OK, nice to see you can sometimes admit to a mistake. How about your accusation that I compared your philosophy with Neaderthal Africa?
Later in life, Ayer had a NDE where he saw a red light. Ayer's NDE made him a changed man: "My recent experiences, have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death ... will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be." (Ayer, 1988 a,b) (Read more about it from an article in the National Post and an article by Gerry Lougrhan: Can there be life after life? Ask the atheist! (by Gerry Lougrhan, Letter_From_London, March 18, 2001.)
All subject to my main objection that people interpret their experience and are fallible in that. If I post a link to someone who believes they channel alien voices, does that count as evidence too? Anyway, "has slightly weakened my conviction" - I'm sure you can find someone less equivocal than that!
In any logic. You have misrepresented what I told you about conditional logic - how every statement is only conditionally true. So every worldview is only conditionally true. Do not pretend that I did not very elaborately explain this to you. You will not read a better explanation in a paid book
"Every worldview is only conditionally true." Your worldview is conditional then. And yet it is my main objection that you don't consider parts of your philosophy conditional, but absolute. I don't read all your "elaborate" explanations, BTW, just in case you haven't noticed yet. If you can't explain something in fairly short paragraphs, they're likely to be rhetoric.
Although very short statements doesn't stop them being rhetoric either.
Here is the explanation why you stopped progressing in Yoga.
Your explanation. Ta.
Oh, and by the way I did notice your stupid strawman comparing Patanjali a cognitive scientist of his day to Catholic preists who might rape little boys.
And there again you demonstrate your inability to separate ideas from one another...or, more likely, your reluctance to think about the point made, which is that priests and gurus of all types will tell you not to doubt. My tagging a bit on the end was irrelevant - and in poor taste, I admit. You just don't want to recognise the criticism, so pounce on the irrelevant part, thus actually CONSTRUCTING a straw man argument. Everybody knows that religious views are often underpinned by admonition not to doubt, with promises of great gains and/or threats of great loss.
Your argument is a total fallacy(no surprise there) Why should I give a rats arse what skeptic.dik's think?
As I explained, because they allow you to challenge your own view rather than keeping on reinforcing it. And to demonstrate that you don't have a closed mind. We've been through all this several times.
I am interested in the actual scientific research and the data
But this is exactly what I find the best sceptical sites do. They object to people saying things like "They've proved telekinesis!", go back to the research and, as a matter of simple, observable fact, mostly find that it is flawed or highly disputable, not proven at all. Hence they conclude that it may, after all, not be true. Some of them. Of course, there are some that are less analytical and more mocking, but then that's true of any viewpoint.
and not what some idiots from highschool on the internet
And there is you dismissing an opposing view by mocking, just as you pretend is all they do. You must have gone to the wrong sceptic sites. You are deliberately putting blinkers on. There are sceptics who have spent their whole careers looking for psi, as believers, doing experiments, and failing to find it (Susan Blackmore comes to mind - she had an NDE, then spent her career analysing psi claims, finally announcing she couldn't carry on forever flogging a dead horse and retired). There are highly educated professors. It would be as silly for me to pretend that all sceptics were professors and all believers were idiots from highschool.
criticising the research when they have not even read the actual research paper
Some of them WRITE research papers.
and only criticize psi research but remain silent on what CERN research is doing think.
What the hell are you babbling on about? CERN fires particles into other particles and uses very rigid scientific rules to interpret possible meanings of the results. Psi doesn't fire anything at anything, it just says we can do stuff with our minds and then tries to see if that's true, and then, IMO, fails.
I am looking for peer-reviewed scientific research.
Well you'll find plenty that fails to show all the magic things you believe in. But you're not looking for them. See how confirmation bias works? Besides, you can't understand them without some fairly good maths under your belt.
No, the scientific method is not based on doubt.
Yes it is.
Sorry, but I am going to have to assert my credentials as my specialism is philosophy of science and you are a BSc geology dropout
And there you go again. This sentence contains an argument from authority (I must be right because I have credentials and you don't), and another of your pernicious insults. Now I'm a failed student as well as a failed yogi. That's right, keep beating up on me, I can take it. I'm a failed lots-of-things if you count all the things I've tried and now don't do. What a nice man yoga has turned you into, seeing everything people say about themselves in the worst possible light. Don't become a therapist.
- I have far more knowledge about the philosophy of the scientific method than you.
You simply don't know how much I have, so you cannot know that it's less than yours. For all you know I may have studied more of the philosophy of science than you. This is another example of your "philosophy" - making shit up. Starting with a conclusion and just making shit up to support it.
The scientific method is not based on doubt at all.
Yes it is.
First of it accepts there is a real external world
No. The evidence it looks at is what we call "the world". External, internal - these are your imaginary constructs, since what you mean by "internal" is to do with consciousness. Science does tests and sees what happens. It does them only with the things it can test, which are physical things and - with caution - mental events. If there is something "internal", in the sense of a subjective witness, science can't get at it. All of these are its general assumptions, but it doesn't ignore that they are there, it just can't get rid of them by turning to wooly concepts or authoritarian religious views.
and it has unchanging laws of nature
Nope. Dealt with. At the moment it has "unchanging laws of nature", because no observation has been made that they are untrue anywhere or at any time, but if they are found to be different somewhere or somewhen they will be changed, and someone will get a Nobel Prize. These are "assumptions", working assumptions for investigating other phenomena. Perhaps some of the mass of scientists might think them absolute, but correctly they are not understood as such. They are not absolute beliefs. They are held with as much conviction as experimental evidence gives us reason to, no more. But if science were a mere belief system, you're a bit stuck on the matter of it backing up Samkhya now, aren't you?
(If you are skeptical, you would't accept this, just like Hume didn't)
Ah, but now you've moved from "doubt" in science to "scepticism", and there are different meanings of scepticism. I'm just talking about doubt, you know, the process of not holding desperately on to an idea as absolute truth come what may. I can see what you're doing, trying to wriggle out of that and turn it round so I look like the religious bigot while you're reasonable, but it doesn't work. You believe in infallible knowledge, I don't. In fact I rather think Hume also took a practical position on life at the end of all his doubting.
Secondly, it accepts that there relationships of cause and effect between things(skeptics doubt cause and effect)
Again, you're talking about a different thing. The philosophical position of scepticism may be defined that way. I said science involves doubting, very centrally, as an objection to your infallibilism regarding your own chosen philosophy. Do you see?
Thirdly, it accepts that certain observations can be explained by certain theories using logic and mathematics(skeptics doubt observation)
You're still conflating the ideas of doubt and scepticism, and putting the straw man argument that if science were based on scepticism, it couldn't do what it does. But I didn't say science was scepticism. I said science relies on doubt. If it didn't doubt, it wouldn't test hypotheses, it would just believe them.
Fourthly, it accepts that experiments can be replicated and accepts testimony of peers(skeptics would doubt whether replication is happening)
Yes. I didn't say that scientists doubt EVERYTHING FOREVER. Only that they use their critical faculties and don't try to get rid of doubts they might have. Einstein didn't sit around going "I'd better not question my intuition about time being relative to how fast you go", and the scientific community DIDN'T believe him without testing these things in the world, enter Eddington measuring the curvature of light round heavenly bodies. The Royal Society was utterly shocked when the evidence came in, because they DIDN'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT. That required doubt, as everybody understands the word. Everybody sees this. So everybody sees that you're using sophistry and straw man arguments.
You are not a consistent skeptic and doubter. You are very much a believer. You use obvious double standards you doubt PSI researchers like Dean Radin talking about "file drawer problem" "cheating" etc - but that doubt can be used for any scientist or for any experiment. Your duplicity is comedic.
Rubbish. The doubt is removed or reduced by the evidence, depending on the quality and quantity of it. I just disagree with you about how sound the evidence for psi is, and you turn this disagreement into a reason to vilify me and pretend all sorts of bullshit about me.
What education? I am sorry but you are actually relatively uneducated even compared to me. This "education" you speak of lead you to this amazing and profound realization that "imagination is very powerful and it makes people believe in funny things" Wow! I kind of knew that when I was 5 dude Your so-called education has lead you to make stupid generalizations that just because some people make stuff up, then it means everybody is making stuff up too.
No. Again, deliberate misunderstanding rather than trying to engage. I explained very clearly that people underestimate how fallible everyone's interpretation of experience is. It is not "some people make stuff up, therefore everybody does", but "it appears reasonable to posit that everybody is fallible, and therefore reserve some critical doubt about any position". It is reasonable to assume this because of the vast amounts of evidence we have of people misunderstanding their experience.
You do know biology is based on an outdated 100-200 year old paradigm which still sees the organs of the body as separate and connected and working like a a mechanical machine?
Well it's not actually outdated. If you're ill sometime, I'd just go with it. It works, on the whole.
We have an emerging field of quantum biology now which sees the body as a single, interconnected and interdependent quantum process - very much like the Yogic view.
Yes, but it is not widely accepted. The Louise Hays and Bruce Liptons and Rhonda Byrns and James Rays of this world obviously don't mind milking it for all its worth, but that's another matter.
Again your logic goes like this "Some people fake siddhis, therefore they all fake siddhis or it is likely they are all faking siddhis" You are certainly no master in logic.
No. I said that I put my other thoughts and experiences and learnings up against the fact that there are fakers, and from all of that I consider it likely that there are in fact no real gurus with superpowers. There's a difference, but I don't expect you to admit it.
And yet you called the colour flame tests in Chemistry where we infer what substance is present in a flame from the colour dumb?
Well it is. And a philosopher should see that quite easily. I'm surprised you still bring it up. It's highly embarrassing for you. If I put mystery substance X in a bunsen flame, and the flame turns yellow-orange, and I know that sulphur does that, you're saying I can conclude with certainty that mystery X is sulphur? Are you serious? This is the crux of the doubt in science and the sceptic's critique of all sorts of claims: there may be another cause of the observed phenomenon. If you can't see that, you need help of a different kind.
And you did not know that we infer the size, shape, charge etc of atoms through the bounce of particles fired at them? I can see why you dropped your BSc - science has obviously never been your forte.
Yes, we infer the existence of atoms by firing particles at them. I said this. I also said we can't fire particles at prana or chakras, nothing is bouncing off them into any instruments, and yet you believe them because they're in some texts and you feel them to be true, as far as I can gather, added to which you have a lot of confusion (deliberate self-hypnosis, probably) about what doubt is.
It helps to constantly write about and read on these ideas because that way it becomes more internalized and natural.
Well that's fine if it's true. Dangerous if it's not.
I have come to the point where I can discuss Samkhya-Yoga philosophy without notes and as casually as a dinner conversation with old ladies!
I don't doubt it.
Another strawman and another example of just how clueless you are. Jnana Yoga is totally based on doubt.
Well all I can go on is what you said about it just now, something about using it to clear away doubt. And now you're in favour of doubt again. Jees.
It is based on the core technique of "Not this, not that" where we analyse absolutely everything in reality and negate it using doubt using logical analysis.
Oh yeah, I remember doing a bit of that. It's just more belief, the belief that doubting everything will eventually bring you to Enlightenment.
This doubt even including something we all take for granted "external reality" to even "God"(This is significant because Jnana Yoga comes from the Vedanta theological tradition)
OK, but then you believe in purusha and prakriti.
You are the complete opposite of Jnana yoigi - you are a believer - and you do not doubt your own beliefs
No, that's you. I keep reminding you, using your own words. You're the absolutist. Cearly. Undeniably. And yet you keep denying it.
You do not distinguish - it is a knowing, it is indubitable and total conviction.
No, I'll say again, I'm quite happy to consider any alternative view, even that "external" reality doesn't exist. I just don't find the arguments or evidence at all convincing, and I see a lot of psychological evidence for people believing it irrespective of its truth.
Here - below - you're responding the crucial question I asked you - how you know absolutely something you feel is true. Now, first of all, notice that if I was wrong above, and you were the relativist and I the absolutist, you would say "of course, you can't know absolutely". But you don't. You accept absolute intuitive knowledge. And so you respond:
The kind of knowing that caused Archimedes to jump out naked out of his bath and run on the streets shouting "Eureka"
So you provide an example (Archimedes) of when someone's intuition appears to have turned out to be true. That's an anecdote.
It is the kind of knowing we all get such as a "gut instinct" when we simply know something without actually knowing how we know.
So you appeal that we all know when our intuition is true. Gut feeling.
So do you deny that people ever feel they know something with certainty, because it's that kind of gut feeling, and it turns out to be false when tested against reality?
It is this faculty which Patanjali calls Prajnana which arises naturally when the mind is stilled. It arises in fact when we stop trying to "know" All knowledge after all arises in the human mind.
This is close to what I was saying. When we have an experience, it is almost impossible to deny that the experience exists in some way. But all the philosophical things we attach to the experience are statements, and as such they are interpretations of those experiences. I simply have different interpretations of my quiet moments. I explain them differently. Do you see?
The human unconsciously already knows all possible scientific knowledge
Well I find that an unsupportable assumption. It is virtually the conclusion you're trying to arrive at.
- for example Archimedes was able to know from the displacement of the water in his bath tub that mass is inversely proportional to the volume displaced. However, not everybody who has a bath notices this principle. The knowledge is unconscious we all unconsciously notice it - and some of us are able to consciously recognize it.
More assertion. You'll be able to tell me the exact temperature of the centre of alpha centauri then, I mean, advanced yogis will be able to. Advanced yogis ought to whisper in Professor Hawking's ear and sort out some of his pressing concerns. They can stop us wasting vast amounts of money on research into cancer cures, no doubt, what with the body being a quantum field, solve the energy crisis, cool the atmosphere, bring world peace...why are they not solving all our problems? Why do they let the ignorant Westerners struggle with all this, Surya Deva? It's cruel.
What about all the false beliefs of various yogis - or anybody? How come the world is stuffed full of people with absolute convictions from gut feelings, and with all sorts of deep philosophical explanations for why those must be true? One simple example - yogis, you say, knew about evolution. But I read that they considered humanity to be billions of years old. Did they have a gut feeling about that?
Strawman of my argument. I told you Schrodinger was an atheist. When he learned Indian philosophy he became Hindu. In fact he said that he was so convinced that the Hindu concepts were true, he was willing to give empirical proof for it - and he did - he created wave mechanics which was based on Hindu Samkhya and Vedanta philosophy. As I told you the "quantum field" is very old Hindu philosophy. Now, the quantum field has empirically been demonstrated with the Bell and Legett experiments. We know the quantum field exists today - in order we have proven Hinduism correct. They were right all along - this reality is in actuality a quantum field.
This may be true, it may not. I'm afraid it is impossible for me to judge, given that I am not versed in either Hinduism or quantum mechanics, nor in how they might correlate. I will concede the possibility that you're right. I know there's a whole genre of new age philosophy making all these connections between the new physics and ancient wisdom, and there's also a debate going on about whether that is valid comparison or not, including many who consider it tenuous at best. Please accept my response and take note of it: I do not know. I am agnostic on the matter.
Do you know virtually all pioneers in quantum physics have made it a point to study Hinduism and Indian philosophy?
No, nor do I know whether that is true or just one of your baseless assertions. Nor does it say how many consider the connection less than accurate having studied it.
Your philosophy of materialism is a belief system.
I suppose you could call it that. Like quantum mechanics. Didn't you say every theory gets proven wrong eventually?
As I argued earlier you actually have no logical justification for believing there is an "external reality" outside of your observation of it.
Indeed, it is part of being a fallibilist.
Whatever you know about reality is through your 5 senses. I ran you through a thought experiment earlier with a bat and a powerful microscope and proved to you that the belief of an real, external reality of distinct objects is not tenable.
I missed that. On the other hand, there is something a bit ridiculous about proposing a thought experiment involving a microscope and a bat if neither exist. Why do you suppose we both know what a microscope and a bat are? Do you suppose all the information on bats and microscopes is useless and should be burned? I don't suppose you do. By your analogy, cars don't exist, and you can go and walk in front of one without harm coming to you. I realise this is exactly the sort of things yogis say they can do when they're very accomplished at manipulating the quantum field. I am not convinced, shall we say. If wrong, it's also rather dangerous. People might drive cars into other people because nothing really exists.
However, the essential issue from my point of view is that even if the reality underlying everything is a quantum field, or nothing is real, this does not mean that human beings have nadis and chakras and prana, nor does it mean that we can walk through walls or levitate or be in two places at once, nor does it mean that practise of yoga brings enlightenment, nor that when we die we are reincarnated, nor that the law of kama is true, nor that there are three gunas, nor five sense-based kinds of stuff, nor that yogis can walk in front of cars and not be hurt, nor live without food and water indefinitely, etc.
Your argument appears to be based on the assumption that because yoga includes some descriptions of reality that can be understood as quantum mechanics (even if it that were true), that everything else comes along with it. You're not discriminating between things again.
Now, we have experimental evidence telling us exactly the same conclusion - I even gave you explicit experimental evidence earlier "Quantum physics says goodbye to reality" So your insistance on materialism is both against logic and scientific evidence - it is like continuing to believe the Earth is flat despite the fact that it has disproven now.
The article you posted a link to says "But a violation of Bell's inequality does not tell specifically which assumption ? realism, locality or both ? is discordant with quantum mechanics", and then quotes Alain Aspect: "There are other types of non-local models that are not addressed by either Leggett's inequalities or the experiment, but I rather share the view that such debates, and accompanying experiments such as those by [the Austrian team], allow us to look deeper into the mysteries of quantum mechanics."
So there's at least one physicist who doesn't jump to conclusions quite as much as you. I'm pretty sure the world is stuffed full of them, actually.
Nice attempt to distance yourself from the Randi and Dawkins Co camp, but we know you are a part of that camp - you keep linking to web sites affiliated with that ideology and earlier you explicitly mentioned Randi's million dollar challenge. Don't pretend you don't belong to that ideology.
I asked you how I am going to post things for you to consider if you don't allow them to disagree with your current position. I could equally object that you aren't allowed to tell me what Patanjali says, since that's the "camp" you belong to. In fact, it's obvious that if you reject what sceptics say, and you consider me one of them you reject what I say, immediately and without consideration, which is also my experience.
You were given evidence on PSI
No, I was directed to a talk.
and you went and checked on skepticdik.com on what they had to say on the evidence
Yes, obviously. Courts of law have prosecution and defence lawyers. Otherwise everyone gets away or everyone gets jailed.
, but never actually looked at the evidence yourself.
No. Neither have you. You already admitted that you're not much of a mathematician, and almost all of Radin's work requires that you're pretty versed in mathematics and can adequately assess all sorts of statistical tests, confidence levels and significances. So I don't think you have "looked at the evidence yourself".
You have been shown evidence both logical and empirical - in fact you did not even look at the evidence - and as for the logical evidence, well that is lost on you because you are not rational and cannot engage any arguments.
I remind you - I'm arguing logically, you want explanations that are both logical and illogical. You said this! You've now just moved on, ignoring the illogicality of your position.
So to summarise, you say samkhya is absolutely true, because:
- the ancient Indians made observations and (correct) inferences
- they argued with great precision, and so came to correct conclusions
- if there is smoke on the hill, it must be due to fire
- one can discern real intuition from fantasies
- everyone can intuitively know everything
- gut feeling is a reliable source of knowledge
and yet I don't think you've given any reason why someone should think any of that is true. Except, perhaps, that modern QM bears some relationship to samkhya, the implication being that the two are fundamentally the same. I think the jury is still out on that.