Enlightenment?

35 posts / 0 new
Last post
Enlightenment?

I regularly visit a spirituality/mysticism forum. The majority of topics are a mish-mash of pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo, quite harmless, sometimes amusing and interesting to read. But there's a specific forum titled, 'Psychic Self Defence' where you'll find a minority of members (including moderators) who are convinced that we are surrounded daily by 'negative entities' or evil spirits. I often avoid this forum because, quite frankly, it's laughable.

But I have a worry about this forum: from time to time the forum is visited by mentally ill people (mainly those with bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia and general atypical personalities). They are searching for help regards hallucinations.

What surprises me and upsets me is the behaviour of the moderators (who all have books and websites dedicated to 'psychic self defence') who pounce on these vulnerable people and manipulate the seed of paranoia the mentally ill visitors have planted. They encourage these people to do things such as this:-

"take a garden hose, run the water full blast through it, coil it into a circle, and stand in the middle for a bit."

This is meant to repel 'negative entities'.

This is worrying. It's worrying that the mentally ill are being ensnared by such unscrupulous, deceitful people who have no real interest or concern for the mentally ill but are determined to sell their latest idea or shroud the unsuspecting member in superstitious crap such as that mentioned above in order to profit from them. The saddest aspect of it all is that a lot of the mentally ill members who frequent the site end up believing in it and end up becoming more paranoid and more upset because they're encouraged to believe that they can't help themselves, the problem lies outside themselves (in the form of evil spirits) and the only way to combat it is to follow the published procedures of these rogues promoting it.

How do they profit from getting someone to stand in the middle of a looped garden hose? I don't understand how this is any more than simple poor judgement.
Because they convince these people that water and salt repels evil spirits. The average age of the members is 15-25. They profit by publishing books cram-packed with procedures such as the hose mentioned above, and people buy them. the alarming thing is: mentally ill people are turning to these rogues who are reeling them in by manipulating their condition. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

People will always buy snake-oil, not just the mentally ill but also the stupid, it's not really any different from an astrology column in a newspaper.

 

I agree but it's a worry that there are vulnerable members of our society getting brainwashed by these rogues. Astrology doesn't encourage a mentally ill person to go and stand in their back yard with a running hose pipe coiled around their bodies. Just the image of someone with a history of such disorders standing there...like that....seriously believing that it's going to help rid them of evil spirits (the cause of their illness) is just sickening. I wish there was something I could do to convince these people not to bite, but they seem blinded by an eagerness to believe. It's hard to argue with the fanatics at the site because the majority of them are moderators and you just get mail threatening you with a ban. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

I despise crappy new-age pseudoscience more than most, and the fact that it preys on the vulnerable is the things about it I despise the most.

 

Well Mr Yan, As per your invitation to do so, I am responding herewith... I cannot comment specifically on the forum you mention, because I am unaware to which forum it is to which you are referring - any chance of a link or sommat? Regarding the aforementioned topic, in more general terms, I have let it know elsewhere on these pages that on the nature of the universe, aspects of so-called "mental illness," fate, destiny and other such "pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo" and so forth, my views tend towards the unothordox and frequently unpopular. I maintain such views not for their own sake and in order to be unpopular, but because I genuinely believe the mind, the structure of reality, etc, are unfathomably strange and mysterious things, to which conventional scientific wisdom can only shine but a partial light on the truth thereof. I do however strongly maintain the following... Exploitation in any form is unforgivable. The myriad books that presently exist on topics such as “spirituality,” “mysticism” and so on present a myriad views on how to live our lives, how to interpret our experiences and how to react to the “energies,” personalities and experiences around us. Such views, like all views, may or may not be valid, but ultimately we as individuals should ultimately make our own minds up on such things. Where an individual or an organisation, particular those in positions of particular power or influence, appear to be using their position to exploit those who for whatever reason are unable to “make up their own mind,” I again maintain that such behaviour is unforgivable and should be fought against. I nevertheless feel it is important to maintain an open mind on, for example, what is/are the source(s) of “mental-illness” (which may be purely physical, but may to some degree also be down to other more esoteric influences (in my opinion)). I admit I’m being pretty generalistic in some of the above, but this is to a large extent down to the thing which I am about to bring up in “The Jeremy Clarkson Thread”... ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar
That's fair peps. But if science can only shine a light on such issues, what gives religion and pseudo-science an exclusive magestirium over science? Why does the chaplain (an ordinary bloke like you and me) or the self-styled mystic claim such a privelege? Have you heard of 'teapot-ism' or the 'spaghetti monster'? There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

They shouldn't claim such priveleges - whether or not they do (and I do believe that they do) is a different matter! I am as opposed to people dissing science as dissing various forms of "spiritualism/mysticism" - or at least dissing an open minded viewpoint which allows for the possibility of alternative explanations for aspects of reality and mind. What I am also definitely opposed to is a presumption that orthodox science ("science" being something which covers a very wide range of knowledge-bases) has all the answers (at least potentially) and is not subjective. There is definitely subjectivity in science - particularly with respect of such fields which relate to consciousness, evolution, cosmology and quantam physics... i.e. the sorts of things where direct observation of phenomena becomes, at certain levels, impossible. Theories and conjecture abound in science - as you, my friend Yan, reader of Dennett and the like, should know! And much scientific study does not entail a sort of Tabula Rasa discovering of “what is out there” and a seeking after knowledge and truth, but more a proving of theories devised by individuals whose careers and livelihoods are based upon such. I’m not a total cynic though, much as it may seem so. I love science, me! ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar
But isn't the golden rule of science: no theory can ever be proven or disproven, only reinforced? Isn't the 'conjecture' an 'hypothesis' which is then subject to rigorous peer review and re-testing? Doesn't science deal the honest hand? I know politics is forever trampling on scientific progress and mystical rogues are forever nipping in and borrowing from science, nipping out again and then denying the validity of science with the old 'everything is subjective - create your own illusion' garbage. But aren't we exposed to deceit if we were to allow these people to oppose the very theories that they're borrowing from in order to reinforce their own publishing contacts? I know, we all have to pay the phone bill and feed the family, but where do we draw the line in allowing such people access to our vulnerable members of society? Too much respect given, in my opinion, to those who really ahven't got a bloody clue what they're talking about, except maybe a shrewd understanding of pyschology and the placebo effect. It's illegal to advertise magnetic therapy as capable of alleviating diseases such as cancer and aids (because the placebo effect doesn't work when a disease rarely heals naturally) but why not for mental illness such as bipolar or schizophrenia? These are just as destructive as 'physical' diseases. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

May I just say at this juncture that I find myself wincing at my own blanket usage above of terms such as "Science," "Mysticism" and so forth, as I think anyone ought to agree that such fields of human thought and endeavour are extremely wide ranging in scope, and arguments and viewpoints pertaining to such should, ideally, be expressed with more specific reference to particular and descriptive aspects. That said... I reiterate that I believe exploitation to be wrong in whatever context, particularly where it refers to taking advantage of those in positions of physical and mental vulnerability. Unless there is substantial evidence that particular forms of "therapy" actually work, then yes, perhaps the law should be stricter in restricting or even banning their usage. However... I do feel there is a danger in trusting 'Science' too much. No, it doesn't necessarily 'deal the honest hand.' Politics, subjectivity and personal career objectives do influence the direction of particular studies... although one would hope that there are enough true, 'pure,' uninfluencable (?) scientists out that to substantially counteract such factors. Also... There comes a point in some disciplines where 'Science' and 'Mysticism' need not be directly opposing forces. I do, for example, refer to such aspects of quantum physics where we ('they') speak of quarks, photons, string theory and the like - being phenomena which are not directly measurable except by tools which have specifically been designed to measure them. We seem to have got to a point where we have discerned that the universe is constructed of mysterious forms of energy, but beyond that numerous theories and conjectures abound... and isn't this pretty similar to what numerous so-called 'Mystics' and the like are saying? Well anyway, there we are... and stuff... Back to you! ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar
By the way, no I haven't heard of... 'teapot-ism' or the 'spaghetti monster' ... wazzat then? ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar
Quantum mechanics is a prime example of an area of science that the pseudoscientific mystics and spiritualists have borrowed from in order to reinforce their belief engines. I've often asked in spiritual forums, "why do you have a quantum mechanics forum?" Clear-cut answers were not forthcoming but run along the lines of 'gap filling'. That is, any area of physics or biology (take, for example, the fossil record or consciousness) which has gaps is immediately claimed by mystics and filled with God. Or any other crap that isn't supported by any evidence. They thrive on mystery. Given an explanation they'd be off... falling into the next gap. But my argument with quantum mechanics is: doesn't entanglement and decoherence fill the gaps? There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Erm... I admit there are gaps in my own knowledge... what's "entanglement" and "decoherence" all about then? Speaking for myself (because I can't speak for all "pseudoscientific mystics and spiritualists"), I am personally constantly on a search for the "truth" about such things as the nature of consciousness, the soul, the structure of the universe, etc. There are some things I believe, things I just feel to be true - but there is nothing for which I wouldn't allow the possibility of being convinced that I may be wrong. I don't (well I try not to) use science to back up my spiritual/esoteric beliefs or vice versa, but it does seem to me that certain "mystical types" are just as prone to being close-minded about aspects of their beliefs as more rational "scientific types." I think there are levels at which what seem to be opposing forces could actually not be entirely speaking different languages. Personally I might throw out words like "God" and "Spirit" and "Soul" and... ooh, I dunno... "Life-force" or whatever... but only because these words are the best ones I can find or think of which come some way towards explaining what I believe to be (somewhere near) the "truth." I’m no expect on quantum physics or cosomology (for example) - very, very, very far from it! But in science, as well as in numerous other knowledge-based aspects of existence, there are definitely, and probably always will be... as the song which used to be the theme tune to “Question of Sport” goes... more questions then answers. One should not, as you seem to be saying, automatically leap to filling in the gaps with “pseudoscientific nonsense”. I think, however, that sometimes the disparity between “Science” and “Mysticism” is one of language and close-mindedness to at least listening to the alternative point of view. Where a person on one side says “soul,” a person on the other side may say “seat of conciousness”... and it may turn out that they mean exactly the same thing! But because each “side” is traditionally and stubbornly opposed, they refuse to see that their seemingly opposing viewpoints could inform each other rather than necessarily fight against each other. I’ve read enough about quantum physics to know that it is a complex and mysterious thing, which many of its practitioners will admit is something of an esoteric science which even they are very much only scratching the surface of... Einsteen himself didn’t “believe” in it! One thing I personally have quite a strongly held belief in is the “connectedness” of all things - okay, I admit, that’s a pretty vague term, but there are aspects of quantum physics and quantum cosmology which are “proving” (often to the bafflement of the observers) that particles and energies are somehow “communicating” which each other across vast and unexplainable distances (even times?)... Could such observations perhaps not explain “alleged” psychic ability, telekenesis and maybe even continuation of the (so-called) “soul”? Just on one final point (for now)... I do believe human instincts, “feelings” and dreams should perhaps be taken notice of more than some more “rational types” would like. There are numerous scientific discoveries that have been arrived at (or at least conceptualised) through some kind of eureka-moment, a dream or whatever, as opposed to from dilligent hours of study and reading of dry texts... if I remember correctly, Relativity is such a thing. Therefore as much as we should be extremely be wary of believing anything just because someone says they “feel” it to be true, such thought processes should not be dismissed entirely. Well there we are. Next...? ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar
Entanglement is the "spooky action at a distance" that Einstein was concerned about. Decoherence kinda kicks the 'the moon is not there if someone isn't observing it' idea into place. Here's a little more in-depth description as I'm recalling from lit I read a few years back. http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCHILD/Decoherence/Decoherence.... I've no problems with non-locality. In fact, I strongly believe that hypnagogia is the most accesible state available for studying psi. Anomalous experiences are common to us all at some point. What I can't embrace is 'supernatural' phenomena. If mystics (I know, it's those words again) are intent on utilising nuggets of immature science from quantum mechanics then I'd presume that they are also looking to take the 'super' out of 'supernatural' ? I agree that, more often than not, 'mystics' and 'scientists' are roughly interpreting the same world in different ways. But the difference is: science goes one step further. Whereas the mystic is ceaslessly banging his head against a brick wall, getting nowhere, and denying that he feels humiliated about his illogical beliefs, the scientist is standing next to him carefully hacking away at the wall to discover what may lie ahead of it? I dunno. We don't perform the rain-dance anymore because we're now aware that it doesn't affect the amount of rainfall. But the underlying ritual/scientific principle is the same: the law of attraction. Imitative magic of our primitive men and women had sussed the fundamentals but the child-brain put a gloss on it. Put a dualist and monist together and you get a pretty nasty, three-headed serpent! There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Nature = "Super". Therefore Natural = Supernatural. There are those of a religious bent who fear scientists will kill God. I feel it is more likely they will find Him... but "He" will not be quite what "they" expect! ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar
I hope so! There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

I suspect those folks who "invented" various religions all those millenia ago were probably more aware of the "truth" of the matter than your 21st century priests, "mystics" and so on. Although they had to wrap things up in language and symbology the common folk would understand. For example, the idea of the Tao is of a mysterious universal force which no one can ever really understand... which makes a lot more sense, both spiritually and scientifically, than your bearded old chap on a cloud! ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar
Cottleston Pie! There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

A fish can't whistle and neither can I. ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar
Ask me a riddle and I reply. Here's a thought exercise regards consciousness:- Scientists make a successful clone of Pepsoid. They are now known as peps1 and peps2. Peps 1 and peps 2 are both asked into separate rooms each containing a painting. peps1 is seated facing the Mona Lisa and peps2 is seated facing The Last Supper. Which painting do you see? There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Which painting do I see? I, peps1? I would presume I see the Mona Lisa, but that seems too easy... :-/ It depends what you mean by "I"... or rather, what I mean by "I"... whether I consider "I" to be all possible (identical (or not)) versions of myself... Which I don't, because I believe "I" to be only the "I" that I experience... So I would have to say that I (peps1) see the Mona Lisa... ... Go on then, prove me wrong! ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar
I can't prove you wrong, I just wanted your opinion on it. So, you opine that your consciousness would remain attached to your original body? So the rest of you (brain, heart, nervous system, etc) is 'cloneable' but not your consciousness? There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

This thread is my worst nightmare.
Why? 'pro-clone' enthusiasts cite the 'twin paradox' as evidence that the clone would enjoy his/her own individuality... There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

This is indeed an issue I have wrangled over in relation to the possibility (?) of downloading one's personality into a computer! In fact, if you weren't already aware, Horizon tonight (9pm on BBC2, I believe) looks at the very likely possibility that computers will be potentially as intelligent as humans by something like 2030... But back on topic... I am personally of the belief that however much of "me" you clone or transfer to an "artificial" medium or whatever, the "me" that "I" am will always remain so... I have never been able to get my head around how one could actually transfer, perhaps even perfectly, all the neuronal connections and whatever to another body or a computer, whilst also maintaining the continuation of the consciousness. If, for example, "I" die, but my personality is transferred into my Apple Super-Mega-iMac, "I" would still "feel" dead, would I not? Even it appears to all observers that my life and consciousness have continued... ... Bring the "soul" into it, and you add a whole other level of complexity! ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar
Bringing the soul into it, are you saying that you believe that consciousness is part and parcel of the body (as in, an ultimate product of the brain) and the soul is not? But if consciousness is part and parcel of the brain and was therefore transferred along with the rest of the body then how would you know who you are? Or are you saying that the body, consciousness and the soul are three separate entities, like the father, son and the holy spirit - but one of the same? What's on horizon tonight **runs off to check** I'm doing my own head in here. The twin paradox fails slightly here because they're both of the same age. But if your memory was transferred to your new-born clone then could you ask it what you were doing this time last thursday and be sure that it/he/she would be able to answer that question? There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

In reverse order...! If one's entire memory was transferred to one's clone (or a 'puter or whatever), then I see know reason why the transferree would not be able to answer correctly where "they" (i.e. the transferrer) where last Thursday - of course, they wouldn't be answering correctly in terms of where they (the transferree) were, because they would be answering on behalf of and referring to the memories of the transferer... On the question of the Trinity of Body/Consciousness/Soul... similarly to the Father/Son/Holy Spirit trinity, I do believe they are individual entities and yet intricately and intimately entwined... Can Body/Consciousness/Soul be seperated? I shall have to mull on that one and come back to you! (ooh, I feel like I'm back at Philosophy class...! (except that I never did Philosophy...)) ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar
Thoroughly enjoyed the Horizon doc last night, peps. You're a bugger though because I missed me Pritchard. :) Wifey and me were all "wow" and "ooo" and wasn't it worth watching just to see the paralysed guy learning how to speak again. ROCK ON! There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

Haven’t seen it yet, so don’t tell me too much! Anyway, I’ve had a mull… I think I am of the opinion that the consciousness is intimately and inextricably intertwined with the brain. Even if my consciousness (i.e. all my memories etc) was transferred to another physical matrix, I wouldn’t feel the transfer unless my actual physical brain was transplanted. This is sort of a hunch, a “feeling,” an educated guess. If one likens it to transferring more mundane forms of data from computer to computer (via an email, a floppy disc or whatever)… when one “moves” a Word file, nothing physical actually moves – not like with an old-fashioned paper file. Data is an abstract concept, which has a physical basis, but physically the information is merely destroyed and rebuilt elsewhere. It seems to me that this is what would happen if you “transfer” a human consciousness… “I” would die, but then another (albeit identical) “I” would be rebuilt elsewhere… It would seem to observers that “I” had remained contiguous (?), but subjectively this wouldn’t have been the case. Similarly with twins or clones; it may in extreme cases seem as if they share one consciousness, and even though they may indeed share a psychic link, there will still always be two “I”s. So… the soul… what is it and can it exist outside the body/consciousness? More mulling, methinks… (PS. why’s it so flippin’ qiuet round ABC at the mo? I almost miss the presence of Missi & Co!) (almost…) ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar
Interesting. I shall have to consult my intuition. Missi's probably having breakfast with the Beach Boys as we speak. Either that or he's loitering outside a memphis recording studio. The site normally gets busier as the cold, dark nights draw in. We'll see. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

It is quiet because you two have bludgeoned everyone to death with your wit.
Greetings, Mr Room, I don't believe we've met! (were we being witty? ... I didn't realise we were being witty... ) ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar
We weren't peps. :-[ There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed -
Dennett

I thought not. I thought we were just being impressively intellectual. :-) ~PEPS~ You can’t finish a man till he’s finished his Texan Bar
Topic locked