry. Feelings.   I can't see a link between thoughts and some unknown power that results in a new reality. 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

It's not rubbish if you can get your mind around what science is. Your subjective experience is a little bit of science. You have felt or sensed certain things and drawn conclusions and , unless you are irrational, that is somewhat scientific. You can't get to the next stage of providing objective proof for whatever reason. So you can say, my subjective experience was so strong and alarming that I believe it is a sign of something such as god, and I accept others won't believe it if they haven't had the same experience. That's enough. Science isn't wrong not to stand on the roof tops and say Tippaporn experienced this so we should all believe it. It is what it is. 

39 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

 

I think these days thoughts can be measured or at least identified in a form. Surely too if ideas create reality, and Seth teaches how to effectively do this, Seth followers should be statistical outliers in some form or another. Like I say I am not saying what is or isn't but I do find criticism of science not fair. 

40 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The evidence requested has to fit in their own framework to be accepted. If the evidence doesn't fit that framework, then it's not considered evidence. That's the problem. How can you take subjective data and expect to measure it with objective tools? 
Has sciences ever seriously researched the kundalini? Not that I know of. Yet, this phenomena has been described throughout history, by sources unrelated to each other, and I can personally attest to its validity. 

So, now you have this phenomena that is real (unless one is arrogant enough to say that people who experienced it are all delusional, liars or both), but can not be measured as you would measure the voltage of an electrical current. What does that mean? That it doesn't exist? Does it mean we should ignore it, until science may or may not catch up and validate it some time in the future? Even if you're a hardcore materialist, one would expect a healthy human curiosity as to why people claim to have had the same or very similar experiences. Even if it's only a physiological or psychological effect.

You've been here for a while now. Do you think I'm a liar? Do you think I'm incoherent and delusional? 

It must be said very clearly:
Science is great, but it is NOT the only source of knowledge.

Can science tell you who you are? Who can? 


PS: I do think Seth's teachings are valid, but I'm not qualified to defend them, nor am I interested in doing so. I prefer to speak from my own experience.

I see what you are saying but I think science is science and to criticise it is like saying a human should have 3 legs. When you experience who you are, or the positive effects of kundulini, that is a form of evidence. But evidence of one subjective opinion has limited worth and I am sure you'll agree that is appropriate.

Even if you can't measure the individual effect you could statistically measure say the positive outcomes of yoga for the community. The point is science is not hindering you. If you think about it how could science say something is likely correct because a small number of  people say they had a subjective experience. If 10000 people trained in kundulini and experienced a god and this statistically had an effect different to the rest of the community then there it is - evidence. So you could gather like minded souls and build statistics or stay in your own silo and enjoy what you enjoy. If you do the latter don't criticise science is all. 

15 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The official stance of science is that "spirituality" has no place in science, so yeah, one might be critical of scientists claiming anything about spirituality.

You complain about repetition, but I repeat science has no opinion about spirituality, atoms, dolphins or anything else in the universe. It simply says that a thing needs evidence to be acceptable as credible. Credible can sound emotional but this is simply in terms of if evidence indicates it is likely to be correct. 

Seth could -

say something others couldn't know that is a real thing

come up with a theory that could be tested 

Seth followers could show, based on his theories, that they have a different statistical success in turning dreams into action due to what Seth taught them. Or that because they dream more they have more actual success than the average person. Or better health - longevity - whatever

If nothing to show that's fine - Science lets you do your thing. 

Same in Australia. Economy too weak. No wage increase. Economy too strong causing inflation. Limit wage increases to curb inflation. The worker cops it both ways. 

I saw it in the paper but in fact online. Don’t say it much now. 

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

One can think of nature at it's most microscopic and realise that it was created or one can be of the opinion that it is all just an accident. I believe it was created, but do you think it is all just an accident, and if so we are just an accidental species, of no more importance than an ant or a cockroach?

Likely we are the same. Maybe humans are significantly different to other life forms through evolution rather than god anointing us in some way. We can have man made rules that killing a cockroach is less significant because we perceive them as less alive in a sense based on awareness, consciousness, and the way they live. Not sure justified or not. Keep in mind the sunset you find beautiful is in the environment in which humans evolved. Warm weather, beautiful things etc feel good for us, in my opinion, as an adaption by humans to the world not a god made world created to be beautiful to humans. 

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Apparently you think that science knows everything 5555555555555555555

Science doesn’t know anything for sure. I am saying that unless there is somewhere in the universe where thought and questions are impossible you can consider what is going on where you are and if you don’t simply rely on your feelings, but feelings can be a factor, but look at what is going on and attempt objectivity that is all science is. If you see the sunset you mentioned it makes you believe in god. You could stop there and have faith that it is god. Or you can ask yourself why you think it is a sign of god ie what is the feeling that suggests god, could there be other explanations, what might god be that makes me feel this way. Those questions are the beginnings of science. The alternative of faith might work better for you and that’s fine. 

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, at least we know the name of your God.

I would say, however, that your god is a human construct, and it's totally insignificant in the spiritual world.

When you dream, you are in a spiritual world, and you cannot measure anything there.

I have said this before but even in the world of god, dreams, spirituality, the 10th dimension, things may work differently but that difference can be described and is science. Even if no rules apply that is  a thing that can be described and science can attempt to work it out to make the dream world consistent with the known world. If there is a different so far unknown world.

4 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

The relativity of simultaneity seems to be a condition unique to the physical/material universe or 3D (4D if you count time). The timelessness Tippaporn is talking about(Ithink), becomes plausible when talking about higher dimensions (5D+). 

In essence, the relativity of simultaneity is bound to 3D and doesn't apply to 5D+.

 

In that sense, you may be both right.

No. Elad  is correct unless you can show how the rules are different in the 5th dimension and why the rules he discusses don’t apply. Science is everywhere by definition including heaven and the 5th dimension and in everyone’s head and spiritual world. Nowhere to hide.