Enlightenment?

How do they profit from getting someone to stand in the middle of a looped garden hose? I don't understand how this is any more than simple poor judgement.

People will always buy snake-oil, not just the mentally ill but also the stupid, it's not really any different from an astrology column in a newspaper.

I despise crappy new-age pseudoscience more than most, and the fact that it preys on the vulnerable is the things about it I despise the most.

Well Mr Yan, As per your invitation to do so, I am responding herewith... I cannot comment specifically on the forum you mention, because I am unaware to which forum it is to which you are referring - any chance of a link or sommat? Regarding the aforementioned topic, in more general terms, I have let it know elsewhere on these pages that on the nature of the universe, aspects of so-called "mental illness," fate, destiny and other such "pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo" and so forth, my views tend towards the unothordox and frequently unpopular. I maintain such views not for their own sake and in order to be unpopular, but because I genuinely believe the mind, the structure of reality, etc, are unfathomably strange and mysterious things, to which conventional scientific wisdom can only shine but a partial light on the truth thereof. I do however strongly maintain the following... Exploitation in any form is unforgivable. The myriad books that presently exist on topics such as “spirituality,” “mysticism” and so on present a myriad views on how to live our lives, how to interpret our experiences and how to react to the “energies,” personalities and experiences around us. Such views, like all views, may or may not be valid, but ultimately we as individuals should ultimately make our own minds up on such things. Where an individual or an organisation, particular those in positions of particular power or influence, appear to be using their position to exploit those who for whatever reason are unable to “make up their own mind,” I again maintain that such behaviour is unforgivable and should be fought against. I nevertheless feel it is important to maintain an open mind on, for example, what is/are the source(s) of “mental-illness” (which may be purely physical, but may to some degree also be down to other more esoteric influences (in my opinion)). I admit I’m being pretty generalistic in some of the above, but this is to a large extent down to the thing which I am about to bring up in “The Jeremy Clarkson Thread”... ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

They shouldn't claim such priveleges - whether or not they do (and I do believe that they do) is a different matter! I am as opposed to people dissing science as dissing various forms of "spiritualism/mysticism" - or at least dissing an open minded viewpoint which allows for the possibility of alternative explanations for aspects of reality and mind. What I am also definitely opposed to is a presumption that orthodox science ("science" being something which covers a very wide range of knowledge-bases) has all the answers (at least potentially) and is not subjective. There is definitely subjectivity in science - particularly with respect of such fields which relate to consciousness, evolution, cosmology and quantam physics... i.e. the sorts of things where direct observation of phenomena becomes, at certain levels, impossible. Theories and conjecture abound in science - as you, my friend Yan, reader of Dennett and the like, should know! And much scientific study does not entail a sort of Tabula Rasa discovering of “what is out there” and a seeking after knowledge and truth, but more a proving of theories devised by individuals whose careers and livelihoods are based upon such. I’m not a total cynic though, much as it may seem so. I love science, me! ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

May I just say at this juncture that I find myself wincing at my own blanket usage above of terms such as "Science," "Mysticism" and so forth, as I think anyone ought to agree that such fields of human thought and endeavour are extremely wide ranging in scope, and arguments and viewpoints pertaining to such should, ideally, be expressed with more specific reference to particular and descriptive aspects. That said... I reiterate that I believe exploitation to be wrong in whatever context, particularly where it refers to taking advantage of those in positions of physical and mental vulnerability. Unless there is substantial evidence that particular forms of "therapy" actually work, then yes, perhaps the law should be stricter in restricting or even banning their usage. However... I do feel there is a danger in trusting 'Science' too much. No, it doesn't necessarily 'deal the honest hand.' Politics, subjectivity and personal career objectives do influence the direction of particular studies... although one would hope that there are enough true, 'pure,' uninfluencable (?) scientists out that to substantially counteract such factors. Also... There comes a point in some disciplines where 'Science' and 'Mysticism' need not be directly opposing forces. I do, for example, refer to such aspects of quantum physics where we ('they') speak of quarks, photons, string theory and the like - being phenomena which are not directly measurable except by tools which have specifically been designed to measure them. We seem to have got to a point where we have discerned that the universe is constructed of mysterious forms of energy, but beyond that numerous theories and conjectures abound... and isn't this pretty similar to what numerous so-called 'Mystics' and the like are saying? Well anyway, there we are... and stuff... Back to you! ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

By the way, no I haven't heard of... 'teapot-ism' or the 'spaghetti monster' ... wazzat then? ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

Erm... I admit there are gaps in my own knowledge... what's "entanglement" and "decoherence" all about then? Speaking for myself (because I can't speak for all "pseudoscientific mystics and spiritualists"), I am personally constantly on a search for the "truth" about such things as the nature of consciousness, the soul, the structure of the universe, etc. There are some things I believe, things I just feel to be true - but there is nothing for which I wouldn't allow the possibility of being convinced that I may be wrong. I don't (well I try not to) use science to back up my spiritual/esoteric beliefs or vice versa, but it does seem to me that certain "mystical types" are just as prone to being close-minded about aspects of their beliefs as more rational "scientific types." I think there are levels at which what seem to be opposing forces could actually not be entirely speaking different languages. Personally I might throw out words like "God" and "Spirit" and "Soul" and... ooh, I dunno... "Life-force" or whatever... but only because these words are the best ones I can find or think of which come some way towards explaining what I believe to be (somewhere near) the "truth." I’m no expect on quantum physics or cosomology (for example) - very, very, very far from it! But in science, as well as in numerous other knowledge-based aspects of existence, there are definitely, and probably always will be... as the song which used to be the theme tune to “Question of Sport” goes... more questions then answers. One should not, as you seem to be saying, automatically leap to filling in the gaps with “pseudoscientific nonsense”. I think, however, that sometimes the disparity between “Science” and “Mysticism” is one of language and close-mindedness to at least listening to the alternative point of view. Where a person on one side says “soul,” a person on the other side may say “seat of conciousness”... and it may turn out that they mean exactly the same thing! But because each “side” is traditionally and stubbornly opposed, they refuse to see that their seemingly opposing viewpoints could inform each other rather than necessarily fight against each other. I’ve read enough about quantum physics to know that it is a complex and mysterious thing, which many of its practitioners will admit is something of an esoteric science which even they are very much only scratching the surface of... Einsteen himself didn’t “believe” in it! One thing I personally have quite a strongly held belief in is the “connectedness” of all things - okay, I admit, that’s a pretty vague term, but there are aspects of quantum physics and quantum cosmology which are “proving” (often to the bafflement of the observers) that particles and energies are somehow “communicating” which each other across vast and unexplainable distances (even times?)... Could such observations perhaps not explain “alleged” psychic ability, telekenesis and maybe even continuation of the (so-called) “soul”? Just on one final point (for now)... I do believe human instincts, “feelings” and dreams should perhaps be taken notice of more than some more “rational types” would like. There are numerous scientific discoveries that have been arrived at (or at least conceptualised) through some kind of eureka-moment, a dream or whatever, as opposed to from dilligent hours of study and reading of dry texts... if I remember correctly, Relativity is such a thing. Therefore as much as we should be extremely be wary of believing anything just because someone says they “feel” it to be true, such thought processes should not be dismissed entirely. Well there we are. Next...? ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

Nature = "Super". Therefore Natural = Supernatural. There are those of a religious bent who fear scientists will kill God. I feel it is more likely they will find Him... but "He" will not be quite what "they" expect! ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

I suspect those folks who "invented" various religions all those millenia ago were probably more aware of the "truth" of the matter than your 21st century priests, "mystics" and so on. Although they had to wrap things up in language and symbology the common folk would understand. For example, the idea of the Tao is of a mysterious universal force which no one can ever really understand... which makes a lot more sense, both spiritually and scientifically, than your bearded old chap on a cloud! ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

A fish can't whistle and neither can I. ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

Which painting do I see? I, peps1? I would presume I see the Mona Lisa, but that seems too easy... :-/ It depends what you mean by "I"... or rather, what I mean by "I"... whether I consider "I" to be all possible (identical (or not)) versions of myself... Which I don't, because I believe "I" to be only the "I" that I experience... So I would have to say that I (peps1) see the Mona Lisa... ... Go on then, prove me wrong! ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

This thread is my worst nightmare.

This is indeed an issue I have wrangled over in relation to the possibility (?) of downloading one's personality into a computer! In fact, if you weren't already aware, Horizon tonight (9pm on BBC2, I believe) looks at the very likely possibility that computers will be potentially as intelligent as humans by something like 2030... But back on topic... I am personally of the belief that however much of "me" you clone or transfer to an "artificial" medium or whatever, the "me" that "I" am will always remain so... I have never been able to get my head around how one could actually transfer, perhaps even perfectly, all the neuronal connections and whatever to another body or a computer, whilst also maintaining the continuation of the consciousness. If, for example, "I" die, but my personality is transferred into my Apple Super-Mega-iMac, "I" would still "feel" dead, would I not? Even it appears to all observers that my life and consciousness have continued... ... Bring the "soul" into it, and you add a whole other level of complexity! ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

In reverse order...! If one's entire memory was transferred to one's clone (or a 'puter or whatever), then I see know reason why the transferree would not be able to answer correctly where "they" (i.e. the transferrer) where last Thursday - of course, they wouldn't be answering correctly in terms of where they (the transferree) were, because they would be answering on behalf of and referring to the memories of the transferer... On the question of the Trinity of Body/Consciousness/Soul... similarly to the Father/Son/Holy Spirit trinity, I do believe they are individual entities and yet intricately and intimately entwined... Can Body/Consciousness/Soul be seperated? I shall have to mull on that one and come back to you! (ooh, I feel like I'm back at Philosophy class...! (except that I never did Philosophy...)) ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

Haven’t seen it yet, so don’t tell me too much! Anyway, I’ve had a mull… I think I am of the opinion that the consciousness is intimately and inextricably intertwined with the brain. Even if my consciousness (i.e. all my memories etc) was transferred to another physical matrix, I wouldn’t feel the transfer unless my actual physical brain was transplanted. This is sort of a hunch, a “feeling,” an educated guess. If one likens it to transferring more mundane forms of data from computer to computer (via an email, a floppy disc or whatever)… when one “moves” a Word file, nothing physical actually moves – not like with an old-fashioned paper file. Data is an abstract concept, which has a physical basis, but physically the information is merely destroyed and rebuilt elsewhere. It seems to me that this is what would happen if you “transfer” a human consciousness… “I” would die, but then another (albeit identical) “I” would be rebuilt elsewhere… It would seem to observers that “I” had remained contiguous (?), but subjectively this wouldn’t have been the case. Similarly with twins or clones; it may in extreme cases seem as if they share one consciousness, and even though they may indeed share a psychic link, there will still always be two “I”s. So… the soul… what is it and can it exist outside the body/consciousness? More mulling, methinks… (PS. why’s it so flippin’ qiuet round ABC at the mo? I almost miss the presence of Missi & Co!) (almost…) ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

It is quiet because you two have bludgeoned everyone to death with your wit.

Greetings, Mr Room, I don't believe we've met! (were we being witty? ... I didn't realise we were being witty... ) ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar

I thought not. I thought we were just being impressively intellectual. :-) ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar