Aaarrgh!! Reading all of this hurt my brain. It's like someone saying, "Hey, follow me while I take you on a wild goose chase around my mind."

The Truth you are looking for is within you. It always has been, and always will be. Trying to explain that infinite Truth "that both a rock and an alien would agree on" with a finite brain is literally impossible. Although it cannot be explained, it can be FELT as an experience. But, if you don't trust your own experiences, where is your foundation? Is it in science, rationalizations, studies, research, ideas, thoughts, concepts....?

"When you live in a world deadened by mental abstraction, you don't sense the aliveness of the Universe anymore. Most people don't inhabit a living reality, but a conceptualized one." - Eckhart Tolle

This is because most people are in their heads, all the time, talking to themselves. According to Tolle, "Most people are so completely identified with the voice in the head, the incessant stream of involuntary and compulsive thinking, and the emotions that accompany it, that we may describe them as being possessed by their minds."

I couldn't figure out why the phrase "Rational skepticism" confused me, so I looked up the definition for both words. Rational: "sensible; reasonable; reasoned out." Skeptical: "the philosophical doctrine that nothing can be proved absolutely, and thus real knowledge of any kind is impossible." So, it's like trying to make sense out of something you believe cannot be proven. Lord have mercy, no wonder I was confused!

Within each one of us is an ocean of questions. Also within each one of us is an ocean of answers. In fact, it's been said that we have answers to questions that don't exist! Which ocean do you want to be in? I've also heard from more than one source that we are more complete than we will ever know. We need to put our trust in something that is worthy of our trust. And that place is within us.

The answers are not outside of us, they're within us. When you find that place, all your questions will be answered, and your search will be over.

Peace,
Rick Garzaniti
Practitioner/Instructor

"Outside - the ultimate variable. Inside - the ultimate constant. Choose one and be done with the paradox." - Prem Rawat

That's an interesting definition of skepticism, one which I've never heard before nor do I personally ascribe to. A skeptic is simply someone who waits for evidence before believing in something, and even then never believes in something beyond what the evidence suggests.

Are you saying that we should suspend our rational minds and believe whatever we like? It's okay for us all to have our own little mythologies, no matter how silly or unprovable?

It's precisely that sort of thinking that leads to such nonsense as astrology, tarot, numerology, psychic surgery, etc.

I'm simply one who would like a little evidence that something is true before I believe it. I don't believe anything anyone sense unless I have some confirmation from other sources. To do otherwise is folly, in my opinion. That would open us all up to fraud and deception, including self-deception.

I forgot to mention something else. I think you are dangerously underestimating our capacity for self-deception. Just look around you with open eyes and you'll see deluded people all over the place. The ways in which we delude ourselves are uncountable.

I've learned precisely the opposite: I've learned not to trust myself because I am aware of my own delusional capacity. I have deluded myself many times in the past, and I have allowed myself to be deceived. If you have studied psychology and neurology, you will notice that the human mind is actually quite unreliable.

Experiences can trigger exploration and can point us in the right direction, or at least new directions. But if we don't engage some rational thought about that direction we can end up going the wrong way, or at the very least wasting a lot of time and energy on unfruitful pursuits.

quote:

Originally posted by Neiby:

Unfortunately, most of the people I run into that are heavily into alternative medicine or these sorts of paranormal things just aren't rational people, and they don't want to be. I'm not saying all of them are like that, but most of them have been.

Even on this board there are some wonderful people who I think are super sweet and caring, and they have the best of intentions, but they just aren't rational about their beliefs. It's almost as if nothing is too fantastic to believe.

Ouch.

To be frankly honest, we're still a developing civilization. For all our technological firepower, we still haven't even circumvented the tip of the iceberg of what actually, TRULY, exists in existence, completely objective to and detached from our experiences or perceptions. It's the tunnel vision of "only accept what our man-made instruments can validate for us" that has kept us from advancing far faster in technology and scientific observation (as a human race) than what could be possible if more minds were open beyond the tunnel. And a bad word here: having FAITH that there is more to our reality/existence/creation/purpose for living than what meets the existing five senses, and existing man-made technology of observation.

Take the placebo effect. Yep, it's a neurochemical, psychological, and oftentimes physiological adaptation in the human body subjected to "supposed treatment" - and there's a science of mind and medicine that SORELY needs development to understand this better. Is it simply that we are fooling ourselves? And can you honestly convince patients - let alone physicians of patients - who have gone into what appears to be a complete, permanent recession of cancer due to a placebo effect treatment that their experience was a hoax? A failure? Just because it's not fully understood yet by our technology? Of course not. The healing happened, regardless of the reason, it happened. Period.

Rick's definition of "skepticism" is the same, exact definition (verbatim) that is in four of my philosophy textbooks from college: Beginning Philosophy 110, Beginning Ethics 130, Philosophy in the Modern Age 310, and Advanced Philosophy 530. It's the same definition that I have been taught recently at my university.

It's one thing to discuss skepticism on forums ABOUT skepticism, but this whole forum is DEDICATED to the very things that are under fire in this post.

That's my story, and as a rational, scientific, psychologically- and medically-studied intuitive - I'm stickin' to it.

Peace out.

PS:
"But if we don't engage some rational thought about that direction we can end up going the wrong way, or at the very least wasting a lot of time and energy on unfruitful pursuits."
~NOTHING is 'unfruitful' if it is found to be an insufficient path to Truth; it merely clears the path of weeds.~

The placebo affect is a very interesting thing, and most certainly real. It's one of the many clues that there is more to reality than we suspect.

Look, I'm not saying that metaphysical stuff is bad, obviously. I just think many people who are into the metaphysical or paranormal get too far "out there" and kind of lose their minds in the process. :-)

I believe that personal experience is a very strong motivator. And I recognize that if something happens to you, it seems real to you no matter what anyone else says. That is a powerful thing. Our experiences should move us forward into new territory, but I don't think it does us any favors to go into that territory blind.

And you are correct about the "wrong" way actually still being fruitful. But I don't want to spend my life chasing the "wrong" things. I'd rather find a few things that work for me than a 1000 that don't. So far, I've been doing really well at finding things that don't work.

And I'm not directing my comments toward QT at all. It would be rather harsh of me to attack QT on a QT board! But there is plenty of non-QT stuff here that does get a bit silly at times, and I'm not the only one who feels that way.

I'm all for experiences, though. I'm probably going to be taking a two-day class on communicating with our spirit guides this weekend, followed by a life-between-lives regression on Monday. So, don't think I'm close-minded! :-)

Ashley, I believe Neiby's last sentence is the best description of "how to be skeptical". He isn't trying to "argue" his way to truth, he's going out and trying various possibilities and then deciding. The problem with most skeptics is that they first see if something fits their preconceived worldview and then decide if something is real based only on that.

Both feeling and thought can be indicators of truth. I try to join both together as guides but don't rely on either exclusively. My opinion, anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkL:
Ashley, I believe Neiby's last sentence is the best description of "how to be skeptical". He isn't trying to "argue" his way to truth, he's going out and trying various possibilities and then deciding. The problem with most skeptics is that they first see if something fits their preconceived worldview and then decide if something is real based only on that.

Both feeling and thought can be indicators of truth. I try to join both together as guides but don't rely on either exclusively. My opinion, anyway.

MarkL, you just nailed my position exactly! I couldn't have said it better.

quote:

Although it cannot be explained, it can be FELT as an experience. But, if you don't trust your own experiences, where is your foundation? Is it in science, rationalizations, studies, research, ideas, thoughts, concepts....?

...and...

Both feeling and thought can be indicators of truth.

It seems to me that you both have decided that your personal experiences and feelings are valuable is assessing truth claims. And this is great! How could anyone disparage such a reasonable strategy?

My point is that there are also many people who believe that feelings are physiological events optimized for the savanna (the environment they evolved in), and that they are not optimized for logic. In addition, said people believe that their personal experiences are prone to significant errors in reasoning (a consequence of having ape brains, rather than supercomputing brains). So these people (aka materialists, naturalists, "western" scientists) have chosen not to utilize personal experiences and feelings - and that is also perfectly reasonable. Who would want to force someone to use a tool if they think that tool leads to errors??

Bottom line - I think the mystical perspective and the materialist perspective differ on the basic question of "What is truth?". They ask it two different ways, and thus their answers to truth are very different. However, there should not be animosity between the two since they are not even competing on the same questions!

So when 'western' medicine rejects QT, you must realize that it is because those scientists have asked different questions from you. They have never asked, "Does this resonate with me?". They are just not interested in such questions. To them, their personal feelings are barriers, not guides, to truth.

Likewise, if a scientists rejects mystical ideas, he should not do so with disgust. Because the mystic has asked a different question, and thus his answers are obviously different. If the scientist asked the same questions as the mystic, I am sure he'd agree on their conclusions!

I am aware that some here claim that QT is based on science, but again we find a difference between the mystic and the materialists - what is science? For many materialists, the science realm is CONSORT criteria, Impact Factors, and peer review. For many mystics, the science realm is books, conferences, for/non profit organizations, and websites. Before you can even begin the discussion, the very meaning of science needs to be agreed on.

In case you are wondering, my motivation is to explore the differences in worldview and promote dialogue I know that each side (mystic/materialist) tend to insult the other side ("western oppressive medicine!", "quantum quackery", etc). I am tired of this and want to see meaningful exchanges. Cheers!

I tend to fall into the category of the person who doesn't trust experience. I use experience to guide toward new things to research, but I don't trust the experiences themselves. I've been burned too many times in the past by trusting in experiences too much.

I've also found that just because something "resonates" with me, that doesn't make it true. I've run across plenty of things in the past that "resonated" with me (oh, how I hate that word) but they ultimately turned out to be wrong. That feeling simply can't be trusted, at least not for me. I will follow where it leads, but only after shining the cold, cruel light of rationality and objectivity onto it.

If I experience something mystical, I try to examine it objectively. Did it really happen? How can I know it really happened? Are there alternative explanations that I'm not considering? Which explanations are the most plausible? Am I deceiving myself? Am I allowing myself to be deceived? I ask myself all these questions constantly.

Hi Darwin,

quote:

The brain is an evolved causation machine optimized for the savanna,

Perhaps only partly true. According to http://www.thiaoouba.com/index.html there have been colonizations and interventions by extra-terrestrials. Have you read any articles in the Sedona Journal of Emergence? Have you read about Edgar Cayce's communications with spirits of departed medical doctors? There is much more to the universe than our five senses can detect. However that may be, it is still true that the human brain is not sufficiently developed to be able to fully understand the physics of the multidimensional universe. So, then, what should our reaction be to reports and experiences of events and situations that defy explanations that are based on current knowledge - or supposed knowledge, which could be wrong, and often has been wrong, and can never be perfect? My own response is simply to concentrate on what seems to be most useful in progressing personal development, both intellectual and spiritual. Along those lines, have you read "Power Versus Force" by David Hawkins? If the thesis of that book is correct, then there is an easy way to determine the truth or falsity of any statement about the current state of any portion of the universe, including whether some particular activity or thought will be constructive to personal progression or not. But then, you could ask, how do I know that the results of Hawkin's methods are really correct and not just an illusion or trick of my sub-conscious mind? I guess we have to fall back on experience as perceived by our feelings and our senses. As for myself, I can only answer "so far so good".

quote:

colonizations and interventions by extra-terrestrials ... Emergence ... communications with spirits

So far in this thread, I've examined various differences between mystics and materialists: 1) belief in the value of emotions in making conclusions (mystics yes, materialists no), 2) belief in the reliability of natural human brain reasoning (mystics yes, materialists no), and 3) different definitions of science.

Your post is an example of the third difference between mystics and materialists: difference definitions of science. For many materialists, the science realm is CONSORT criteria, Impact Factors, and peer review. For many mystics, the science realm is books, conferences, for/non profit organizations, and websites.

So while your sources are strong, valid, and useful sources for you, for materialists (including myself) they are sketchy at best. This is not some horrible thing, it's just a difference in worldview. In fact, I think both positions can be reasonably justified and I disparage neither.

I think this difference is what prompts some of the conflicts between medical researchers and alternative medicine proponents (such as QT). Both claim their ideas are based on science, but they have two very different definitions of science to start with!! Naturally, problems arise.

quote:

events and situations that defy explanations

I think that, for people who believe their brains are reliable reasoning machines, they will often encounter miracles and events which defy all explanations.

Please understand that, for many materialists, the brain is not a reliable reasoning machine. So they want to integrate mathematics, formal logic, controlled studies, etc, to assist their faulty brain to reach their conclusions. This is why materialists, such as myself, believe there has likely never been a single miracle, or an event which is outside the domain of logic and evidence.

So we reach different conclusions about the world, because our root assumptions are different.

quote:

we have to fall back on experience as perceived by our feelings and our senses

No we don't I think mystics/theists/related believe that, when faced with the unknown, they should fall back on personal feelings. Materialists (where I throw my hat) think we should fall back on the global empirical knowledge gathered by logical, evidence-based methods. When we still are faced with the unknown, we then claim "We don't know", and devise tests to figure it out. We do not use our personal feelings to make conclusions.

Now, given that, I still think materialists are very open to and enjoy exploring the subjective experience. For example, I sometimes go to church, I participate in QT sessions, I mediate, I keep a journal of my emotional states, etc. I do all these things because I enjoy the experience. The difference with me is that I do not extrapolate those experiences to outside of my imagination.

quote:

Originally posted by darwin:
1) belief in the value of emotions in making conclusions (mystics yes, materialists no)

I don't concur with this. The common problem with most who espouse a so-called materialist viewpoint is that they continually overgeneralize subjective experience, confusing intuition with emotions, clairsentience with "feelings", etc. So the argument sounds very solid, but because of all of the overgeneralizations, it in no way captures the phenomena in question. Case in point:

quote:

2) belief in the reliability of natural human brain reasoning (mystics yes, materialists no)

This isn't right either. First of all, where did all these aids of math and physics, etc come from if not a reasoning human brain? Is natural human reasoning reliable to develop methods that are reliable in all situations, including those they neither have any experience of nor reference to?

Secondly, mystics transcend "natural human reasoning". they don't AT ALL think like average people: their perspective is very, very different. For that matter, many of the concepts put forward in the Hindu vedas and Buddhist Sutras //which are mirrored in the writings and thinking of most mystics// tend to resemble principles of general relativity and quantum mechanics.

quote:

This is why materialists, such as myself, believe there has likely never been a single miracle, or an event which is outside the domain of logic and evidence.

What logic and what evidence??? You can't easily apply logic to something you don't
know exists. Technology drives the availability and "analyzability" of material evidence, so with advanced enough technology, yes, perhaps the mechanisms of some phenomena we would call miracles now can be described in detail later. But how do you presume what that will mean now, without the technology to even be aware of it "objectively"??

quote:

I think mystics/theists/related believe that, when faced with the unknown, they should fall back on personal feelings.

No we don't Mystics think we should fall back on intuition and inspiration, phenomena that materialists will continually reduce to "emotions" and "personal feelings", Even though neuroscience and cognitive psychology have a much more sophisticated, although still lacking, definition of these states of consciousness based on brain imaging and psychological testing. the base, precursor nature of mysticism is transcendendal and transpersonal and extends from there into the mystical, which is subjective and yet impersonal.

quote:

We do not use our personal feelings to make conclusions.

Yes you do Have a read of Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. You may try not to, or just refuse to believe you do, but it happens all the time. Arguably, this, more than any other single reason, is what is slowing down progress on uncovering some of what most if not all materialists claim healers, psychics, and mystics can't possibly do.

quote:

The difference with me is that I do not extrapolate those experiences to outside of my imagination.

Well, I for one am very glad that deluded people like Rob Rasmussen, Richard Gordon, Mary Derr, and Alain Herriot do! Do you reckon they would have developed, mastered, and been able to teach these methods otherwise?

Don't get me wrong: I do value all the permutations of hard and soft science, but I'm also aware that they are still largely useless for understanding much of anything they can't measure in terms of something like life force, psychic awareness, higher consciousness, etc. If all one is left with is to believe these things are simply imaginary and not real, it leaves any means of examining what is really happening at pretty much a dead end other than the "evidence" of art, music, literature, certain philosophies and religions.

I'd say one of the most useful thing is to learn to BOTH develop critical thinking skills ANT learn to develop and differentiate intuition and inspiration from personal emotions, instincts, philosophies, and principles (all which have their own value, but which tend to cloud intuition and inspiration terribly). Then you have a fantastic tool to supplement and inform and direct the scientific approach.

Blessings,
Alfred

quote:

we have to fall back on experience as perceived by our feelings and our senses

quote:

Materialists (where I throw my hat) think we should fall back on the global empirical knowledge gathered by logical, evidence-based methods.

Ah, yes, a clarification is in order. Our experiences include, but are not limited to, receiving information gathered by those methods.
Edit: Oooh, after posting this message, I read the topic "Our second & third brains", which has some information relevant to this topic.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jim_Farmer,

Darwin, from my experience Alfred is correct but since you have allowed your mind to be limited by logical conclusions, purely by coincidence Yudkowsky has just published a logically rigorous refutation of your point of view at http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/01/newcombs-proble.html#more (interesting how the universe provides for our education if we'll just look with an open mind).

Hi Alfred,

I think we are on the same page, pretty much

quote:

confusing intuition with emotions, clairsentience with "feelings"

This seems like a rational response based on your worldview, and I can understand how you reached this based on your beliefs. Of course, with the assumptions of mysticism, you will find much more to human emotional responses, even varying degrees of significance (intuition, clairsentience, etc).

I don't argue with your conclusions! The mystic values emotions highly in their reasoning process, and so of course they find great meaning in them.

On the other hand, I find emotions to be a barrier to knowledge, as they are evolved instinctual responses optimized for the savanna. Thus, I do not grant them titles such as 'intuition' and 'clairsentience'. Am I such a villain for coming to this conclusion?

If the mystic and the materialist shared assumptions, I bet they would come to the same conclusions. But, alas, they don't share assumptions, and thus have wildly differing conclusions.

quote:

First of all, where did all these aids of math and physics, etc come from if not a reasoning human brain?

The human brain, and indeed many animal brains, are optimal causation machines. They can attribute causes to events rapidly and effectively. However, causation is often misapplied (see Post Hoc, Regression, and other causation fallacies). Using causation, along with many other features of our brain (especially memory and language), we were able to produce mathematics, formal logic, and modern science after 200,000 years of trial and error. Not bad.

quote:

mystics transcend "natural human reasoning". they don't AT ALL think like average people

I understand that, to many mystics/theists/etc, there is transcendence, or something greater beyond the mundane. And I think this belief is very reasonable given the value you place in your personal feelings (or intuition, I will use your terms and in your brain's reasoning capacity.

But note that, since many materialists have ruled out personal feelings and personal reasoning as effective on their own, we seek to add formal logic, mathematics, and evidence into our reasoning. And, unfortunately by its very definition, we will never get to materially measure this transcendence of which the mystic speaks, and thus we will never be able to conclude that it is real beyond the imagination.

So, obviously, the mystic and the materialist are stuck on this one. In my life, I choose to acknowledge this difference and that I find both positions reasonable based on the assumptions made to get there.

quote:

You can't easily apply logic to something you don't know exists.

True. I totally agree.

quote:

yes, perhaps the mechanisms of some phenomena we would call miracles now can be described in detail later

I think we agree? - with sufficient technology, all phenomena can be explained in reasonable, natural terms without citing magic or whatnot.

"we would call miracles" - as I said earlier, only those who believe in miracles call them miracles

quote:

Mystics think we should fall back on intuition and inspiration, phenomena that materialists will continually reduce to "emotions" and "personal feelings"

Perfect - this is exactly the difference I see between us as well. I'm glad we are clear on each other's views

quote:

Arguably, this, more than any other single reason, is what is slowing down progress on uncovering some of what most if not all materialists claim healers, psychics, and mystics can't possibly do.

I think this is an interesting statement, because I think it reflects some of the political spark in the mystic v. materialist dance. I think that, for many mystics/theists/etc, the materialist mindset is oppressing their ancient wisdom or magical cures, and thus materialists are causing real harm to society. QT practitioners, for example, may see us as keeping their work out of hospitals and universities. Likewise, theists see us as keeping creationism/ID out of classrooms or killing souls by doing stem cell research.

So there is obviously a lot of potential frustration on the mystic/theist side - materialists must seem like monsters.

On the flip side, though, materialists also see harm in the others position. Materialists may see a belief in divisive deities as the root cause of many wars, homophobia, and other modern controversies. Materialists may see alternative medicine, such as QT, as dangerous to those who forgo traditional treatments in its favor, or as charlatanism.

So there is this political component that I think may be a hurdle for healthy dialogue between the various worldviews. I think this is an ongoing discussion that will occur indefinitely, and I can only hope it remains positive and productive.

quote:

they are still largely useless for understanding much of anything they can't measure in terms of something like life force, psychic awareness, higher consciousness

Alfred, I think we understand each other And that is awesome. I really want both sides of this issue to understand where the other is coming from. That is huge progress, in my book