Proof (Blog)

[tekomino]

I am wondering whose belief systems are opposed?

Who is against healthy challenge of beliefs?

Who is against looking into and providing the evidence?

Who is against healthy debate?

Is it Personal Development for Smart People or Personal Development for Cult of Steve?

There is nothing bad that can come out of openness for discussion and civilized challenge to ones arguments, claims and theories. We all learn from that. I am impressed by the quality of the discussion on these forums.

Knowing you don't know is wholeness.
Thinking you know is a disease.
Only by recognizing that you have an illness
can you move to seek a cure.

The Master is whole because
she sees her illnesses and treats them,
and thus is able to remain whole.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by tekomino

There is nothing bad that can come out of openness for discussion and civilized challenge to ones arguments, claims and theories. We all learn from that. I am impressed by the quality of the discussion on these forums.

You are so right! "Openness" being the key word. When we find ourselves invalidating, negating, obliterating, declaring fraud, and warning of danger to protect what we ourselves believe -- there's our clue that being open might make a positive difference in the communication, and in our lives. We don't have to make others wrong in order to be satisfied and fulfilled with our own beliefs, or the tools we use to create a life we love.

[tekomino]

Yep, how boring would it be to go through your whole life with only single set of beliefs...

[spsda]

Steve,

Answer me this: Schizophrenic patients, who are convinced that the government is out to get them and that their house is being bugged, do you believe that they are actually being followed/bugged/poisoned?

If you don't believe they are, how can you say with any credibility that your ideas of subjective reality hold any merit?

[cdn2wheeler]

"People will write off even the clearest, most loving person in the world when he opposes their belief system. They will invalidate him, negate him, obliterate him, prove that he's wrong, he's a fraud, he's dangerous to society, so that they can protect what they really believe is important. They'd rather be right than free.
-- Byron Katie, A Thousand Names for Joy

But don't you see, my friend? This also applies to those whose belief systems are all about LoA and such!

Those who believe in astral travel, astrology, ESP, communication with the dead, etc. constantly and consistently invalidate, negate, obliterate and try to prove that those who don't believe, or who haven't decided, are wrong. And when the skeptics request some sort of proof or evidence, the skeptic is brushed off and often told, "If you don't get it now, you never will so I'm not going to supply evidence."

It works both ways.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

The skeptic is brushed off and often told, "If you don't get it now, you never will so I'm not going to supply evidence."

Steve isn't saying that at all, he wouldn't say "If you don't get it now, you never will." Far from it. He's just saying he can't prove it to you, that trying to prove it to you is like him trying to prove to you that you are a great artist. You may be a great artist, but if you don't believe it, you'll make sure you prove yourself right by drawing crappy stuff.

[The Universal Call]

Originally Posted by seeker5

Steve isn't saying that at all, he wouldn't say "If you don't get it now, you never will." Far from it.

cdn2wheeler never implied that.. don't make assumptions. Cdn merely stated what is common in the "paranormal" or "spiritual" sections. And quite frankly I think it is true.

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by seeker5

He's just saying he can't prove it to you, that trying to prove it to you is like him trying to prove to you that you are a great artist.

Leaving aside the whole "artist" thing for a moment - because I can't paint or draw to save my life - the point I was trying to make is that something like astral projection could be provable if the people who make those claims would actually go about proving it.

But they refuse.

Look, I've got a lot of respect for Steve and what he's accomplished here. I just don't see the downside in providing some evidence for these extraordinary claims.

The world of the tarot reader, the world of those who say they communicate with the dead, the world of those who say they astral travel is FULL of charlatans and deceivers. And I'm not suggesting for a moment that Steve is lying. I just personally don't think it's too much to ask for at least some attempt at gathering rational evidence.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

But don't you see, my friend? This also applies to those whose belief systems are all about LoA and such!
It works both ways.

Yup, you sure are right! In fact, it works all ways! No matter what the beliefs are, people fight like hell to hold on to them.

But as seeker5 mentioned, I don't think that Steve is at all saying, "if you don't get it now, you never will, so I'm not going to bother to offer you evidence." Rather, I understand him to be saying, "here's what works for me, and maybe it will work for you. I'm willing to tell you much about my subjective experience; discussing it with you helps me see my own views more clearly. But it doesn't help me to defend it or try to prove it; if you want that, you're free to do your own exploring." (sorry to paraphrase you, Steve! I'm just clarifying my own views by doing that, of course!)

[Ree]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

But don't you see, my friend? This also applies to those whose belief systems are all about LoA and such!

Those who believe in astral travel, astrology, ESP, communication with the dead, etc. constantly and consistently invalidate, negate, obliterate and try to prove that those who don't believe, or who haven't decided, are wrong. And when the skeptics request some sort of proof or evidence, the skeptic is brushed off and often told, "If you don't get it now, you never will so I'm not going to supply evidence."

It works both ways.

Believers have patiently tried to explain, illustrate and relate experiences, and have endured a lot of ridicule and insults in the process. I'm grateful for the discussions, because I believe in SR and I'm learning more every day by reading Steve's blogs and the postings in these forums. One thing I know: Proof is not to be found outside. It's within. I haven't read one word that absolutely convinced me, but I was intrigued and began my own journey. I found MY proof, but I can't show it to you. You have to find your own.

[Rakiot]

I also think that we can’t prove reality. I only need a proof that what someone’s talking about is true. And I fear to be fooled, right, and so proof-seeking is based upon fear.
But there is no any other source of truth about Xs’ dreams or “psychic experiences” besides X.

[Lola]

Originally Posted by Rakiot

But there is no any other source of truth about Xs’ dreams or “psychic experiences” besides X.

Sure there's another source. There's you. All of these mysteriously unprovable skills. You can do them. ( And I mean all of the "yous" around here Rakiot - not just you ). We all have abilities. Some are just honed a bit finer than others.

If you SERIOUSLY want to read tarot cards, speak with those that have passed over, exercise psychic abilities, read auras, hone your intuition to razor sharpness, experience fabulously entertaining lucid dreams, engage in astral travel, converse with your Higher Self, be a manifestin' fool - you can. And it's the only proof of any of this that will ever actually have any meaning for you.

I was a lifetime skeptic of anything and everything that didn't fit into my tiny little (well-ordered) universe, until irrefutable personal experiences opened my eyes a little. Just a little. But once my eyes weren't squeezed so tightly closed, I was able to be a little more open-minded and open-hearted about it all. As soon as I was open to learning - magically things to learn and the ability to learn (aka TRUST) showed up in spades.

When the student is ready the teacher will appear. (That line's repeated frequently because it's true).



ps Angela - SERIOUSLY? Girl, we gotta stop with the telepathy or psychic parallel life or whatever we got goin'. Guess what I'm reading...

[Dive Bomb]

Things like lucid dreaming, astral projection, and what not are hard to prove in an obvious manner.

How do I prove I am conscious in a dream? It's something you would have to experience in order to really understand. How would I prove I am in the astral realm? I don't know.

Another question, what is truth anyway? If reality is subjective, is truth still objective?

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

But don't you see, my friend? This also applies to those whose belief systems are all about LoA and such!

Those who believe in astral travel, astrology, ESP, communication with the dead, etc. constantly and consistently invalidate, negate, obliterate and try to prove that those who don't believe, or who haven't decided, are wrong. And when the skeptics request some sort of proof or evidence, the skeptic is brushed off and often told, "If you don't get it now, you never will so I'm not going to supply evidence."

It works both ways.

You keep saying this but their is evidence for ESP, out-of-body perception and mediumship. The evidence for ESP, albeit, is stronger than the evidence of the latter two and I'm not really convinced yet by the mediumship experiments put forth by Gary Schwartz and the like, but the evidence is out there. At best the skeptics may bother to look at it and explain it away with the usual claims of fraud or faulty controls or lucky guesses even when it is exceedingly unlikely and at worst they use their own ignorance as an argument.

Steve is just making the point that trying to convince people who are not open to those sort of experiences is a waste of time. If I never would have considered the methods and claims of psychic phenomena I never would have tried it, but I did and it worked.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Lola

ps Angela - SERIOUSLY? Girl, we gotta stop with the telepathy or psychic parallel life or whatever we got goin'. Guess what I'm reading...

Hah! Fun book, huh? And you know what else? If you anagram my name, you get "Lola" (also "anagram").

Have you tried "The Work" on any of your beliefs yet, Lola? You and I should try that together some time.

[Mark Lapierre]

You know... There are so many sides to this discussion, yet Steve's post was written in a way that makes it seem as if there are only two. So it's no surprise that assumptions, misinterpretations and criticisms are plentiful.

Originally Posted by Angela

When we find ourselves invalidating, negating, obliterating, declaring fraud, and warning of danger to protect what we ourselves believe -- there's our clue that being open might make a positive difference in the communication, and in our lives. We don't have to make others wrong in order to be satisfied and fulfilled with our own beliefs, or the tools we use to create a life we love.

And yet this is exactly what Steve's post does. It makes all those who hold an objective perspective wrong (or at least mislead). It encourages the pointless polarisation between the SR and OR perspectives. No surprise given Steve's ideas about polarity and polarisation.

I'd be honestly surprised if anyone who has demanded proof from Steve changed their mind after reading that post.

Originally Posted by Lola

What am I missing?

Why is there frequently such a demand for Steve to prove something, anything that he experiences in his personal reality? And I think that is the distinction here. He is sharing his personal experiences. He's not claiming to make verifiable reports of scientific experiments.

I suspect that the demands for proof are actually criticisms of the explanations linked to personal experiences (Steve's or anyone else's). When someone says "I had a psychic experience" it's not a big deal for anyone else. But when someone says "I had a psychic experience and this is what it says about reality", that's when people start demanding proof. And Steve has had a lot to say about reality, under the guise of the SR perspective and its potential for unleashing creativity.

Unfortunately its very easy to confuse someone's account of their personal experiences with an attempt at explaining how those experiences are possible, if someone regularly talks about both.

I'm not saying that's a good thing. Just that it happens.

Originally Posted by Lola

Let's say I write a post telling you all about going sailing yesterday. I could embellish that story with great detail, emotion and physical sensation. Can I prove to you that I had a good time sailing with friends yesterday? Not likely. A "good time" is a subjective experience, wouldn't you agree?

...

Or maybe I didn't go sailing at all yesterday. Maybe I'm making it all up. Does it really matter if my story really happened if it sparks within you a desire to experience sailing for yourself? And will you ever REALLY understand the lure of sailing unless you experience it yourself? And if you try it and are a failure as a sailor, does that diminish the validity of MY experience?

If you lived in the middle of a huge desert we'd be unlikely to believe you. But you are right, that wouldn't change the validity of your experience, just the fact of its occurrence. Likewise it would mean the story is interesting, but ultimately useless to the rest of us who can't share your experience of boats and abundant water in this desolate wasteland. Except perhaps to those who are so very thirsty that they're willing to believe in even the illusion of water, and it becomes real for them too.

That's the difference between an experience of a "good time" versus an experience of water. One tangible, the other is not. One can be easily influenced by state of mind, but to influence the other that way is much much harder.

An experience of astral projection or any other such phenomenon, if it occurs outside the mind, can be objectively verified (where objective verification means verification by other people, or by instruments). That we can't do it yet doesn't mean that it's impossible, nor that we should not try to do it.

Improving mental health (something very important in this age of increasing life-spans and increasing complexity of life) requires doing all that we can to understand how the mind works, and that includes exploring all psychic phenomenon, and pursuing those explorations wherever they lead. So I see nothing wrong with looking for "proof" of psychic experiences, as long as both those experiencers and "proof-seekers" are free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Improving mental health (something very important in this age of increasing life-spans and increasing complexity of life) requires doing all that we can to understand how the mind works, and that includes exploring all psychic phenomenon, and pursuing those explorations wherever they lead. So I see nothing wrong with looking for "proof" of psychic experiences, as long as both those experiencers and "proof-seekers" are free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

I notice brains, minds and neural pathways and their workings are often compared to computers, circuits, programmes, etc, which all obviously have an intentional designer, builder or creator, and operator. So the simplest most accurate way of discovering their workings is to consult the manual, or ask the designer and creator or operator. Yet suddenly, in the case of the brains, minds and pathways, the wall goes up, and the notion of a designer, creator and operator is fervently rejected, leading to blindly trying to figure out what the things do. And how. Little wonder scientists have virtually no knowledge of them, and what they are capable of, or whether they are causing or creating harm. And little wonder, as you point out it seems more and more difficult to live for many. When some people aim at finding and consulting the designer and creator, with spectacular results, any information and results are rejected by some, because it doesn't resemble, or rely on the creation.

[Rakiot]

Originally Posted by Lola

Sure there's another source. There's you. All of these mysteriously unprovable skills. You can do them. ( And I mean all of the "yous" around here Rakiot - not just you ). We all have abilities. Some are just honed a bit finer than others.

Precisely I said about “psychic experiences” as things that go only in one’s own head, like dreams or delusions. I know my own dreams, not strangers’. About, e.g. revealing a physical state of the world through chatting with dead’s soul... it’s another case. What I perceive about the real world and what I perceive about the real world that others may perceive as well -- are different things. Mark Lapierre have also said about that, interestingly (experience of a "good time" and an experience of water):

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Unfortunately its very easy to confuse someone's account of their personal experiences with an attempt at explaining how those experiences are possible, if someone regularly talks about both.
...
That's the difference between an experience of a "good time" versus an experience of water. One tangible, the other is not. One can be easily influenced by state of mind, but to influence the other that way is much much harder.

An experience of astral projection or any other such phenomenon, if it occurs outside the mind, can be objectively verified

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Uplift

Yet suddenly, in the case of the brains, minds and pathways, the wall goes up, and the notion of a designer, creator and operator is fervently rejected...

So with the overwhelming body of evidence for evolution you still believe in designer, creator?

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

Leaving aside the whole "artist" thing for a moment - because I can't paint or draw to save my life - the point I was trying to make is that something like astral projection could be provable if the people who make those claims would actually go about proving it.

But they refuse.

Well, as far as I'm informed, science is not able to measure such phenomena yet. So, what would you accept as a proof, tell me?

I told you about my experience, you said "it's anecdotal". Well then, can you scientifically explain to me how I did know that the hedge was missing, if I wasn't really out of my body? I guess you'll invoke some coincidence, or you'll come with some complicated theory about my brain changing my memory of the event later...

My point is, no matter what you're told, you'll find some explanation to dismiss what you don't want to hear. How do you want them to prove something science cannot measure with instruments and you are not willing to hear in the first place?

I can understand people who don't want to waste their time and energy trying it.


edit: Why do you believe only in what science can prove? There was a time where science wasn't able to measure electromagnetic waves or explain how they work or even prove their existence either. You think our science now is much better? pah! In 200 years they'll be laughing at today's science.

[AAMM77]

Steve this was an excellent post. And I love reading through the comments of the people who find proof essential, which is fine for them but not everyone. This is a subject I am particularly interested in and I recently made a video post on my blog directly related to this subject called Objectives & Subjectivity: Reality is an Opinion. In the short video I look at how people’s views of reality are warped by their objectives (goals, motivations), thus making subjectivity.

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

Well, as far as I'm informed, science is not able to measure such phenomena yet. So, what would you accept as a proof, tell me?

I told you about my experience, you said "it's anecdotal".

When I use the term "anecdotal," it refers to a type of experience that is obviously clear to you, but can't be corroborated by an independent observer. That doesn't mean the experience isn't real, it just means that it's subjective.

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

Well then, can you scientifically explain to me how I did know that the hedge was missing, if I wasn't really out of my body? I guess you'll invoke some coincidence, or you'll come with some complicated theory about my brain changing my memory of the event later...

I can't know how you knew the hedge was missing. And you can't know if your brain didn't change your memory later.

Which is, of course, exactly why an independent observer is required.

If an independent observer can tell you that, yes, you knew the hedge was missing then clearly that points to something very amazing and is certainly worthy of further investigation.

Your experience might be the key to unlock a whole series of new mysteries and discoveries!

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

My point is, no matter what you're told, you'll find some explanation to dismiss what you don't want to hear. How do you want them to prove something science cannot measure with instruments and you are not willing to hear in the first place?

The scientific method isn't all about white lab coats and fancy machines with dials and lights and microscopes and wild-haired physicists and all the rest. It's simply a way of looking at the world, based on evidence.

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

edit: Why do you believe only in what science can prove?

Because it's the only method we have that works. It's certainly not foolproof, but with proper controls and systems it can provide a reasonably accurate view of the world.

Scientists are just as prone to dogma as anyone else, by the way. Yes, there are some that would dismiss experiences like yours out-of-hand because it doesn't fit with their view of the world.

But that's not a good basis for inquiry. It presupposes certain "realities" which may, nor may not, be accurate.

That's why constant testing and revising of hypotheses are so crucial.

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

There was a time where science wasn't able to measure electromagnetic waves or explain how they work or even prove their existence either. You think our science now is much better? pah! In 200 years they'll be laughing at today's science.

EXACTLY!!

You absolutely nailed it. By asking questions, seeking evidence and creating hypothesis, scientists in 200 years WILL be laughing at us! I have absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by tekomino

So with the overwhelming body of evidence for evolution you still believe in designer, creator?

So, with the overwhelmingly obvious evolution of computers, software, and circuitary, you still believe it was an accident, or random?

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

The scientific method isn't all about white lab coats and fancy machines with dials and lights and microscopes and wild-haired physicists and all the rest. It's simply a way of looking at the world, based on evidence.

Because it's the only method we have that works. It's certainly not foolproof, but with proper controls and systems it can provide a reasonably accurate view of the world.

Scientists are just as prone to dogma as anyone else, by the way. Yes, there are some that would dismiss experiences like yours out-of-hand because it doesn't fit with their view of the world.

But that's not a good basis for inquiry. It presupposes certain "realities" which may, nor may not, be accurate.

That's why constant testing and revising of hypotheses are so crucial.

EXACTLY!!

You absolutely nailed it. By asking questions, seeking evidence and creating hypothesis, scientists in 200 years WILL be laughing at us! I have absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever.

Who funds the scientists, and why.

200 years seems like a long time. But it is nothing, an undeveloped speck, compared to the minimum 40,000 years, quite probably 120,000 years of success enjoyed by Indigenous Australians, who had a Spiritual world view. They were able to cope with ice ages, mega fauna and other dramatic changes... just not science and its real message, bullets, whips, poison and disease. Which destroyed all that in no time, like an uncontrolled child throwing a tantrum and smashing everything in the vicinity. Plenty of proof there.

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by Uplift

Who funds the scientists, and why.

Obviously that's somewhat dependent on the study.

Originally Posted by Uplift

200 years seems like a long time.
But it is nothing

Agreed. Long in the context of a human lifetime, but not even an eyeblink in geologic time.

Originally Posted by Uplift

an undeveloped speck, compared to the minimum 40,000 years, quite probably 120,000 years of success enjoyed by Indigenous Australians, who had a Spiritual world view. They were able to cope with ice ages, mega fauna and other dramatic changes...

Exactly.

They observed. They knew the rains would come at certain times of year based on their observations and oral histories. They knew that some plants were edible and some were not based on cause-effect relationships. (Man ate that plant. Man got sick and died. Different man ate different plant. Different man was healthy. That's observation.) They knew that certain herbs were good for certain injuries/illnesses based on observations.

That's science. Observe. Theorize. Test. Perhaps the Australian Aborigines were the first pure scientists.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

Obviously that's somewhat dependent on the study.

No obviously its dependent on who funds it and why, who pays the salaries.



Agreed. Long in the context of a human lifetime, but not even an eyeblink in geologic time.

The longest continual culture. So as far as ours goes, what is a speck of an eyeblink.


Exactly.

They observed. They knew the rains would come at certain times of year based on their observations and oral histories. They knew that some plants were edible and some were not based on cause-effect relationships. (Man ate that plant. Man got sick and died. Different man ate different plant. Different man was healthy. That's observation.) They knew that certain herbs were good for certain injuries/illnesses based on observations.

That's science. Observe. Theorize. Test. Perhaps the Australian Aborigines were the first pure scientists.

Wrong. A faulty, biased assumption. The product of censorship, propaganda and brainwashing. One that again, is assigned and forced on Indigenous Peoples with little understanding and respect. Their explanation, like many Indigenous Peoples is that they communed with Spirit to recieve information. Extremely accurate information. Much like many famous people of our time made major breakthroughs by receiving information in dreams. But your argument is a popular one in our culture, one which was, and is promoted by brute force.

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by Uplift

A faulty, biased assumption.

Entirely possible.

Just like yours.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

Entirely possible.

Just like yours.

No, mine comes from Indigenous People themselves.

Yours is the one you decide they should have.

Also, I have'nt got a gun at your head, or your family's.

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by Uplift

No, mine comes from Indigenous People themselves.

Yours is the one you decide they should have.

Also, I have'nt got a gun at your head, or your family's.

There's a lot of pain and hate in your posts, my friend. I'm sincerely sorry you are in the midst of such turmoil. Clearly, something has touched a chord inside you that you may not want to confront. That's OK, it's not up to me or anyone else to decide what's right or wrong for you, just as it's not up to you to right the wrongs - very real wrongs - that have taken place in the past.

I wish you peace, my friend. I sincerely do.

*bows out of the thread*

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

There's a lot of pain and hate in your posts, my friend. I'm sincerely sorry you are in the midst of such turmoil. Clearly, something has touched a chord inside you that you may not want to confront. That's OK, it's not up to me or anyone else to decide what's right or wrong for you, just as it's not up to you to right the wrongs - very real wrongs - that have taken place in the past.

I wish you peace, my friend. I sincerely do.

*bows out of the thread*

Its truth, the reality. Easier to describe it as pain and hate, to assign it to me. The pain is in Indigenous People. It is insulting to them to constantly dismiss their way of life. And brutal methods were and are used to enforce that dismissal. It is up to us to acknowledge truth if we are to parade under the banner of personal development. Who would you leave it up to, to right wrongs?