kongjin

why not maybe because of a word....definition

__________________
You are not where you have been and you are not where you are going you are only here.

“	Originally posted by RobT (think back to being a child - that must have been a few situations that at least seemed like this)	”

What about picking up on things that are not normal, like the house is quiet, the dog doesn't come and greet you. little things like that. People get hot when they are angery and open windows so you might notice a temperature change.

“	(I assume you're an experimentalist ... for theorists it works slightly differently - you formulate ideas and have others test them for you)	”

sounds like a great way of skipping a lot of hard work!

“	c./ a piece of music that moves you (why should it anyway ... )	”

Something I often ask myself. I guess that the sum (us) is greater than the sum of the parts (what we know about us bologically). Though one day we may see why!

“	what about the famous ZanShin test in Maasaki Hatsumi's Bujinkan ninpo taijutsu (yes, ninjitsu) at the 5th dan level	”

I have done the same sort of thing, though not with swords or stuff. Could it not be a sense of air moving, hearing, temperature change. Again things we don't pay much attension too but are sensitive to.

“	may be ask me about it if/ when we meet (as long as you don't after a few drinks in the pub ) RT	”

That I look forward to !!

“	]Originally posted by aqira [b]or to detach to be non-material the non-material reality the scientist swear does not exist though the results do. (this usllay gets rob going)	”

If you can prove this then you are a scientist too. Sorry, but if you are trying to explain life and the universe you are a scientist!!
How is it that you can prove this and others can't
I'm not being closed mined, I consider myself to very open minded, but please give me something a little more substantial to work with.

Aqira - this is tiresome
"why not maybe because of a word....definition"

it was you who was introducing a disctinction (by virtue of definition) between material-reality and nonmaterial-reality as though they were two different things

RT

__________________
"What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" - Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

rob sorry your tired

that opens another long thread and the original question was asking for actual expierences to share

non-material science has not explained it , there has not been a formula for it yet, the idea of non material implys no-definition to define is a material process. However consider
reality is not seen in motion, we see reality by definition, what we see is how we define the differances, the lamp and the table exist to us becasue of the defined differance. motion exist it is not seen, the mind sees the outcomes of motion
walking across the floor is a series of individual acts, the mind sequences these into the act of walking and thinks it can see motion, yet the motion itself is not tangable.
reality is an outcome, effect changes outcomes yet change is not tangable creativity is not tanagable only the result is.

discovry of the universe is not the domain of science alone, the science of spirituality is never going to be complete.

a useable example "readings" not fortune telling actual readings like remote viewing the way ingo swan does it, yet how does he do it there is no definition for what he does its just a general statement a term given that cannot be specfic enough. Buddha can all of the idea of enlightnment be defined if you think it can you don't get the buddha.
Tao "that which cannot be named" general terms for what cannot be defined.

this could get long and since I started the post in a different direction I would really prefer to go back to that so to make this short..
in my tempel we follow a simple path
"spirituality can never be defined yet never denied"
this is one of the primal teachings of aqiara

__________________
You are not where you have been and you are not where you are going you are only here.

kuanti -

sensing other things - maybe, maybe. But what if you got the feeling before you opened the door ... yes, you will always _probably_ be able to find another explanation that does the job, and discard other thoughts from Ockham's razor (entities should not be needlessly multiplied). But there again, some of the explanations one will eventually be driven into coming up with will probably also be thrown out by the saem razor. Science is very good at questioning all physical suppositions and theories as long as they don't question itself too much

theorists ... hhhmmmm. Theoretical physics and metaphysics ... guess where my preference lies. (And before anyone gets nasty, I believe in practising IMA, not just talking about them )

sum greater than parts ... how indeed. And, oh joy!, the usual reductionist cry of "we may not be able to answer you now, but give us infinite time and we will get there". How reasssuring!

about swords and the like. The problem is one of time. I can stand infront of you within striking distance and hit you before you have time to react from the visual clues. (Actualy I can do this from distances of 6 foot or more with a suitable implement - like a sword). I fence - I know people's reaction speeds. I know you can get too close and hit them before they know anything about it. Same thing with Hatsumi, or the demonstrations I have done. Not enough time (that and observers will often say that movement is started in me before movement is started in the partner. But only very very slightly - before you say I give them a visual clue. Not within reaction times)

Just a few thoughts. I suspect science will never be convinced - precisely because it usually sets out not to be. Or because it prefers a very long and complicated explanation according to its existing beliefs rather than accept a much simper paradigm shift. Thus not applying that razor on itself

RT

__________________
"What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" - Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Aqira - well, there's plenty to be discussed that has already been mentioned.

I've given a few examples now, WuMingJen has given one.

Ball now in your court

RT

__________________
"What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" - Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

which area do you prefer
though I would like to do this a little different perhaps list an event then look at possable answers to explain it also if anyone wants to just share an expierence they have had or something they are developing I have an interest in hearing about other people and what they have had happen or what they can offer to others
debates never get resolved here anyway

__________________
You are not where you have been and you are not where you are going you are only here.

I'm not trying to disprove anything, I'm just offering more rational explantations. I ask these question because I want people to give me something to really think about. i like my views to be challenged, but so far theres been nothing but very poor answers.

If there are ways to sense things in ways other than the 5 traditional senses then I would like to know how and why!

Science is simply what is. You are confusioning the traditional narrow minded scientist with science. The two are completely seperate, whether or not people (both scientists and "newer age" thinkers) like it.

I'm sorry but discover of any nature is science!

"sum greater than parts ... how indeed. And, oh joy!, the usual reductionist cry of "we may not be able to answer you now, but give us infinite time and we will get there". How reasssuring! "

Come on Rob you can do better than that. You know its true, why can't there be an answer for things. Does the idea of there being an answer to things distrube your view of the world


"I suspect science will never be convinced - precisely because it usually sets out not to be. Or because it prefers a very long and complicated explanation according to its existing beliefs rather than accept a much simper paradigm shift. Thus not applying that razor on itself "

Confusion again, scientists may set out to be negative, but science it's self doesn't have emotions!! Therefore a sweeping statment that doesn't fairly cover everyone. If you can't prove it then your either testing it wrongly or it doesn't exist, but you can always believe what you like!

"this could get long and since I started the post in a different direction I would really prefer to go back to that so to make this short.. "

Just when it was getting interesting you want to run away!!

kun...I'm a little confused which one of us are you yelling at

__________________
You are not where you have been and you are not where you are going you are only here.

I'm not yelling at anyone!
I'm still waiting for some mind stimulating discussion! Come on you can do better than this!!
Examples and experiences would contribute greatly, you must have something more to say!

I thought I said a lot, and rob did too, even though we differ some in what we believe I think we gave a lot of information.

not sure you are going to really get enough in a thread to know how to do these things I wish you could but it has taken most of my life and I do this all the time if it were that fast we could change the world quickly

I'll give you one to think about

A while back I met a couple that came to see what the temple was all about, that's how it ussaly happens
I did not know them or anything about them. In one of my demenstrations on detachment I touched the woman on the side of her head, just felt to do it no real reason.

about an hour later my wife was talking to the group just general conversation, the woman sat up eyes opned real wide and said oh I can hear you...
come to find out she was deaf had been for years, she had several surgeriesin the past with no results, she was there reading lips and I thought she was just being attentive. They joined us she still hears been almost 2 years now.
I did not intend to do this, at least not in this instance,there was no special conditions going on other than speaking about non-defined energy.sort of like my previouse post.

__________________
You are not where you have been and you are not where you are going you are only here.

Thank you!

So how do you know it was you that made her hearing come back

Also, what do you think happened to make it come back

there was a discharge mostly felt by her, she described as a sting a little wind and a rushing feeling came over her like being flush
no other event occure after that just several people in general conversation, it came back fast but it was about a 45 min process of her realizing it and realizing it was not her imagination. I have done it since she is at about 70% of capability now.

I started to state something about non-defined energy,
I think.... non-defined energy exist and can be utialized.
hard to prove non-material energy yet the results can be very specific. altering energy can produce results though the alteration itself is hard to detect, this is becasue as I stated before in the example of motion change creativity these things themselves are not-defined still the results are vivid.
How do you produce motion A person unlike objects can generate and direct motion. The mind sees the comparable differeance but does not see the motion it generates. How do you know you did you depend on the changes to show you that something has happened. Detachment means to not use the method the mind uses to detect to define. To detach by realizing detachment can't happen it has to be non-specfic. This sounds like a riddle though still we see the results.

__________________
You are not where you have been and you are not where you are going you are only here.

2 posts coming up - one answering kuanti (might get abstract). One feeding off aqira's example.

First to kuanti:

“	"sum greater than parts ... how indeed. And, oh joy!, the usual reductionist cry of "we may not be able to answer you now, but give us infinite time and we will get there". How reasssuring! " Come on Rob you can do better than that. You know its true, why can't there be an answer for things. Does the idea of there being an answer to things distrube your view of the world	”

Sorry, there is a little bit of background to that statement which you may or may not be aware of. There is a group/ position in the Philosophy of Mind called material reductionism as held by Paul and Patricia Curchland and followers. Paul is the philosopher, Patricia the neuro-physiologist.

They espouse a hard-line scientific reductionist position where they believe/ argue that the brain will someday be fully understood and, in principle, modelled. Such that one could be plugged into a machine that could give a read out of belief states, thoughts, emotions etc. So - "what are you thinking about" - "how dull this experiment is" - "no, you are thinking about how exicting this prospect is - you must be lying" ... and *bang* goes first-person privilege.

So, you see, the statement I gave was directed at this line of scientific reasoning. What I should have stated more clearly was there is often a gap between scientific ideals and scientific practice. Indeed yes, the true domain of science is the natural -whatever that may be. Not the material and physico-chemical (although this is included in the natural, it is an _assumption_ that the two are identical sets). Science should be clear and state its assumptions ...

whilst speaking of assumptions ... there is that of the entire inductive method (hello Mr Hume!). Hume shows that there is no _rational_ reason why we should believe that the "future is conformable to the past". OK, so it always has been in the past, so one can say ... oh blast! that's circluar!!!!! So, all of our experimentation, all of science that attempts to form an understanding (and the test of this is always experiment - seeing if future results are consistent with present theory) is based on a non-rational assumption.


Wooops!!!!!

So, we may see the scientific hypocrasy in the following:

TCM (acupuncture for example) is often critiscised as being "just placebo". Well, there are published estimates (British Medical Journal, I believe) saying that placebo accounts for between 40% and 70% of _all_ clinicaly observed effect. i.e. including conventional allopathic medicine. Presumably acupuncture is just considered to have got quite good at this "mere placebo". So, we can either:
a./ dismiss it is irrelevent, not reproducible in controlled, double-blind best practice, and anyway, nothing to do with known phsyiological process and thus outside of our control
or ...
b./ get actually quite excited about the fact that as many as 70% of people might be curable without physical clinical intervention! Thus no chemical side-effects, toxicity etc. This, at the very least merits investigation! Think of the benefits for allopathic treatment if one can combine the 2 - lower doses, better success rates ...
or ...
c./ following on from the above - we might even investigate the acupuncture process itself, instead of saying that "proper" tests are impossible to carry out due to the issues with controls from placebo effect that screw up the current double-blind standard. Instead of saying "the results are not valid because of ... " one could just as well say "while the results do not meet allopathic methodological standards, the following was observed as being _real_ events". And there's the rub - cannot easily control, so therefore ignore the results.


Just a few things to think about kuanti. There will always be questions that science cannot and should not seek to answer. That is why we have philosophy ...

Aristotle wrote a book called the "Physics" - it attempted to physicaly explain the world he saw.
He then wrote a book called the "Meta-physics" - where meta is the Greek for over (i.e. more fundamental than) in which he attempts to place it all into some over0riding structure to better make sense of it all.

So, some questions for the scientist (yes, I know I have not sought to answer questions here, just pose them to shake the seeming unasailability of the scientific method)

is the inductive method rational
science just about always uses time and space as measures - so we understand these
is science itself therefore rational
science can answer everything (refer back to sum greater than parts or whatever. Dwarkins, here we come with the "why are we here question etc.")

RT

__________________
"What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" - Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

“	Originally posted by aqira [b]there was a discharge mostly felt by her, she described as a sting a little wind and a rushing feeling came over her like being flush	”

Woow. Great stuff! Did she feel any heat or other sensations within her hears. What kind of damage did her inner ears have i guess it was serious given she'd had surgery. Do you think there was possibly also an emtional element preventing her hearing, or was it all purely physical

“	I think.... non-defined energy exist and can be utialized. hard to prove non-material energy yet the results can be very specific.	”

could you give an example Does, non-defined mean can never be define, or is not yet define

“	This sounds like a riddle though still we see the results.	”

Could you give an example of this as well. This ones is a bit harder to visualise!