I need a volunteer

[Fidel_Castronaut]

So in order to apply intuitional science one must fund a guru to teach one how to apply it. That's fair enough. It stands to reason that it is good to learn any method from a gifted teacher. Beyond the basics, traditional science generally needs to be taught, unless the student is truly exceptional. However I'm just trying to get a broad idea for how the investigative system of intuitive science works. You know, like the rough syllabus of the course or an overview of the method. I've given you an approximate definition of the scientific method (develop a falsifiable hypothesis and design an experiment to test it), without the need to go into the intricacies of statistical analysis, experimental design etc (for which I'd suggest you should undertake an academic qualification). You've given us a conclusion reached via intuitional science (the whole spine pipe thing) but not really an idea of how this conclusion was reached. Granted that I would need a guru to learn how to practice it, can you give me a broad overview of the intuitional scientific method?

The teacher say that along your spine there is an astral pipe or susumma
running vertical through the body and along this you got so many glands that control some particular part of the body, mind and consciousness especially 7 main glands with the pituary and pineal the most important.
How do you know that the teacher tell you the truth.
It is by practicing tantric yoga that you come to the same conclusion.
As you work on these glands you feel them more and more active and the area around more bright so they got to be there.
How tantra yoga or intuitional science works?
If the pipe is not blocked you don't have to do anything but if this would be the case you would be God.
Considering that human life evolve from lower form of consciousness (mineral, vegetable, animal life) and that we have not yet reach human emancipation (become one with God) then it is clear that the pipe is not yet unblocked and therefore our wavelength is not yet straight.
If it is not straight the cosmic flow is not felt or is felt in part according to our own progress.
The kundalini or vital force lie at the very bottom of the spinal cord and in order to come to the top into the pineal gland the astral pipe must be straight.
Like a lift or elevator that can only come up if the space inside the wall run straight also the kundalini can come up if the astral pipe run straight.
How do you make it straight?
By working on the cakras or glands you can and this involve total concentration on these cakras and a sound or mantra but most important is the ideation that you are GOD.
G generator
O operator
D destroyer

Like I said, Jacob. Making shit up.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Could you tell me how would you deal with two totally different things like the body and the consciousness?

I think you mean body and mind, not consciousness. Consciousness is a state of mind, and it is entirely contengent upon the material brain. Are you suggesting that you have data to support that mind can exist without the material brain? If I take my camera, and snap a shot of the ocean, do you consider the data that produces the image on my screen to be immaterial? If I break open my camera, there will be no ocean, but none the less, the image can be produced so long as all of the pieces of the camera are functioning to produce the image. When the camera breaks, do you believe that the data goes on to heaven? This is the line you are taking here. It's intellectually bankrupt.

One is physical and can be perceived with the physical senses and perception the other is not physical so it require a different kind of perception.

You haven't established any of this yet. What you are talking about is a shift of perspective. The thrid person perspective is what the brain and body are doing and how they are doing it (recognizing the brain activity associated with decision making, nerve and muscle activity, and then the movement itself) and then there's the First Person perspective which experienced the decision to move and the internal sensations associated with it (What being/using a body is like). The first person perspective is unaware of HOW the body is moving, only the descriptive experience of it. You are confusing the two perspectives by attributing the experience with the power to cause movement. They are two different complimentary aspects that make up the whole of the entire explanation. But they are seperated only by perspective. Just like the camera. It's the difference between an internal viewpoint and an external view point. The internal view point is the effect of what can be observed externally. You're blurring the line and it's causing you to draw flawed inferences.

Not to mention you've got your work cut out for you when you consider the sense organs responsible for producing the experiences encountered in consciousness. If you are suggesting that there is an additional "stuff" through which consciousness survives after death, then why is it that when specific brain organs responsible for sight and sound are damaged, we lose our ability to see or hear. If all of our brain functions are crossed out one by one, we quickly find ourselves unable to percieve anything about our surroundings or even our own bodies. If our entire body is destroyed, what exactly is it that you think will be surviving? An agent stripped away from all physical means of manifestation is indistinguishable from an agent that doesn't exist at all. You've got a really deep hole to dig yourself out of, or you can just climb out, and realize it doesn't make sense to dig out of a hole.

Can you really say that with your physical perception you are able to understand what is not physical?

You are starting with the assumption that non-physical stuff exists. What exactly are you proposing this non-physical stuf is? You seem to be confused about perspectives, and your physical experience of thought. But, if you put a bullet through your brain, I assure you, you won't be troubled with such non-sense anymore. Saying a physical thing is like a non-physical thing only not physical gets us nowhere. You're simply asserting nonsensical utterances without justification or explanation.

[Jacob(smooth)]

---

So in order to apply intuitional science one must fund a guru to teach one how to apply it. That's fair enough. It stands to reason that it is good to learn any method from a gifted teacher. Beyond the basics, traditional science generally needs to be taught, unless the student is truly exceptional. However I'm just trying to get a broad idea for how the investigative system of intuitive science works. You know, like the rough syllabus of the course or an overview of the method. I've given you an approximate definition of the scientific method (develop a falsifiable hypothesis and design an experiment to test it), without the need to go into the intricacies of statistical analysis, experimental design etc (for which I'd suggest you should undertake an academic qualification). You've given us a conclusion reached via intuitional science (the whole spine pipe thing) but not really an idea of how this conclusion was reached. Granted that I would need a guru to learn how to practice it, can you give me a broad overview of the intuitional scientific method?

The teacher say that along your spine there is an astral pipe or susumma
running vertical through the body and along this you got so many glands that control some particular part of the body, mind and consciousness especially 7 main glands with the pituary and pineal the most important.
How do you know that the teacher tell you the truth.
It is by practicing tantric yoga that you come to the same conclusion.
As you work on these glands you feel them more and more active and the area around more bright so they got to be there.
How tantra yoga or intuitional science works?
If the pipe is not blocked you don't have to do anything but if this would be the case you would be God.
Considering that human life evolve from lower form of consciousness (mineral, vegetable, animal life) and that we have not yet reach human emancipation (become one with God) then it is clear that the pipe is not yet unblocked and therefore our wavelength is not yet straight.
If it is not straight the cosmic flow is not felt or is felt in part according to our own progress.
The kundalini or vital force lie at the very bottom of the spinal cord and in order to come to the top into the pineal gland the astral pipe must be straight.
Like a lift or elevator that can only come up if the space inside the wall run straight also the kundalini can come up if the astral pipe run straight.
How do you make it straight?
By working on the cakras or glands you can and this involve total concentration on these cakras and a sound or mantra but most important is the ideation that you are GOD.
G generator
O operator
D destroyer

---

So, in general terms, intuitional science is

A: teacher explains belief
B: person practices as teacher instructs and finds outcome is as teacher predicted, and for the reasons teacher believed
C: Person concludes belief is truth.

In which case to answer my earlier question about how intuitional science would test homeopathy

A: person sees homeopath who gives homeopathic remedy
B: person feels better
C Homeopathy is true.

Is that approximately correct?

So in intuitional science is the "teacher" any expert in a given field? What would you define as a teacher when applying intuitional science to homeopathy?

[pocaracas]

So, in general terms, intuitional science is

A: teacher explains belief
B: person practices as teacher instructs and finds outcome is as teacher predicted, and for the reasons teacher believed
C: Person concludes belief is truth.

I call that confirmation bias... but what do I know?...

[The Reality Salesman01]

God does not play dice with the universe: He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players [i.e. everybody], to being involved in an obscure and complex variant of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.

Terry Pratchett.

That is one dubious God. A God that works so mysteriously so as one cannot even distinguish what it does, might as well not be there at all in my opinion. Furthermore, praying to such a God sounds about as reliable as what one should expect from trying the remedies offered by homeopathy. I don't understand how so many people seem to willfully mistake their unreliable intuition that correlates with coincidence with divine intervention or miraculous cures derrived from deluded mineral water. Ironically, if I did I rain dance, and it rained, such individuals would likely have no problem shifting gears to point out the oversight in my attributing such correlation with causation. It's mind boggling.

[Jacob(smooth)]

---

='The Reality Salesman' pid='578731' dateline='1389196039']

God does not play dice with the universe: He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players [i.e. everybody], to being involved in an obscure and complex variant of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.

Terry Pratchett.

---

That is one dubious God. A God that works so mysteriously so as one cannot even distinguish what it does, might as well not be there at all in my opinion. Furthermore, praying to such a God sounds about as reliable as what one should expect from trying the remedies offered by homeopathy. I don't understand how so many people seem to willfully mistake their unreliable intuition that correlates with coincidence with divine intervention or miraculous cures derrived from deluded mineral water. Ironically, if I did I rain dance, and it rained, such individuals would likely have no problem shifting gears to point out the oversight in my attributing such correlation with causation. It's mind boggling.

Um. Yeah. Approximately that effective.

Actually, on purely empirical and statistical grounds, somewhat less so.

Hence my curiosity about how Enrico considers what I would class as religious belief as a type of science. I want to see if there is a way he has figured that some form of scientific investigation can be applied to spirituality with good results. Because if he can, perhaps can apply it to the massive amounts of cognitive dissonance and psychological cramp I'm presently experiencing.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Actually, on purely empirical and statistical grounds, somewhat less so.

Which? and how so?

Hence my curiosity about how Enrico considers what I would class as religious belief as a type of science. I want to see if there is a way he has figured that some form of scientific investigation can be applied to spirituality with good results. Because if he can, perhaps can apply it to the massive amounts of cognitive dissonance and psychological cramp I'm presently experiencing.

What aspect of spirituality would be of interest to you, and what would you consider to be good results?

[Little Rik]

Hence my curiosity about how Enrico considers what I would class as religious belief as a type of science.

There wan't be any science in religion as religion is stuck with blind faith and not the search for the truth.

I want to see if there is a way he has figured that some form of scientific investigation can be applied to spirituality with good results. Because if he can, perhaps can apply it to the massive amounts of cognitive dissonance and psychological cramp I'm presently experiencing.

You may see that the body-mind of someone who practice spirituality is in better nick that someone who does not practice but at the end you will not find any one who practice that go around boasting that spirituality make him-her any special being or it is interested in proving scientifically that spirituality is the very top.
One practice spirituality for their own good and their own progress.
All i can tell you is that there wan't be any immediate miracle.
The results come after a lot of hard work but they will come for sure if you are prepared to put the effort.

---

I think you mean body and mind, not consciousness. Consciousness is a state of mind, and it is entirely contengent upon the material brain. Are you suggesting that you have data to support that mind can exist without the material brain? If I take my camera, and snap a shot of the ocean, do you consider the data that produces the image on my screen to be immaterial? If I break open my camera, there will be no ocean, but none the less, the image can be produced so long as all of the pieces of the camera are functioning to produce the image. When the camera breaks, do you believe that the data goes on to heaven? This is the line you are taking here. It's intellectually bankrupt.

You are making a hell of a confusion because you do not understand the role of brain, mind and consciousness.
What is the brain?
What is the mind?
What is the consciousness?
The brain is that physical stuff that allow the consciousness to operate.
The mind is like the hard drive of a computer which store information, form and colors.
The consciousness is me or I or the one who decide to start the thought or the action using the mind as a storage of information and the brains as the support for expressing action.
As far as there is a parallelism among these elements everything works ok. but as soon as the body die then this parallelism is not there anymore and the consciousness separate in the same way as the driver abandon the car that does not work anymore.

If you are suggesting that there is an additional "stuff" through which consciousness survives after death, then why is it that when specific brain organs responsible for sight and sound are damaged, we lose our ability to see or hear. If all of our brain functions are crossed out one by one, we quickly find ourselves unable to percieve anything about our surroundings or even our own bodies. If our entire body is destroyed, what exactly is it that you think will be surviving? An agent stripped away from all physical means of manifestation is indistinguishable from an agent that doesn't exist at all. You've got a really deep hole to dig yourself out of, or you can just climb out, and realize it doesn't make sense to dig out of a hole.

When our body start falling apart is like when the old car start falling apart.
It is still going but not going like when the car was new.
The driver is still there inside the car and the car or the body is still moving but when the car wan't go anymore the driver will abandon the car in search for a new car that will allow to continue the journey toward the goal of life.

You are starting with the assumption that non-physical stuff exists. What exactly are you proposing this non-physical stuf is? You seem to be confused about perspectives, and your physical experience of thought. But, if you put a bullet through your brain, I assure you, you won't be troubled with such non-sense anymore. Saying a physical thing is like a non-physical thing only not physical gets us nowhere. You're simply asserting nonsensical utterances without justification or explanation.

You have no evidence of whatsoever that the life if finite and no logic of whatsoever that make any sense.
You may well forget those myriad of NDE who experience afterlife and God and think for a while about logic.
Where the consciousness come from?
From Santa or it is evolved from a myriad of lives?
This is logic.
You don't get anything for free so you got to have that consciousness earned.
And if you build this consciousness will all go to the dogs?
Of course not.
This is logic.
But too many people don't follow logic and think that consciousness came from Santa and all for free.

[The Reality Salesman01]

You are making a hell of a confusion because you do not understand the role of brain, mind and consciousness.

Hmm...let's see who is confused here...

The brain is that physical stuff that allow the consciousness to operate.

Ok. And if the brain that ALLOWS it to operate is dead…what then will allow it to operate? You’ve just contradicted everything that you’ve said.

The mind is like the hard drive of a computer which store information, form and colors.

Which exists in the brain, and if it dies, how then will your consciousness recognize form or colors? What then are you defending? Do you realize how self-refuting your thoughts are with regards to the position you think they are defending?

The consciousness is me or I or the one who decide to start the thought or the action using the mind as a storage of information and the brains as the support for expressing action.

You don’t decide to start a thought. They appear to you in consciousness. You are limited to what occurs to you. It’s a process of things entering your mind to be processed, and then appearing in consciousness. There’s a lot of brain activity that you are completely ignoring.

Here's some light reading that may interest you. It turns out, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consci...dings.html

You are confusing your personal experience of thought, with the third person understanding of how it actually works. I made this as plain as possible in the previous post, but you opted to ignore it completely, and just repeat yourself.

As far as there is a parallelism among these elements everything works ok. but as soon as the body die then this parallelism is not there anymore and the consciousness separate in the same way as the driver abandon the car that does not work anymore.

That doesn’t make any sense. You’ve just baselessly asserted a separate entity, and justified it by pointing out that people drive cars. This is a non sequitur.

When our body start falling apart is like when the old car start falling apart.
It is still going but not going like when the car was new.
The driver is still there inside the car and the car or the body is still moving but when the car wan't go anymore the driver will abandon the car in search for a new car that will allow to continue the journey toward the goal of life.

I said this previously, and you didn’t address any of it. I will restate it. Why is it that when specific brain organs responsible for sight and sound are damaged, we lose our ability to see or hear. If all of our brain functions are crossed out one by one, we quickly find ourselves unable to perceive anything about our surroundings or even our own bodies. If our entire body is destroyed, what exactly is it that you think will be surviving? There is no driver separate from the car. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so. What I’ve said makes this clear. Why do you just keep asserting things without recognizing that they are fatally flawed in this respect?

You are starting with the assumption that non-physical stuff exists. What exactly are you proposing this non-physical stuf is? You seem to be confused about perspectives, and your physical experience of thought. But, if you put a bullet through your brain, I assure you, you won't be troubled with such non-sense anymore. Saying a physical thing is like a non-physical thing only not physical gets us nowhere. You're simply asserting nonsensical utterances without justification or explanation.

You have no evidence of whatsoever that the life if finite and no logic of whatsoever that make any sense.
You may well forget those myriad of NDE who experience afterlife and God and think for a while about logic.
Where the consciousness come from?
From Santa or it is evolved from a myriad of lives?
This is logic.
You don't get anything for free so you got to have that consciousness earned.
And if you build this consciousness will all go to the dogs?
Of course not.
This is logic.
But too many people don't follow logic and think that consciousness came from Santa and all for free.

What? Are you drunk? None of this makes any sense, and you literally ignored my entire post to repeat things that you want to be true. You haven’t justified anything you’ve previously said. You haven’t resolved any of my objections, and then you finished it off with a nonsensical rant about dogs and Santa with the word logic sprinkled in between. You have demonstrated to me that you are incapable of reasoning. Your position is indistinguishable from delusion, and your state of mind is congruent with insanity. Good day.

[Little Rik]

And if the brain that ALLOWS it to operate is dead…what then will allow it to operate? You’ve just contradicted everything that you’ve said.

Not at all.
When the body die the consciousness will move to a different new body so it can continue his journey in the same way as a driver will get a new car as soon as the old car rot down.

The mind is like the hard drive of a computer which store information, form and colors.

Which exists in the brain, and if it dies, how then will your consciousness recognize form or colors? What then are you defending? Do you realize how self-refuting your thoughts are with regards to the position you think they are defending?

The mind is a reflexion of the consciousness so it does not really matter at all if the body die.
As soon as the I (me) get a new body the mind has also got to be there to express the consciousness status.
You ask a good question for someone who does not know how the system works.

The consciousness is me or I or the one who decide to start the thought or the action using the mind as a storage of information and the brains as the support for expressing action.

You don’t decide to start a thought. They appear to you in consciousness. You are limited to what occurs to you. It’s a process of things entering your mind to be processed, and then appearing in consciousness. There’s a lot of brain activity that you are completely ignoring.

It all depend.
A zombie or anyone who can not control him-herself it will be slave of reactions from previous actions but anyone who has got full control of him-herself then will be able to control the situation and decide what to do.
You are generalize too much.

Here's some light reading that may interest you. It turns out, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consci...dings.html


In this study although important to understand how the mind works there is too much generalization in the way to put all minds on the same level.
As i just said above we are all different so we can all do different things and moreover there is not a clear distinction between mind and consciousness.

You are confusing your personal experience of thought, with the third person understanding of how it actually works. I made this as plain as possible in the previous post, but you opted to ignore it completely, and just repeat yourself.

The personal experience only last for sometime but at the end what i experience is what everybody will experience.
Suppose me you and other people are all going to Rome.
I come from east, you come from west other people come from different direction.
In the beginning having taken different roads we see different panorama and experience different things but as soon as we all get in Rome we all will see the same panorama and experience the same reality.

As far as there is a parallelism among these elements everything works ok. but as soon as the body die then this parallelism is not there anymore and the consciousness separate in the same way as the driver abandon the car that does not work anymore.

That doesn’t make any sense. You’ve just baselessly asserted a separate entity, and justified it by pointing out that people drive cars. This is a non sequitur.

You may well believe that your body is the real you.
That is what to me does not make any sense at all.

When our body start falling apart is like when the old car start falling apart.
It is still going but not going like when the car was new.
The driver is still there inside the car and the car or the body is still moving but when the car wan't go anymore the driver will abandon the car in search for a new car that will allow to continue the journey toward the goal of life.

I said this previously, and you didn’t address any of it. I will restate it. Why is it that when specific brain organs responsible for sight and sound are damaged, we lose our ability to see or hear. If all of our brain functions are crossed out one by one, we quickly find ourselves unable to perceive anything about our surroundings or even our own bodies. If our entire body is destroyed, what exactly is it that you think will be surviving? There is no driver separate from the car. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so. What I’ve said makes this clear. Why do you just keep asserting things without recognizing that they are fatally flawed in this respect?

Eh, you probably never been to some poor country where the vehicles go around with bald tyres, no lights, no exhaust pipe with the engine leaking oil and no window or you never seen any body blind cripple with no teeth.
They still carry on regardless and when they will die they will resume their lives with what they had before unless their previous misery was to pay for some debts in which case they will be in a better situation.

You are starting with the assumption that non-physical stuff exists. What exactly are you proposing this non-physical stuf is? You seem to be confused about perspectives, and your physical experience of thought. But, if you put a bullet through your brain, I assure you, you won't be troubled with such non-sense anymore. Saying a physical thing is like a non-physical thing only not physical gets us nowhere. You're simply asserting nonsensical utterances without justification or explanation.

A bullet will put an end to this physical life not to the I.
How can you put an end to something that is not affected by a physical bullet?

You have no evidence of whatsoever that the life if finite and no logic of whatsoever that make any sense.
You may well forget those myriad of NDE who experience afterlife and God and think for a while about logic.
Where the consciousness come from?
From Santa or it is evolved from a myriad of lives?
This is logic.
You don't get anything for free so you got to have that consciousness earned.
And if you build this consciousness will all go to the dogs?
Of course not.
This is logic.
But too many people don't follow logic and think that consciousness came from Santa and all for free.

What? Are you drunk? None of this makes any sense, and you literally ignored my entire post to repeat things that you want to be true. You haven’t justified anything you’ve previously said. You haven’t resolved any of my objections, and then you finished it off with a nonsensical rant about dogs and Santa with the word logic sprinkled in between. You have demonstrated to me that you are incapable of reasoning. Your position is indistinguishable from delusion, and your state of mind is congruent with insanity. Good day.

When you will give me evidence that the consciousness can be killed by a bullet then i will clean your shoes and called you Sir.