|
|
|
|
Ok, the weekend is upon me once again so I can sleep in late this evening so : ), here’s a question. I’ve noticed over time that there is always a lively discussion about “religion” but very little about “spirituality”, at least that I know of. So here it is, what and how do you all think or feel about that vague thing we call spirituality, if and how it may diverge from religion or if not at all?
Just to add a little something interesting to the mix I’m going to try and insert a link to an interesting article about a study done at the University Pennsylvania school of medicine where they imaged brains of people while speaking in tongues.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/524795/#imagetop
I will only add, that for my self I have always found that religion, or if you will religiosity, is something we do intellectually, and that spirituality is something that verges more to the metaphysical for which we do not have to a great degree, or very limited, the ability to study with hard science. I often wonder if “all there is” is what we can observe with the science we have at our disposal, is there more, which we can not measure with traditional forms of reason.?
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Actually... While a religous man usually is spiritual a spiritual man need not be particularly religous.
While I personally do not follow any organized religon I do consider myself spiritual.
I see religon as more antiintelectually driven than anything else..... Religons thrive on controling their congregations..... congregations of controlable people are not generally considered to be movers and shakers... although powerful people do follow religion... I see that ploy as a move to gain the confidence of the slower thinkers in the group.
Just my opinion...
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm... well, religion tends to be very dogmatic, and insists at least on everyone believing the same thing; almost everyone can experience spirituality, but not necessarily in the same way as anyone else. It's easier to for us here to discuss dogma than it is to discuss subjective experience.
I agree that spirituality cannot be explained by today's science; but, without wanting to start an argument (I think I'd be better to stay out of this thread, really!) I am convinced that this is because we do not understand the human brain well enough. In that sense those constructs without a strict rational explanation are metaphysical. But while it may well be simply too complicated for us humans to understand, this is not to say that it is not understandable, given unlimited time and intelligence.
I am not really capable myself from separating those of my experiences that are "spiritual" from those that are not, for I see them all as part of the same continuum of emotions. I'd be interested, arich, to know how you define "spiritual".
David
[Updated on: Fri, 03 November 2006 13:01] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m glad you didn’t stay out of this thread! I can not define spirituality. I know though, that my life is full of experiences that I consider spiritual. I know what I would like to believe by virtue of thousands of years of human conditioning, hehe what can I say I am a frail human being LOL well, at least I think I am, a human being. I have had experiences though, that do not seem to be constructs of the mind. As you say though, we know so little about so many things. Ahhh and the human mind, now that to me, is one of the last great frontiers. We are finding out things that were not long ago beyond our imaginations and I can not put any presuppositions on what we might find in our journey to find out. LOL did I just copout?
Another quick question along the same vain, I would be interested to know if anyone here has ever spent time in a sensory depravation tank, and if so what you experienced?
Peace
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 475
|
|
|
Marc said
>Actually... While a religous man usually is spiritual a spiritual man need not be particularly religous.
I agree with that.
>While I personally do not follow any organized religon I do consider myself spiritual.
Also agreed
Deeej said
>Hmm... well, religion tends to be very dogmatic, and insists at least on everyone believing the same thing; almost everyone can experience spirituality, but not necessarily in the same way as anyone else. It's easier to for us here to discuss dogma than it is to discuss subjective experience.
I agree with this too ( don't know why I am so agreeable today)
I have attended a spiritualist church for a number of years and one of their main claims is that there is no religious dogma. One is free to believe whatever they are comfortable with.
I have also had quite a number of what I would call spiritual experiences (things that can't be explained by science at this time)
To me it is healthy to approach these things with skepticism as long as one keeps an open mind.
Arich I would be interested to hear about your experiences.
Aussie
[Updated on: Fri, 03 November 2006 21:53] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>what and how do you all think or feel about that vague thing we call spirituality, if and how it may diverge from religion or if not at all?
I believe that in many ways religion is nothing more than a corruption of spirituality, if you define religion as a group of believers in a common dogma, doctrine, or spirituality. The idea is fine. It's the implementing of that idea that turns out to be problematic. Inevitably we wind up with folk pointing the finger at other folk and accusing them of not doing things properly. People try to control other people and the spirituality goes to hell. To me that is an apt description of religion.
Spirituality on the other hand is a deep and personal belief in a greater power, in my case the God worshiped by Christians, Muslims, and Jews. But to me it's a personal thing not a corporate thing in that I don't do it simply because they are. And I allow the rest of my fellow travelers on this earth to believe the way they see fit as long as they are not hurting or abusing their fellow travelers.
The God of Christianity said "By this all men will know that you are my followers; you will love each other."
How many Christians do you know that actually practice that? Just try walking into your local church for example holding your partner's hand. You'll find out real quick whether they're spiritual or religious. To the spiritual folk, it won't matter. The religious ones are likely to throw a fit and fall in it.
That's my opinion on the question. I added my reply before going on to read everyone else's so have no idea what I'm going to find, but am anxious to hear what the rest of you have said.
Teddy
“There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That's what sin is.” - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie
|
|
Really getting into it |
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 475
|
|
|
Teddy, I think you have a good way of looking at it.
If its's right for you to hell with the rest.
We look forward to your further comments when you have read the rest of the posts.
Aussie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
The biggest difficulty is that each of us has his own definition of spirituality. The Concise Oxford Dictionary offers the rather unhelpful definition 'spiritual quality'. Several definitions are provided for 'spiritual', most linking to religious concepts, but the broadest and most helpful definition is that 'spiritual' is the opposite of 'material'.
My own definition of the concept follows Marc's proposition that it is not restricted to religion. Obviously, religion may generate spiritual experiences, but an agnostic like myself is equally able to feel a spiritual influence.
I can envisage two distinct kinds of spirituality. The first is associated with the sense of awe. Confronted with, say, a natural but spectacular phenomenon such as the Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights), a religious person might be overawed by the wonder of God's creation, even though he is fully aware of the scientific principles involved. That would surely rank as a spiritual experience. The agnostic or atheist could experience precisely the same feeling, but without the religious overtones. I'd say that his experience is equally spiritual. The best definition I can offer for spirituality of this type is that it is the sensation which occurs when the input from our senses acts (or appears to act) directly upon our emotions without being consciously processed.
The other kind is the 'supernatural' kind of spirituality, of which 'speaking in tongues' is an example. Here, I go along with Deeej, at least in principle. Our present state of knowledge suggests that brain activity is concentrated in certain areas, and that there are other areas in which very little activity can be detected. We still have a lot to learn about ourselves! I suspect that an explanation for most forms of 'supernatural' activity will one day be explained in terms of brain function but, for now, we can only speculate. For example, there's ample evidence that an abnormal state can be induced - through hypnotism, through sensory deprivation, or by sensory over-stimulation. 'Speaking in tongues' is in the third category. It may be that the stimuli induce some form of function dissociation, so that the subject speaks his normal language but his tongue, lips and larynx effectively receive signals in code, with some kind of 'shift' from their normal function. One day, we will discover the truth. Interestingly, so far as I can establish, there doesn't seem to have been much independent and controlled linguistic research in this area. The study of linguistics has moved forward rapidly in recent times, and it should be possible to determine whether the product of 'speaking in tongues' has the structure of a language, or is so random that it is incapable of conveying meaning.
In summary, I believe that most forms of abnormal - 'supernatural' - activity, from horse-whispering to fire-walking, will eventually be explained in terms of brain function. In the meantime, we either buy in to the supernatural package, or we dismiss it out of hand. The problem is that all of us - and, pehaps especially, the cynics - are far too complacent about our own mental integrity. We can all be manipulated, and we ARE all manipulated. Billions are spent annually on researching the effectiveness of advertising and the impact of location and display upon supermarket sales. It's even possible to specifically target the shopper who believes that he or she cannot be targeted! This may seem to have little to do with spirituality, but it serves to illustrate how little we REALLY know about how our mental processes operate.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, not an easy question!
Aussie, I don’t know that can relate any of the “spiritual” experiences I’ve had. I mean it’s one of those ya had to be there kind of things, you know what I mean. What I think is most important, is the result in myself of such experiences.
I will say that as a merchant seaman I worked mostly on research vessels in remote parts of the world on seaways less traveled if you will. Approximately a year of that time was spent in arctic regions, the reason I mention this is cossie’s comment about auroras, at times I have spent the endless night of winter watching that wonder it is awe inspiring to say the least but also not the greatest. One thing that occurs to me is that in those many thousands of sea miles, I have traveled in smaller vessels like my fathers sailboat to largish ships, the one thing that always gets me, is how really small we are, some how that, as in the article I posted the link to has enabled me to get off of dead center if will, a disconnection to greater or lesser extent from self.
At these times I, and this is where it gets dicey, have had a sense of well, for lack of a better word something greater. For me this is where the quandary lay. Is what I experienced just a construct of my mind, as has been suggested, Hmmm as Deej would say, for me I don’t think so. (I want to preface what I am about to say by say don’t do any of these thing with out careful introspection.) Coming up in the time period I did made mind altering substances easily available. Let me also say I did not do these things for entertainment as I may have said before I had the good fortune to early on have some very intelligent people that let a (starting at 13) kid hang with them, no they did not provide the drugs! They did teach me that if I ever did do those thing to do them for the right reason. Hehehe I am sure there are people out there that are thinking is there ever a right moment : P. Well, all I can say that through out human kinds history things like this have been a right of passage, 13 being up until recently the age in which we were considered adult. Anyway I digress, the point being that I have experience altered states, and nothing can compare with what I speak of.
Here’s where it gets really dicey, I have wondered at what I “felt, sensed”, was it Gaia, is the earth as a whole in some way sentient, was it the universal minds. I guess what I am trying to say, spirituality to me is something that has ebbed and flowed through my life depending on my state of awareness, that being turned inward or turned outward. All things to me are natural, nothing super about anything, only not fully understood, even the “unnatural” by virtue of it’s source, mostly that being from human kind with we being a natural part of what is, makes what is “unnatural or super natural” but not necessarily good natural. I mean like ESP though as Randy the great would say, it has no bases in scientific observation ( sorry, science at best, some times wears blinders) In my way of thinking the scientific community takes themselves way to seriously to the point of arrogance. Pretty weird huh. : )
Man what a mouth full, I can only scratch the surface, there is so much we do not know. LOL I guess that to me is what makes it so cool.
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Cossie,
You mention horse-whispering and fire-walking. I don't know what horse-whispering is, but fire-walking works, as far as I understand, on the principle that as long as your feet only touch the surface of the fire for a very short time before moving on, the heat never makes it through the dead skin on the soles of the feet and to the nerves. In other words, it is completely painless, even to a non-professional, not in any way 'abnormal' or 'supernatural', and does not need to be explained through brain function.
The temperature of the fire is usually rather cooler than it looks as well -- fire-walkers tend to use cool-burning wood fires rather than hot-burning coal fires to lessen the risk to themselves.
David
[Updated on: Sat, 04 November 2006 13:23] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the fascinating thing about this is just how differently each of us perceives / experiences spirituality.
My own inclinations are austere rather than enthusiastic, so it's probably not a surprise that my own spiritual experiences have been internal, rather than the extrovert manifestations of "speaking in tongues" or suchlike. They seem to just happen, when I'm feeling relaxed, in relaxing surroundings, every few years.
Apparently, the first one happened when I was four or five - I have to say that I don't really remember it, but both my mother and grandmother mentioned it on several occasions when we were discussing matters spiritual or religious. So they clearly pre-date my teenaged use of psychedelics. Like Arich, I was particularly interested in looking for a mind-expanding experience (the whole "Doors of Perception" / Aldous Huxley thing). But - for me - the place that psychedelics took me was *not* the place that I occasionally visited spontaneously.
And - for me - it isn't the case that the experiences cossie mentions (of being over-awed by the wonder of God's creation") are spiritual experiences - they are a kind of awe which reflects the insights I've been granted at other times.
Now for the really tricky bit! The 'spiritual' experiences I've had have been characterised by: an awareness of the interconnectedness of everything; short-lived (seconds not minutes); a feeling of inherent 'rightness' or validity or appropriateness; an afterglow of a feeling of well-being.
None of this necessarily has any relationship with formal religion, of course. Indeed, one of my problems is that I seem to feel that it is probable that the god-thing is an effect of life on the planet, rather than the cause of it ... which orthodox Christians find difficult to accept!
As to the relationship between brain and experience, I agree that it is an interesting area of study. I would rather beware of thinking that just because specific brain activity is associated with a spiritual or religious experience, such brain activity "caused" it. There is certainly specific brain activity associated with pain from sticking a pin in one's hand, but the pin causes the activity, not the activity the pin!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie
|
|
Really getting into it |
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 475
|
|
|
Arich, I can understand what you say about it being difficult to talk about spiritual experiences. Sometimes when brought out into the cold light of day may sound trivial or oversimplified but it is what they meant to you at the time that counts.
There are lots of ways of getting into mind altering states such as breathing patterns, dancing, chanting etc, so I guess drug use is just another one of these. I can't decide if this counts as a spiritual experience though.
Aussie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... not by you, because it's been proposed many times before - but I doubt whether the original proposer had practical experience of the activity!
Red hot - as is required, whatever the fuel - is not by any stretch of the imagination cool! Such heat is amply sufficient to cause injury; instantaneously touching a cooking pot at a significantly lower temperature can cause significant burns.
There have been hyped examples in recent years of mass fire-walks which were in fact fire-runs - though even then there must be a high risk of burning matter adhering to the feet. I accept, though, that with prior preparation to dry and harden the feet and a relatively short traverse it might be possible to avoid significant injury.
However, those who have witnessed fire-walking in the true mystic tradition seem to be pretty well unanimous in recording that the mystic walked slowly through a fairly long traverse and emerged with no sign whatsoever of physical injury. Fire will destroy human flesh fairly quickly, but by no means instantaneously. I suspect, therefore, that there may be a mental process involved - some form of self-hypnosis, if you feel the need for a label - by which the mystic suppresses not only the feeling of pain but the body's physical reaction to that pain by forming blisters.
I don't claim to know how it's done, but I'm sure it isn't supernatural. The answer very possibly lies in the brain's untapped ability to control the body - 'mind over matter' - which will have a perfectly logical and scientific explanation; we simply haven't discovered it yet!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I can't see that the result would be physiologically different from reaching that state by any other means. All of those means are potentially injurious to health and mental well-being.
In essence, 'altered states' have two components. First, there is the visionary or illusionary component. I think that this comes wholly from within ourselves - whether nightmare or ecstasy, it is created within our own brain. The second component is much more sinister; in an 'altered state' the subject may be receptive to external suggestion - much like hypnosis - leaving him or her susceptible to control by another person. That is almost certainly the case when religious ecstasy is induced. It's not a good place to go!
The wider risk suggested above simply reflects the characteristics of learned behaviour. The more someone experiments with induction of 'altered states', the greater the risk that it becomes an instinctive process - and thus the greater the risk of external dependence or other mental damage.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> ... All of those means are potentially injurious to health and mental well-being.
>
I would certainly agree with cossie on this one!
Probably hypocritical of me, I know ...
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...Cossie, with the greatest of respect to you, I am afraid I regard that as the cop-out of someone who refuses to accept a simple, entirely mundane explanation, in favour of a more exotic and much more unlikely "mind over matter" one.
For example, you say:
>There have been hyped examples in recent years of mass fire-walks which were in fact fire-runs - though even then there must be a high risk of burning matter adhering to the feet. I accept, though, that with prior preparation to dry and harden the feet and a relatively short traverse it might be possible to avoid significant injury.
"There must be..." "It might"? This sounds like rather unnecessary conjecture here. There is an episode of the American popular science programme "Bullshit!" -- not my usual source for scientific information, I might add! -- in which volunteers are shown to walk across glowing embers at ordinary pace without any harm whatsoever. You might be able to find a copy. If not, I hope that you will be able to take my word for it that this is in fact what they were doing. In that case, there was certainly no "mind over matter" going on, for these people had no psychological training, beyond a hope that they would not hurt themselves. I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that other exhibitions of the phenomenon use the same effect.
There are thick insulating layers of dead skin on the bottom of the sole, many more than on any other part of the body, and these are designed to cope with harsh environments (especially in people who don't wear shoes very often). Unless the fire-walker actually stops for several seconds on top of red-hot embers, there is no time for the heat to conduct through to the nerves; and certainly not enough time for it to start to burn. You can demonstrate this effect (if you are foolhardy) by tapping your finger on a hot stove; if you do it quickly you will neither be burnt, nor will you feel the heat. But hold it there and you certainly will be. The foot, of course, has much more insulation than your finger.
I suspect you're buying into the whole "mysticism" thing. I prefer to use Occam's Razor, which suggests that most is for show and that there is nothing genuinely mystical going on.
David
[Updated on: Sun, 05 November 2006 03:08] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... I would not say that there is any strong evidence to show that it is not possible for someone to train himself to be less susceptible to pain; only that, in this case, it is not necessary to be a successful fire-walker.
David
[Updated on: Sun, 05 November 2006 03:14] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I'm not in any way 'buying in' to mysticism. I believe absolutely that there is nothing supernatural involved.
You, however, seem to be 'buying in' to cheap and superficial 'scientific' debunking. If your urge to scoff is so strong, go and walk through fire. If you aren't prepared to do that (and, frankly, I'm not!), keep an open mind.
Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else on this planet of ours, is omniscient. I believe as strongly as you do that there is a logical and scientific explanation for everything - but I see no reason to assume that the state of scientific knowledge in 2006 is sufficient to provide all the answers. If that were so, the future of scientific research would be pretty arid!
Oh, and by the way, I accept that the soles of the feet are potentially covered by more dead skin than any other part of the body - but this is less evident when shoes are habitually worn, and in any event the layering is not evenly distributed. Furthermore, feet which are customarily enclosed exude more moisture, and thus would be more likely to allow burning particles to adhere.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must say I found you’re characterization interesting. I don’t think you really got the point of my most recent post though, as my point was that although I have experienced altered states it was in a natural state where in I had my most profound experiences. Though I think we diverge in that those altered states may have been more enabling, to my way of thinking. I can only imagine from what you said that you may feel those experiences may have made me more susceptible to suggestion rather than enabling. No prob. I understand that point of view and will not argue it in this thread. I know in other people’s case such as NW’s that there experience may not have been at all pleasant or beneficial, that is why I would not recommend any one do these things, as I had said, with out great introspection. As far as I am concerned weather people use legal or illegal mood altering drugs, people do them no matter how debilitating they can be, alcohol being one of the worst to my mind as I lost a brother to it’s use, and why I do not drink, except on very rare occasions, I may have a beer or glass of wine. As far as all these things go I haven’t partaken of any for over two years now, even though I have been advised that the use of cannabis would be very beneficial in alleviating my most debilitating condition, Lipoatrophy, a condition associated with the virus I carry. LOL I may do so again soon as at 6’1” and 180lb I’m getting a bit too gaunt, not to mention a friend who’s seen me mostly bare said you know it would be a junkies dream to have all those veins showing : P
Now I am going to add something that I have always held back on talking about in deference to people here who have a hard time with the subject and I know one pretty well and it was mainly for him that I didn’t talk about it openly.
Hmmm hard to start this, so I’ll just jump right in. You mentioned the use of hypnosis and drugs to make one susceptible to suggestion. Well, I at 11 almost 12 due to my interest in other boys, this being early 1966 with well meaning parents who found out about my interest, was taken to an immanent child psychologist that specialized in such “problems”. Part of his treatment along with the traditional was the use of hypnosis drugs and of course, as you may have guessed already, electrodes on either side of my temples. Needless to say it did not work. At least on the whole, it took about 6 years to remember it with any celerity. My poor mother freaked when in a reflective moment, I asked her about it. I’ve got to say here I was not at all angry, just want to talk about it as we were reminiscing at the time any way. When I think about it even though she has been gone for many years it brings a tear to my eye. She started to tear up and cry, something I had only seen a couple of times in my life. Once I got her calmed down a bit she just asked me to forgive her for allowing that to happen. All I could do is take her in my arms and tell her I held no animosity and over the years I had remembered the experience with great clarity and understood that they were doing what they thought at the time was the best they could do for me.
I’m not saying that all of the things I have experienced have not had lasting effects, but ya know cossie to this day I do not consider myself particularly, bent, hehe as it were, I still have the capacity to do stupid things, but can’t that be said of all of us? That all being said I think I can say from personal experience that I may be less subject to mental manipulation what ever the means. Who can say?
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie, it was only last week that you were telling me that I was being derogatory and unpleasant, and yet -- my apologies if I am mistaken! -- I think I detect exactly the same tone in you. I don't think I said anything rude or provocative, and I don't know why we can't have an interesting conversation without you accusing me of "scoffing" or believing myself to know everything.
>You, however, seem to be 'buying in' to cheap and superficial 'scientific' debunking. If your urge to scoff is so strong, go and walk through fire. If you aren't prepared to do that (and, frankly, I'm not!), keep an open mind.
I am prepared to keep an open mind. This does not mean there is anything the matter with pointing out that it is far more likely that there is a simple, well-understood physical basis than one that involves fuzzy concepts such as "mind over matter" and "[suppressing] not only the feeling of pain but the body's physical reaction to that pain by forming blisters". Without further evidence, it is impossible to say which is actually happening, and you have no licence to entirely dismiss my theory, just as, without evidence, I cannot dismiss yours.
And, yes, I would walk through fire if it were supervised by an experienced person who is aware of the correct procedure to ensure that no-one is injured.
>Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else on this planet of ours, is omniscient. I believe as strongly as you do that there is a logical and scientific explanation for everything - but I see no reason to assume that the state of scientific knowledge in 2006 is sufficient to provide all the answers.
Nor do I. I am also perfectly sure you don't think I hold this attitude either, and are just saying it in an attempt to chide me. I would point out, however, that science does not need to have the answers for the positive and scientific demonstration of a phenomenon.
>Oh, and by the way, I accept that the soles of the feet are potentially covered by more dead skin than any other part of the body - but this is less evident when shoes are habitually worn, and in any event the layering is not evenly distributed. Furthermore, feet which are customarily enclosed exude more moisture, and thus would be more likely to allow burning particles to adhere.
I don't know much about this subject, and neither do you, I suspect, but it doesn't seem to stop you stating what you believe is "more likely". If that were the case, then I see no reason to believe that keeping the feet very dry would not be part of the "preparation" process. Why don't we leave it until one of us can provide something that is actually conclusive?
David
[Updated on: Mon, 06 November 2006 01:16] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Sailor. I found that interesting.
I'm not sure whether it has absolutely nothing to do with the insulating layers on the bottom of your feet -- you can walk across tarmac hot enough to fry an egg on with bare feet if you run across it quickly -- but I would certainly agree that there is nothing to suggest "mind over matter" suppression of pain, or any other (scientific or non-scientific) phenomenon that we cannot as yet explain.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Firstly, Sailor's link is interesting and fairly convincing. The point about luminescence of embers is certainly true, as anyone who has used a barbeque at dusk will be know very well. I wasn't previously aware that fire-walking was a nocturnal activity; I don't think that's mentioned in the traveller's tales I've read.
I only have one niggling doubt. The mass fire-walks referred to in a contemporary thread apparently involve successive traverses of the same fire-bed. I happily accept that ash is a good insulator; I've made use of that property in my years in the Scout movement. It is, however, very fragile. If you take an ash-covered twig from a campfire, you can hold it painlessly provided that you are very gentle - but if you exert only a little pressure, the ash breaks away and you find yourself holding a much hotter - and thus more painful! - core. So how is it that the weight of successive feet doesn't break away the ash sufficiently to either choke the fire or to increase the surface temperature by exposing more incompletely burnt wood?
I don't know the answer, though there must BE an answer, or law-suits would be flying thick and fast. Whether the answer involves chicanery or some other property of a wood fire I don't pretend to know.
I picked on fire-walking entirely at random when making my post on 4 November - essentially because it was hyphenated and therefore balanced nicely with horse-whispering. I don't pretend expertise on the subject; I've read about it in accounts of travels in areas where mysticism exists, though my sources will be quotations in bona fide histories rather than fringe publications. Very obviously, I wish I'd chosen a different phenomenon!
Nevertheless, I defend strongly the principle for which I argued. There is a lot of glib 'science' about, and much of it is essentially arrogant. It doesn't really take a great deal of imagination to come up with a 'scientific' explanation for a phenomenon - but the explanation isn't actually scientific unless it has been tried and tested under controlled conditions. Until that happens, the explanation is pure speculation. I also strongly take the view that the presumption that our present state of scientific knowledge is in some way definitive is wholly unsupportable.
In this instance, my suggestion that the brain is capable of repressing pain and, to some extent, the natural reactions to pain, is not a leap in the dark. Teeth can be extracted painlessly under hypnosis and there is even some suggestion that the visible trauma is less than that observed when a general anaesthetic is used. It seems to me to be perfectly valid to consider the possibility that a mental state induced by an external stimulus is potentially capable of being self-induced. Yet you assert that your explanation is 'far more likely'. Why? Without a controlled scientific study your view is no less speculative than mine - and my view is not an express assertion, merely a suggestion that a possibility should be considered.
Finally, you dismiss for no logical or scientific reason two of my entirely empirical observations. Firstly, there is the variable sensitivity of the human foot. Experiment: Take a knife with a non-conductive handle. Immerse the blade in boiling water for one minute. Apply the heated flat blade to various parts of the foot in turn, re-heating for one minute between each application. As the blade will cool quickly when removed from the water, the possibility of injury is small. I think you will find that the pads below the toes and the outer arch of the heel are least sensitive parts, followed by the rest of the heel and the outer edge of the foot. The arch of the foot - in most people, the ticklish area - is very much more sensitive. But if you were to walk through fire, the non-rigid surface would expose the sensitive area to heat.
Secondly, there is your dismissal of my suggestion that the natural moist condition of a foot habitually concealed beneath a shoe and sock would be more likely to allow particles to adhere. Experiment: Exercise until your body, including both palms, is covered in a film of sweat. Place your palm on a tray of small particles (salt, sugar, ground pepper - or even ground ash!). Observe the amount adhering to your palm. Dry your palm thoroughly in an airstream - a hairdryer is ideal, but finish on a cool setting - and repeat the experiment. Quod erat demonstrandum!
David, I like you very much and I am certainly not trying to score points against you. But yes, I am trying to chide you, though only in what I believe to be your own best interests. Pedantry can be an amusing eccentricity - and so it was with you until relatively recently. But you have reached the point where you are alienating other posters. I believe as deeply as you do that there is a rational, logical and scientific explanation for everything. The only point upon which we disagree is my refusal to rule out the remote possibility that science may ultimately validate the existence of a God. I doubt it very much, but I am unwilling to dismiss the possibility.
I plead with you to maintain a more open mind and, with it, an increased respect for your fellow posters. Diversity of viewpoint is one of the characteristics which make humanity interesting. You may not agree with someone else's viewpoint, but that doesn't justify dismissing it, unless you have cast-iron evidence for doing so. And 'cast-iron' means scientifically validated under controlled conditions.
You are entering a profession in which 'gut feeling' is probably much more important than logical thought. I think you have the potential to succeed, but to do so you need - to coin a phrase! - to loosen up. And I'm not simply rambling - I've tried to keep this off the board, but in these circumstances I think I should admit that I was closely involved in the British film industry until I retired from that responsibility three years ago.
Hopefully, we can meet and take this further early next year - health problems preclude any meeting before that. But I promise you, David, that I have no agenda other than your best interests. Why would I? My own creative life is winding down, but my instinct has always been to lower the hurdles for those who follow me.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie,
>There is a lot of glib 'science' about, and much of it is essentially arrogant.
Can you give an example of what you mean? You have mentioned in the past scepticism for "folk remedies" as an example of arrogance, but this is not the same. If it is not real science, it should not call itself science. And real science does demand evidence to go beyond a theory.
>It doesn't really take a great deal of imagination to come up with a 'scientific' explanation for a phenomenon - but the explanation isn't actually scientific unless it has been tried and tested under controlled conditions.
Correct. But I actually pointed this out: "Without further evidence, it is impossible to say which is actually happening, and you have no licence to entirely dismiss my theory, just as, without evidence, I cannot dismiss yours." However, I do think that is it much more likely that there is a simple, down-to-earth explanation than anything that relies on the human psyche. I'd also remind you that many of the most current scientific theories -- string theory, for example -- do not yet have any evidence to support them. This is fine, and certainly not arrogant, provided that people don't build on them without acknowledging that their work is conjecture.
>Until that happens, the explanation is pure speculation. I also strongly take the view that the presumption that our present state of scientific knowledge is in some way definitive is wholly unsupportable.
As I have already pointed out, I agree with you here. However, it is also perfectly understandable -- and good science -- to try and explain a phenomenon first using theories that are commonly accepted to be true rather than to invent or to rely upon other theories that are less accepted.
>It seems to me to be perfectly valid to consider the possibility that a mental state induced by an external stimulus is potentially capable of being self-induced. Yet you assert that your explanation is 'far more likely'. Why? Without a controlled scientific study your view is no less speculative than mine - and my view is not an express assertion, merely a suggestion that a possibility should be considered.
That it is far more likely is speculative, yes. But I do believe it is supported through the simple application of Occam's Razor. The more complicated the psychological state required to achieve success, the greater the chances that many people will be burnt. This phenomenon is widely practised by non-professionals -- at management seminars, no less. Therefore, there being a simple, mechanical explanation still strikes me as much more likely than that the leaders are able to hypnotise all participants correctly. Also, as far as I know, no-one has ever shown that it is possible to prevent heat damage to the body simply by willing it that way.
>David, I like you very much and I am certainly not trying to score points against you. But yes, I am trying to chide you, though only in what I believe to be your own best interests. Pedantry can be an amusing eccentricity - and so it was with you until relatively recently. But you have reached the point where you are alienating other posters.
Actually, I think that that it works both ways. Apart from my tussles with Aussie, for which I have apologised, the arguments have almost always been with you. It has come to the point that if I say something, you will post back at me in a provocative and sometimes even apparently rude way. You say, "I am trying to chide you, though only in what I believe to be your own best interests." It does not feel like it. Perhaps you have formed an opinion of me from my posts that is not quite right; perhaps you do object to me as I really am. I don't know. But I have to say you also come across to me as someone who is also unwilling to reach a compromise, someone who is determined to change my outlook, someone with an agenda. This is not conducive to a relaxed environment. The provocative nature of your posts means that I am more likely to get worked up and annoyed, and post back accordingly something which I will then regret. I hate doing this, and it does nothing for my mood.
I think the best thing would be if I did not respond to any of your posts for a while. I really don't need the stress at the moment.
David
[Updated on: Mon, 06 November 2006 16:15] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I have an example for you: http://tinyurl.com/y6tfq3
Since the official explanation is in some way seen as unsatisfactory, various commentators have een growing fat off a "sceintifically backed" set of conspiracy theories, funding, no doubt, their lecture tours.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. Strange.
Conspiracy theories don't necessarily (ever?) count as good scientific theories simply because someone says they are. They are certainly theories, yes, but not ones that should be given as much time as more mainstream ideas. I wouldn't call them arrogant -- unless expressed arrogantly -- but rather just, well, bizarre.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Since these are expressed by their proponents as "cast iron fact" I think we have arrogance. Also there is arroance on the side of those who disbelieve the theorists.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they are presenting theories as cast iron fact, then of course that is arrogant. But I am basing my assessment on the Wikipedia article you cited, and I don't see any arrogance there. Wikipedia articles tend to try to stick to a neutral point of view.
Nor have I come across a dedicated conspiracy theorist, so I can't judge what they are usually like. But in any case I would certainly consider it rather a stretch to call them "scientists" or their work "science".
In the meantime I am inclined just to be quietly bewildered that anyone could genuinely believe that sort of thing.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
That article has had about 8 weeks of work so far to render it NPOV. The initial version showed the arrogance, as does the deletion discussion linked from its talk page
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
If you equate "science" with "knowledge" then it is easy to see that someone with a good knowledge of horse body language (etc) is likly to be able to tame and ride a horse and make it rideable for others by simple application of observation and action.
Other methods also work.
This skill was just publicised for cash. It's no big deal. It seems less stressful for the horse than more strident methods, and that is really all.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Science and knowledge aren't the same thing. One can learn things, pick things up naturally and intuitively, without ever subjecting them to scientific method. Thus in many cases someone who knows how to do something cannot express it in so many words, nor provide verifiable evidence upon demand, for he has no need to. This does not mean that science could not test him and put his ideas into words, only that it has not done so yet.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
"Scio" "I know"
So Science is knowledge
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's pretty generally accepted that any complex formal system cannot be both consistent and complete - that is, there will things that are true but cannot be proved to be true within the system's logic. (Such thing may be proved in an enlarged system, which will in itself have unprovable truths).
Goedel proved this to be true in the case of a theory of arithmetic (see Wikipedia) - known as his First Incompleteness Theorem, although I admit that my math isn't really up to following the proof.
There are some grounds for suspecting that science may be such a system.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, yes, but just because a word is derived from Latin doesn't mean it means exactly the same as the Latin! If you look up "science" in a dictionary you'll get something like "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena" (dictionary.com). This is much more specific than just "things which are known". If one has only observed and perhaps identified, but never described, investigated experimentally, or theorised on a subject, most people would agree that one's knowledge is not science by the commonly accepted meaning of the word.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... choosing a phrase because I thought it sounded good. 'From Horse-Whispering to Fire-Walking' will haunt my nightmares for years to come!
The term 'Horse Whisperer' only achieved currency (in the UK at least) with the publication of a novel of that name in 1995, loosely based on the life of John Rarey, an internationally famous horse-breaker in the middle years of the nineteenth century. The novel was filmed in 1998.
Rarey himself obviously had an exceptional rapport with horses, though his technique included manual restraint, and that aspect was widely copied. But I was not thinking specifically of Rarey, but of a couple of individuals from my own rural youth. These guys both had exceptional ability to control animals, though neither of them had any understanding of why or how they exercised the ability. Both claimed to have had the skill from childhood, and both were certain that their parents did not have any similar ability. Only one of them was married, and he had two sons; both were good stock handlers, but not exceptionally so. Jackie, the elder of the two guys, died when I was six or seven, so it's hard to distinguish memories from details I learned after the event. I remember Natey, the younger, very well. My dad owned a series of Clydesdale horses which Natey trained, and his ability was truly remarkable. Horses would follow him anywhere, and he also seemed to have some kind of affinity with other animals; for example. he could lead a herd of cows to milking, without a dog, by walking IN FRONT of them and whistling loudly. But he was a self-effacing guy, happy as a farm worker, and he didn't regard himself as anything special; he reckoned that most rural communities included some one who 'had a way' (his phrase, not mine!) with animals.
I think that Timmy is probably right in principle, but we are left with the questions of how the skill emerges in childhood without parental guidance, and why it cannot readily be transmitted. Personally, I'm quite happy with that; I don't see the need to analyse that ability any more than the ability to be an exceptional poet, composer, engineer or whatever; some have such talents, some don't. It's all in the mind!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
This brings something from memory.... When I was young I had a schoolmate that had the knack of being able to go into the woods and litteraly charm hawks from the trees....... He could do this at will and often......
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but this post illustrates admirably the point I am trying to make.
You said:
'Conspiracy theories don't necessarily (ever?) count as good scientific theories simply because someone says they are. They are certainly theories, yes, but not ones that should be given as much time as more mainstream ideas. I wouldn't call them arrogant -- unless expressed arrogantly -- but rather just, well, bizarre.'
Despite the fact that the alternative theory originated on the internet, it has attracted support from a significant minority of the structural engineering community. After talking with my son, I have doubts about the alternative theory, but it does contain elements that beg for clarification - and the US-government-sponsored 'official' report has not seriously addressed the need for such clarification.
There were visual elements in the WTC collapse which were consistent with controlled demolition. There may well be other explanations for these elements, but they should not - indeed cannot - simply be ignored. And the 'official' model of the events should certainly extend to the point of collapse.
I am not committed to either view, but if the government report fails to directly address the criticisms levelled against it, it automatically becomes suspect.
To suggest that no planes hit the twin towers would certainly be bizarre - it would require a theory of world-wide mass hypnosis. But to question gaps in the official report is in no way bizarre - it merely invites further, rigorous scientific investigation to establish the truth, and surely that is what we should all be seeking?
It really is amazingly naive to assume that because an idea is 'mainstream' it is therefore correct. Governments censor and distort whenever it suits their political purpose to do so. If you believed the propaganda of the governments of the day, no Jews would have died in the holocaust and the Tutsi (who represented 8% of the population) were a threat to liberty in Rwanda. In fact, the Rwanda example is an admirable example of the duplicity of government - there was no genocide in Rwanda in 1994, but there was mass murder of those who opposed the corrupt government of the day. Moderate Hutu were killed as freely as the Tutsi; it must have been so, because in the 'hundred days' 800,000 were killed, though the Tutsi numbered only 640,000, of whom around 130,000 survived. Unhappily, superficial media research means that these facts are often wrongly reported.
Earlier today, the US military forces in Baghdad refused to allow the respected British BBC political commentator John Simpson to interview Saddam Hussein's defence lawyer face-to-face, though they DID allow access to the prosecution lawyer. What other motive can you see but distortion of the truth?
There is no reason to suppose that the fact that an issue is 'scientific' implies that it is less susceptible to political distortion.
My entire point is not that I support alternative theories as being in any way superior to mainstream wisdom - far from it. But if the proponents of mainstream wisdom dismiss alternative theories without adequate research, it most certainly calls that wisdom into question.
As regards conspiracy theories, I don't buy in to the Da Vinci Code - though it's a fun story! - nor do I buy into Roswell, though govermnment responses have, at times, been absolutely stupid. But I would seriously suggest that anyone who accepts the official reports into the deaths of Marilyn Monroe or Jack Kennedy is, at the least, ingenuous.
I leave you with a quote attributed to the respected US economist Walter Wolfgang Heller:
"An economist is someone who, when he finds something which works in practice, wonders if it will work in theory."
That is a thought which no-one professing a belief in science should ever forget.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... that sounds like another example of exactly what I had in mind - though as far as I remember the guys I mentioned didn't have any special affinity with hens or geese!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I think the variety of hawk was called "red tailed hawk" and those were the only birds I ever witnessed him bringing to himself.......
The birds would sit calmly on his shoulder even when my friend walked out of the woods and into the town proper.....
It actually was kind of spooky.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
