Then you're asking if one yet to be proven theory proves another.. I have to say no.. there is nothing to suggest what shooey talks about is, or could be true.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be explored... like any theory... im all for exploring... but ithink a lot of what gets described could be dysfunction in the brain

Last edited by Bop (2013-08-23 13:14:50)

Have you gone into yuca mode?

There is nothing to suggest anything and everything is possible therefore no I dont have to agree even on possibilities... what would the math be on that. Are you suggesting all absolutes are off?

Yes we should explore what people like shooey say... but I dont have to be willing to suggest even for a second its for the same reasons he suggests.

I think that's a pretty fair stance on it.

My direct answer is no, there is no reason to believe it true. Should it be explored, yes... why because no matter what the outcome we gain knowledge. .. I have watched hundreds of hours worth of videos on shamanism, psychedelic drugs etc. Im yet to be convinced of any of that being anything other than brain dysfunction and chemical manipulation.. which interests I also am interested in the abstractions they may or may not represent.

Yes from what we've already observed of brain function..

I was serious.

You completely missed the point.

This thread is so weird, Dudley should be in it.

If I may...

...seems to me that Liam is arguing from the perspective that anything, up to and including 'beings of light' are possible since the universe is truly full of unknowns.  This is valid to a certain extent; one thing that makes me laugh is how sci-fi movies, for the most part, portray the aliens from other worlds as bipedal beings with two arms and some sort of talking-hole near the top.  Lots of unknowns out there.  I have even heard scientists opine that for a world to be inhabited, it must have water.  This is nonsense.  We have no way of knowing that the first alien species we encounter won't be a super-intelligent race of carburetors, or silicon blobs with no need for water.  OK, when we think this way, there is plenty of room for beings of light, third eyes and whatever else we can dream up.  It's an infinite place, so there's bound to be some cool shit out there.

Bop, on the other hand, seems to be arguing from the classical logic standpoint.  No proof=no beings of light.  This inevitably leads to a Russel's Teapot kind of thing; the claim being since there is no real evidence against (we can't see Shooey's 'beings of light' (BOL from now on, trademarked by ExpandingManCo LLC)), then they must be real, or at least possible.

"Possible" is where these two worlds collide.  Sure, it's possible that the BOL's exist, along with aliens, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, a Bruce Springsteen record worth owning and all the other improbable things that people claim to have seen.  But without some clear definitive proof, something reliable and repeatable, it's hard to be anything but skeptical about these things.

Personally, I think Shooey's being metaphorical with his BOL's.  I know he's into meditation, and that kind of thing really can make you see things differently.  The BOL's are you; the Ur-you, the original you, from before you were corrupted by 'knowledge'.  A baby doesn't hate, envy or covet.  These things are learned and can't be unlearned.  Even the most placid and serene guru occasionally feels a bit of lust when he sees the perfect pair of chestnut brown wholecuts.

I am arguing what you describe in a round about way EM. But I'm arguing from a point of principle rather than on any one point specifically.

All my point is, is that with no evidence for or against something (anything) being real (existing) you cannot say for certain that something is unreal (does not exist) just as you cannot say for certain that something is real (does exist).

No evidence for/no evidence against existence= potential to be either in existence or not in existence.

That's fairly easy to grasp and very neat.

It's far neater than;

No evidence for or against existence=does not exist


Don't you think?

or multiple combinations of A - Z if you have zilch to work with.

I just wanted Bop to see the flaw in his logic.

I don't want to speak for you Bop (Christ knows there's too much of that around already) but your (apparent)  view that despite there being as much evidence for the existence FOR something (anything) as there is for something (anything) NOT existing, you could not accept the possibility that it COULD exist yet you were were happy to conclude that it definitely DID NOT exist following the same thought process.

That seems illogical to me.

Accepting the possibility that that something (anything) does or does not exist seems like the only logical option to me.


Also I didn't like the idea that you were mocking another forum member just because he believed something different to what you happen to believe at this point in time.