Correct me if I'm wrong, but mostly as atheists, we believe in nothingness after death, or at least I think I do. But then we have all of this stuff with mediums and spirits that maybe point to evidence to an afterlife. Some mediums have told people things that no one else has known, so that really makes me wonder.
I was really just wondering what everyone's opinions were on afterlife and spirits and stuff like that. Like, what exactly do you think happens after death?
Your haste retort is just clue to the obviousness of your close-minded attitude towards this thing.
Crackpot: This thing makes one universally omnipotent!
Me: Evidence that it does, please?
Crackpot: There is none.
Me: I can't take your claims seriously.
Crackpot: You're so obviously closed-minded!
Jimmy, if you're not the biggest, braying, raving loon we've ever had on TA, you're high in the running.
It, in fact, does work, and I've already described the method to get there, but it's quite apparent that you will never consider this experience.
Citing transcendental meditation or mushroom trips does not equate to an "in fact" description of how to attain universal omnipotence. You might as well be citing Peter Pan's directions "Second star to the right and straight on 'till morning" as a description of how to reach Never-Never Land.
...it's something you have as an experience, and if you avoid it, then you'll spend the rest of your life circumabulating the true mystery that lies behind religion.
Not bad, Jimmy. Here's a bit more from the Deepak Chopra woo-woo generator.
The unexplainable is the path to the barrier of knowledge. Our consciousness experiences the mechanics of human observation. Perceptual reality embraces unique the timelessness of understanding.
Well, that's maybe from your perspective Gallup, but there's another way to see it:
Psychonaut: One experiences a kind of wordless omniscient understanding.
Skeptic: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Psychonaut: Well, the extraordinary evidence is this extraordinary experience.
Skeptic: Um, no thanks, I'd rather not have the experience. I'm content with just criticizing it from the outside, and it's more fun to say "woo-woo."
Psychonaut: That's fine, but you do realize that is completely avoiding the point and the very thing that can convince you that this is so?
Skeptic: Leave me alone! I just like saying "woo-woo," okay?
Well, that's maybe from your perspective Gallup, but there's another way to see [omniscience]:
Omniscience means limitless knowledge: knowing everything about everything. There is no "other way" to see omniscience.
That's fine, but you do realize that is completely avoiding the point and the very thing that can convince you that this is so?
I'm exactly to the point, Jimmy. It's you who keeps avoiding it-- to considerable comedic effect-- by claiming that omniscience means something other than omniscience.
Otherwise, you'd know how to write down the cure for cancer, plans for a working fusion reactor, the location of Jimmy Hoffa's body, and next week's winning lottery number. But apparently, your "another way" form of omniscience excludes any actual knowledge, most notability the knowledge of how to remember any new measurable knowledge once you sober up.
In other words, you're not an omniscient pyschonaut. You're still just a bleating loon.
...forcefully leading us to the next, obvious pair of questions: Which might be the most desirable company, a bleating psychonaut, or an omniscient loon? Question 2, what might their children look like?
Well, I said a wordless intuitive omniscience which I would equate to when people say that "everything is one" or that "everything is interconnected." This is known through what I've come to call "intuitive omniscience." You see, you're thinking of it as in an intellectual sense, where one at the height of this experience could be asked any question and be able to answer it. That's what I mean when I say it doesn't work like that, because it's purely intuitive, and what you come back with is not the cure for cancer or the location of some criminal's body, but instead basically what M-Theory and String Theory are peddling. That's why I equated the 11-dimensional hyperspace of M-Theory to "the ground of all being" which Hindus refer to as "Brahman."
I'm not the first to compare these two concepts, they have been compared to each other by many physicists, i.e. Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Robert Anton Wilson, etc. The book "The Tao of Physics" also compared these concepts. But although I have clearly pointed this out, you seem to ignore what I type and instead interpret it your own way only to make these criticisms that aren't even applicable.
Well, I said a wordless intuitive omniscience which I would equate to when people say that "everything is one" or that "everything is interconnected."
Omniscience means "knowing everything about everything". It does not mean "everything is connected", no matter how many disclaimers you tack onto it.
...what you come back with is [...] instead basically what M-Theory and String Theory are peddling. That's why I equated the 11-dimensional hyperspace of M-Theory to "the ground of all being" which Hindus refer to as "Brahman."
Quick, Jimmy, rearrange the woo-woo. (Well, yeah sure, I said you'd experience omniscience while stoned on mushrooms, but I really meant you'd experience string theory!)
But although I have clearly pointed this out, you seem to ignore what I type and instead interpret it your own way only to make these criticisms that aren't even applicable.
Then let's make clear what you're clearly pointing out.
A workable Theory of Everything would unify the four physical interactions observed in nature (electromagnetism, gravity, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force) with the spectrum of elementary particles.
So according to you, if you pummel your brain with enough shrooms, one will "experience" a "wordless intuitive omniscience". But you didn't mean "knowing everything about everything". You mean "experiencing" the unification of the four physical interactions observed in nature-- electromagnetism, gravity, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force-- with the spectrum of elementary particles, throughout the entire universe.
Wait, let me guess. Just like omniscience doesn't really mean omniscience, the Theory of Everything doesn't really mean the The Theory of Everything, and I'm ignoring the TRUE meanings, which you have clearly pointed out.
You know Jimmy, others have expressed a similar approach to their work:
I wonder how much valid criticism some of these guys can absorb before admitting they're dildos? Never mind. They won't change their mind because you're just proving their faith to themselves. It's a religion.
Okay, you want to be clear? You do understand the concept of intuition, don't you?
Well, this experience is a kind of "intuitive omniscience" in the sense of it being completely derived from purely intuition. It's not intellectual, you see, as you're insisting...
So, yes, what I'm saying is that you will know everything about everything, but not through intellectual concepts. It's not that you will have the one-inch equation that Einstein was looking for to unify the four fundamental forces. It's more that the 11 dimensional hyperspace posited in string theory which contains "all possibilities," is what you'll experientially undergo as a phenomenon in consciousness. How else could one say that "everything is one" unless they had some kind of deep intuition that this is so?
So, maybe people smarter than I could go into it. I mean, if someone like Victor Stenger or Michio Kaku were to undergo this experience, perhaps they could come up with a more convincing rap that I'm offering here, but it is my contention and my opinion that these things will show you something quite akin to what I've been talking about here. I mean, if you don't believe it will, they why not just shoot for the "full-spectrum" dose and examine it for yourself instead of shoving it aside and putting it in the same category as "Looney Tunes"? I mean, the main difference here is Looney Tunes is something you watch, mushrooms are something you can take that can drastically transform your consciousness temporarily and show you a mental universe that you not only never suspected existed, but that you could not have suspected to exist.
@Unseen I'll admit I'm a dildo when I actually have someone here undergo this experience. However, I'll tell you something, they will not come back with something in favor of their criticism.
Mediums are full of shit. Completely and totally, through and through. It is based on no evidence and you can make up a dead relative and they will "pick up" on it. Its comical at best. Don't believe me? Try it. Go to someone who says they can "communicate" with the dead. Tell them you are trying to communicate with your great grandfather (make up a name). Make up a good back story for him and just agree with whatever the medium says. They are NOT REAL. DO NOT BUY INTO IT. You will realize this after you try my little experiment. Harry Houdini gave his wife a secret word to remember because he made his career debunking these people. He knew that these charlatans would come out of the woodwork trying to tell his wife they could "communicate" with him. Here is the thing. None of them could get the word. None, not a single one. It is all cold reading.
Check it out for yourself. It is a Con.
Jimmy, if you think of your mind as software, I would not challenge the fact that taking psilocybin may reprogram your software, perhaps irrevocably - but that has no correlation to what is going on in the world outside your mind. I'm not writing more because I can't deal with this narrow paragraphed column format :)
By the same token, my daughter once thought the playroom was the whole world and that playing peek-a-boo made it all disappear. Imagine the let-down.
Well ok maybe the moon is made of green cheese but what is a wiener?