₦airaland Forum

TenQ:
Don't you think that you have narrowed down the definition of EVIDENCE to strictly mean exactly reproducible and repeatable.?

Soldiers send spies to check out a position. The report of the spies form the basis of the army's move because the TESTIMONY of the spies are treated as CREDIBLE. Don't you think your definition of Evidence will disregard the testimony of the spies?

I have never been to Russia and Ukraine, but I treat news coming from there as noteworthy. I don't disregard them because I can't perform a physical experiment on them.

In a case were two opposing views lack your kind of evidence, the one who can give useful information should be treated more seriously. Do you disagree?

Spies come back with evidence, they don't come back with word of mouth.

Evidence needs to be corroborative, you can't call contradictory evidence to your narrative evidence.

LordReed:
Spies come back with evidence, they don't come back with word of mouth.

Evidence needs to be corroborative, you can't call contradictory evidence to your narrative evidence.

They don't have to come back with anything. A report is sufficient when pictures, hard paper, documents ...are not available.

Many times, they don't even have an exact number of tanks, artillery, infantrymen located in a position but their judgement of estimates are still regarded as credible enough for the captain's to work upon.

SHALOM!

Irupetepete:
All these are lies..
I was dead for over an hour this year, I saw nothing..
I repeat, you see nothing.
When I woke up, I could have fabricated convincing lies, atleast more than 70 people saw me lying dead..
If I told them I saw things, they will believe and help spread the lies..
So if anybody tells you he died, woke up and saw things, slap sense into their empty heads

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DYING AND SEEING NOTHING.

There is no such thing as [i]SLEEPING [/i]without Dreaming.

The "normal" Mind is only 1% aware.

During sleep, the Mind relinquishes Physical Processes, such that the Consciousness can focus on aspects of Reality that it cannot afford to , during wakefulness. Therefore, depending on how far from Normal Reality the Mind shifts its focus, one may, or may not recall whatever it experiences during Dreaming.

Death is similar.

When a person who is not Spiritually-Active has rich stories of what happened during a Near-Death, or Actual-Death Experience, it is probably either a fabrication or a Hallucination.

A person who can recall everything that happened to them during a Death-Experience must have other Spiritual Manifestations as well.

KENNETH ERWIN HAGIN was a Spiritual MONSTER, who Healed himself of three terminal conditions at once.

As a schoolboy, he could, on demand, recite the contents of any page of any textbook book.

This ability is consistent with Post-Mortem Memory.

CARLOS CASTANEDA taught that memory the sort of perception of a Deep Spiritual Experience that cannot be recalled afterwards cannot even be remembered in Dreams. However, with special training- which he taught in turn- everything one has experienced, Spiritually or Physically, can be completely recovered.

In his case, during his Nagualism Training, he reported what he experienced in Normal Consciousness.

After many years (15?) he was able to recall things that took place during times when he thought he had "blacked-out."

He was taught the True Secrets of the Order in a special state of Awareness called THE SECOND ATTENTION.

His Nagual Benefactor used a Spiritual Shortcut to activate the state instantly.

After some time- hours into days- he would return to FIRST ATTENTION Awareness, and be unable to remember ANYTHING that happened while his was in THE SECOND ATTENTION.

The Plan of the Order was that he should be given exercises and instructions to follow, that, if executed faithfully, would enable him to discover and enter THE SECOND ATTENTION without the Benefactor's help.

But if he did not take THE FIRST ATTENTION Instructions seriously, he would never recall the True Secrets of the Order- so that they would remain Secret.

[See: JOURNEY TO IXTLAN: The Lessons of Don Juan (1973).
THE EAGLE'S GIFT, by Carlos Castaneda (1981).
THE FIRE FROM WITHIN, by Carlos Castaneda (1985).
THE POWER OF SILENCE, by Carlos Castaneda (1987).]

THEREFORE, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REMEMBER WHAT YOU EXPERIENCED WHILE YOU WERE DEAD.

TenQ:
They don't have to come back with anything. A report is sufficient when pictures, hard paper, documents ...are not available.

Many times, they don't even have an exact number of tanks, artillery, infantrymen located in a position but their judgement of estimates are still regarded as credible enough for the captain's to work upon.

So a captain sends out 3 scouts in a particular direction and distance. They all reach the same spot and come back. 1st one says there are enemy combatants advancing on our position. 2nd says I didn't see anybody. 3rd says I only saw farmers working. Which of the 3 is the captain supposed to believe?

@ L-Reed,

Over the last couple of days, each time I attempt to quote you and respond to your last revert on this thread, I am instantly banned by the spambot, regardless of how I edit or re-word. So I will not quote here, and hope it turns out different. Reference is to your last query to me.

You asked how I arrived at individual intention of cells from what you said.

You see my friend, the strict materialist must contend more stringently with the hard problem of consciousness than anyone else: since he asserts that all things are material only, he must perforce locate consciousness in physical matter.

And this physical matter consists of cells, neurons and the chemical interaction of such, which the materialist must imbue with individual and collective intention and motivation, if he is to derive consciousness and personality therefrom.

You asked how your worldview eliminates personal responsibility?

Here goes -

If we consist entirely of chemicals, you cannot hold chemicals responsible for moral or ethical decisions as chemicals lack moral agency: and therefore you cannot hold anyone responsible for anything morally or ethically. Indeed you cannot hold anyone responsible for anything, period.

You would have to say that everything is simply just always the chemicals at work, nothing more.

Indeed this hacks back to your first question and also answers it - because if you insist that we are strictly material and also insist on personal responsibility, then you are automatically imbuing cells with intentionality and motivation - because we otherwise know that mere chemicals cannot have moral agency.

If you place moral agency on them, you have placed intentionality and motivation on them.

Capisce?

DeepSight:
@ L-Reed,

Over the last couple of days, each time I attempt to quote you and respond to your last revert on this thread, I am instantly banned by the spambot, regardless of how I edit or re-word. So I will not quote here, and hope it turns out different. Reference is to your last query to me.

You asked how I arrived at individual intention of cells from what you said.

You see my friend, the strict materialist must contend more stringently with the hard problem of consciousness than anyone else: since he asserts that all things are material only, he must perforce locate consciousness in physical matter.

And this physical matter consists of cells, neurons and the chemical interaction of such, which the materialist must imbue with individual and collective intention and motivation, if he is to derive consciousness and personality therefrom.

You asked how your worldview eliminates personal responsibility?

Here goes -

If we consist entirely of chemicals, you cannot hold chemicals responsible for moral or ethical decisions as chemicals lack moral agency: and therefore you cannot hold anyone responsible for anything morally or ethically. Indeed you cannot hold anyone responsible for anything, period.

You would have to say that everything is simply just always the chemicals at work, nothing more.

Indeed this hacks back to your first question and also answers it - because if you insist that we are strictly material and also insist on personal responsibility, then you are automatically imbuing cells with intentionality and motivation - because we otherwise know that mere chemicals cannot have moral agency.

If you place moral agency on them, you have placed intentionality and motivation on them.

Capisce?

First off, I didn't say I was a strict materialist. I said I was a methodological naturalist and I gave a summary of what that meant to me. If you are assuming I am a strict materialist then you are wrong. You'll need reassess your statements in the light of the foregoing.

LordReed:
First off, I didn't say I was a strict materialist. I said I was a methodological naturalist and I gave a summary of what that meant to me. If you are assuming I am a strict materialist then you are wrong. You'll need reassess your statements in the light of the foregoing.

I am afraid the phrase "methodological naturalist" will not suffice to dodge the exact question as to whether you believe in a non-material aspect to our reality. At first take, the phrase certainly suggests that you are a materialist. It will be unhelpful to equivocate on this.

DeepSight:
@ L-Reed,

Over the last couple of days, each time I attempt to quote you and respond to your last revert on this thread, I am instantly banned by the spambot, regardless of how I edit or re-word. So I will not quote here, and hope it turns out different. Reference is to your last query to me.

You asked how I arrived at individual intention of cells from what you said ...

It's for that reason why I shied from replying to his mention of me

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

LordReed:
It's not about having the same experiences but about having the same baseline. Having different NDEs means there is no objective "afterlife".

That remains your subjective opinion. You have never even experienced one before, neither are you an expert in any way.

LordReed:
So a captain sends out 3 scouts in a particular direction and distance. They all reach the same spot and come back. 1st one says there are enemy combatants advancing on our position. 2nd says I didn't see anybody. 3rd says I only saw farmers working. Which of the 3 is the captain supposed to believe?

Why do you assume that they all went the same direction and distance? i guess that's why you have that opinion that they must experience same thing. Ordinary vaccine that is the same dose and exactly same composition doesn't work the same experience in people. So you think it's life and death that will be the same. All humans come to Earth in life but still definitely not the same destination or experience. Same life, same Earth but all different birth experiences. Why do you suppose that afterlife which is far greater and bigger must be the same? Are you among those that wrote the laws of afterlife?

LordReed:
So a captain sends out 3 scouts in a particular direction and distance. They all reach the same spot and come back. 1st one says there are enemy combatants advancing on our position. 2nd says I didn't see anybody. 3rd says I only saw farmers working. Which of the 3 is the captain supposed to believe?

Let's assume your divergent scenarios are the only report available. The most STUPID assumption the captain can believe is that there is NOBODY!

The first and second scout show that people exist in the location. The only problem is that one is not sure whether they are civilians or advancing combatants.

It could even be that the two are correct where enemy soldiers are perfectly executing a deceptive manoever. (The combatants could be dressed as farmers).

A sensible Captain will prepared a DEFENSIVE position with his troops based on these information as he loses precious lives of his men if the enemy end up attacking. If at the end, the enemy refused to attack, he has still lost NOTHING in preparing for a defence!

DeepSight:
I am afraid the phrase "methodological naturalist" will not suffice to dodge the exact question as to whether you believe in a non-material aspect to our reality. At first take, the phrase certainly suggests that you are a materialist. It will be unhelpful to equivocate on this.

Methodological naturalist is not strict materialist so there is no equivocation or dodge going on. You jumped to false conclusions about my position simple.

TenQ:
Let's assume your divergent scenarios are the only report available. The most STUPID assumption the captain can believe is that there is NOBODY!

The first and second scout show that people exist in the location. The only problem is that one is not sure whether they are civilians or advancing combatants.

It could even be that the two are correct where enemy soldiers are perfectly executing a deceptive manoever. (The combatants could be dressed as farmers).

A sensible Captain will prepared a DEFENSIVE position with his troops based on these information as he loses precious lives of his men if the enemy end up attacking. If at the end, the enemy refused to attack, he has still lost NOTHING in preparing for a defence!

A more sensible captain will look for more information since he has widely divergent reports.

In any case give your prepare a defense response, what would be the equivalent with regards to NDEs?

Image123:
Why do you assume that they all went the same direction and distance? i guess that's why you have that opinion that they must experience same thing. Ordinary vaccine that is the same dose and exactly same composition doesn't work the same experience in people. So you think it's life and death that will be the same. All humans come to Earth in life but still definitely not the same destination or experience. Same life, same Earth but all different birth experiences. Why do you suppose that afterlife which is far greater and bigger must be the same? Are you among those that wrote the laws of afterlife?

Whether you are a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or atheist, you must walk on ground, breathe air, see the sun and feel breeze. These are basic objective experiences of any human been on the planet regardless of location or subjective experience. What is the equivalent for NDEs?

Image123:
That remains your subjective opinion. You have never even experienced one before, neither are you an expert in any way.

Neither have you nor are you an expert.

LordReed:
A more sensible captain will look for more information since he has widely divergent reports.

In any case give your prepare a defense response, what would be the equivalent with regards to NDEs?

I think the premise was set right?

TenQ:
Let's assume your divergent scenarios are the only report available. The most STUPID assumption the captain can believe is that there is NOBODY!

If you want to put the motion that one can still get more information, what would be the position of a sensible Captain?

He would prepare for a defence while seeking for more evidence: Isn't it?

As per your question with respect to the equivalence with respect to NDE, a truthseeker will assume the possibility of the afterlife while still seeking for more evidence.

It is irrational to assume otherwise!

LordReed:
Methodological naturalist is not strict materialist so there is no equivocation or dodge going on. You jumped to false conclusions about my position simple.

I don't believe I jumped to conclusions, nevertheless, to make things simple, lets assume I did. Now, to help us along with clarity, can you please tell -

1. Do you believe in the existence of non-material things
2. Do you believe that man has a non-material aspect to his being

Many thanks.

DeepSight:
I don't believe I jumped to conclusions, nevertheless, to make things simple, lets assume I did. Now, to help us along with clarity, can you please tell -

1. Do you believe in the existence of non-material things
2. Do you believe that man has a non-material aspect to his being

Many thanks.

1. Yes

2. Yes

LordReed:
Whether you are a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or atheist, you must walk on ground, breathe air, see the sun and feel breeze. These are basic objective experiences of any human been on the planet regardless of location or subjective experience. What is the equivalent for NDEs?

Perhaps the spiritual can be likened to the land of your dreams at night. Formed entirely by you, and events in your life. If it is true that man is made in the image of God, and God is said to be the creator of all things, it would not be a stretch to see how each human spirit could be the creator of its own unique spiritual reality or spiritual world. It would not be unheard-of to envision such unique spiritual worlds emanating from the spiritual being, and not the other way around.

Please note that the foregoing is only spoken "perhaps" . . .

LordReed:
1. Yes

2. Yes

Thank you, most tempted to end my line of inquiry there, but it strikes one that by non-material, you might mean something entirely different from what I have in mind, or what the theist or spiritualist has in mind. Therefore you will pardon me but I am constrained to ask - what immaterial things do you believe exist - can you give examples and secondly -what is the immaterial aspect of man - is it to be likened to an inward dwelling spirit or do you simply mean for example, thoughts.

TenQ:
I think the premise was set right?


If you want to put the motion that one can still get more information, what would be the position of a sensible Captain?

He would prepare for a defence while seeking for more evidence: Isn't it?

As per your question with respect to the equivalence with respect to NDE, a truthseeker will assume the possibility of the afterlife while still seeking for more evidence.

It is irrational to assume otherwise!

Continuing with our analogy, the captain has already assumed the possibility of an attack which is why he sent the scouts in the first place. Now that he still hasn't gotten concrete information is he supposed to just believe an attack is eminent or send another sent of scouts?

Relating this to NDEs would be the equivalent of saying where is the corroborating evidence that an afterlife exists even if we say there is a possibility of an afterlife. There are widely divergent NDEs which do not give credence to any objective afterlife experience. Do we simply say we believe in afterlife or do we say we need more information. In my case I have chosen the latter, I need more information. The information at my disposal does not lead me to conclude that an afterlife exists just like the captain cannot conclude that an attack is eminent.

DeepSight:
Thank you, most tempted to end my line of inquiry there, but it strikes one that by non-material, you might mean something entirely different from what I have in mind, or what the theist or spiritualist has in mind. Therefore you will pardon me but I am constrained to ask - what immaterial things do you believe exist - can you give examples and secondly -what is the immaterial aspect of man - is it to be likened to an inward dwelling spirit or do you simply mean for example, thoughts.

You are quite correct. What I have in mind as non-material may not be the spiritual or supernatural the theist or spiritualist thinks of. The things I refer to as non-material are primarily the mind, concepts and ideas.

LordReed:
You are quite correct. What I have in mind as non-material may not be the spiritual or supernatural the theist or spiritualist thinks of. The things I refer to as non-material are primarily the mind, concepts and ideas.

So may I take it that you believe that material things may randomly combine in such a fashion as to produce minds, concepts and ideas.

LordReed:
Continuing with our analogy, the captain has already assumed the possibility of an attack which is why he sent the scouts in the first place. Now that he still hasn't gotten concrete information is he supposed to just believe an attack is eminent or send another sent of scouts?

Relating this to NDEs would be the equivalent of saying where is the corroborating evidence that an afterlife exists even if we say there is a possibility of an afterlife. There are widely divergent NDEs which do not give credence to any objective afterlife experience. Do we simply say we believe in afterlife or do we say we need more information. In my case I have chosen the latter, I need more information. The information at my disposal does not lead me to conclude that an afterlife exists just like the captain cannot conclude that an attack is eminent.

While I have little to say on the specific matter of NDE's, I think its worthy to note that a significant proportion of such experiences do in fact recount some common denominators, such as a tunnel, a bright light, a feeling of floating or weightlessness. It would be unfair to say that these are not widespread common denominators.

DeepSight:
Perhaps the spiritual can be likened to the land of your dreams at night. Formed entirely by you, and events in your life. If it is true that man is made in the image of God, and God is said to be the creator of all things, it would not be a stretch to see how each human spirit could be the creator of its own unique spiritual reality or spiritual world. It would not be unheard-of to envision such unique spiritual worlds emanating from the spiritual being, and not the other way around.

Please note that the foregoing is only spoken "perhaps" . . .

Which is why I said the afterlife isn't an objective existing thing. I acknowledge the possibility that each person "creates" their own afterlife but so far all we have are subjective experiences that cannot be verified.

DeepSight:
While I have little to say on the specific matter of NDE's, I think its worthy to note that a significant proportion of such experiences do in fact recount some common denominators, such as a tunnel, a bright light, a feeling of floating or weightlessness. It would be unfair to say that these are not widespread common denominators.

In the analogy I gave there are 3 scouts giving 3 different reports. By way of analogy those people who report experiencing light at the end of a tunnel would be 1 scout report. If we look at all the reports of NDEs can we conclude that an afterlife exists or can we conclude that people are having subjective experiences? I think the latter is a more reasonable conclusion without further information on the matter since the experiences vary so widely.

DeepSight:
So may I take it that you believe that material things may randomly combine in such a fashion as to produce minds, concepts and ideas.

No, material things do not randomly combine to have minds.

LordReed:
No, material things do not randomly combine to have minds.

Lets take out the word "randomly" . . .

Do material things combine to form minds.

DeepSight:
Lets take out the word "randomly" . . .

Do material things combine to form minds.

Yes material things do combine to give rise to minds.

LordReed:
Neither have you nor are you an expert.

Good that you accept that we are both non-experts. My confidence is in Jesus who has been there, done that and awaits us all after death/rapture.

LordReed:
Whether you are a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or atheist, you must walk on ground, breathe air, see the sun and feel breeze. These are basic objective experiences of any human been on the planet regardless of location or subjective experience. What is the equivalent for NDEs?

Of course, NDEs are not for everyone are they? It is not a BASIC experience for us all to pass through, it is only few that do. What we have proven is that no matter the experience, we do not all have it the same. Even the way you feel when happy or when your favourite hero/team wins is not the same for everyone. It is not even the same level for you every time. This does not in any way invalidate the experience(s).

Image123:
Good that you accept that we are both non-experts. My confidence is in Jesus who has been there, done that and awaits us all after death/rapture.

Good for you! I am waiting for more concrete information.