Environments suggesting an afterlife may be encountered via certain meditation techniques.
What is your control group for this?
Does people not experiencing this while mediating prove it does not exist. (I have been practising meditation for 20 years and have no indication of this)
Interviews with children who recall past lives suggests reincarnation.
Do interviews with children who do not recall pass lives invalidate this?
Something fitting description of a “creator of the universe” may be encountered via certain meditation techniques.
What is your control group for this?
Does people not experiencing this while mediating prove it does not exist. (I have been practising meditation for 20 years and have no indication of this)
Little people. Hmm. You got me there. But the literature is filled with reports.
Literature is filled with shit people made up, it proves nothing scientifically.
And of course, these methods unavoidably esoteric and depthy.
Exactly, none of what you wrote is based on the scientific method.
The scientific method consists of observation and talking about what you observed. The rest is accounting.
And tho I appreciate balanced books as much as anybody, let’s not let that distract us from our first step in any scientific investigation : Observation.
Which leads us to these methods that I roughed out for you there.
But if these methods are not your cup of tea then you can only blame yourself.
And if you prefer to ignore those who have gone where you have not, then, again, you can only blame yourself.
Observation is not looking at something and drawing a conclusion. It is noticing something, looking into that something, and then designing a controlled environment to test your observations to see whether you observed correctly.
I can’t look at an apple for the first time and tell you whether or not it is ripe. I would first need to know what an apple should look like when it’s ripe based on what I find, and then make sure that an apple is ripe when it is in a certain condition.
So many of us think of ourselves as smart and sensible while actually being as locked into the paradigm of the hour as a 13th century religious zealot. Same insanity, different century.
I can’t believe that you take dreams seriously. Everybody knows they’re just hallucinations.
Afterlife? Reincarnation? It’s just fantasies.
A creator of the universe? Crazy.
Little people. Spirits. Sure people reported seeing them for thousands of years. But now we know better.
Don’t be crazy.
I know I’m beating this point into the dirt. But seriously.
Semmelweis’s hypothesis is testable. None of what you mentioned is.
Have you tried conducting the relevant experiments? That’s how we test such things.
Give us your experimental designs to verify or falsify all the things you listed:
I personally believe none of it but show me how it can be proven using the scientific method.
Ok.
Environments suggesting an afterlife may be encountered via certain meditation techniques.
Interviews with children who recall past lives suggests reincarnation.
Something fitting the description of a “creator of the universe” may be observed via certain meditation techniques.
Little people. Hmm. You got me there. But the literature is filled with reports. I hear that frequent fasting is good.
Spirits. I’d advise hallucinogens.
And of course, these methods are unavoidably esoteric and depthy.
What is your control group for this?
Does people not experiencing this while mediating prove it does not exist. (I have been practising meditation for 20 years and have no indication of this)
Do interviews with children who do not recall pass lives invalidate this?
What is your control group for this?
Does people not experiencing this while mediating prove it does not exist. (I have been practising meditation for 20 years and have no indication of this)
Literature is filled with shit people made up, it proves nothing scientifically.
Exactly, none of what you wrote is based on the scientific method.
The scientific method consists of observation and talking about what you observed. The rest is accounting.
And tho I appreciate balanced books as much as anybody, let’s not let that distract us from our first step in any scientific investigation : Observation.
Which leads us to these methods that I roughed out for you there.
But if these methods are not your cup of tea then you can only blame yourself.
And if you prefer to ignore those who have gone where you have not, then, again, you can only blame yourself.
Observation is not looking at something and drawing a conclusion. It is noticing something, looking into that something, and then designing a controlled environment to test your observations to see whether you observed correctly.
I can’t look at an apple for the first time and tell you whether or not it is ripe. I would first need to know what an apple should look like when it’s ripe based on what I find, and then make sure that an apple is ripe when it is in a certain condition.
deleted by creator
So many of us think of ourselves as smart and sensible while actually being as locked into the paradigm of the hour as a 13th century religious zealot. Same insanity, different century.