Proof (Blog)

[mansell]

Originally Posted by Sam988

Apart from all the other claims you made that i disagree with, this is the one that i couldn't let pass:


Steve Pavlina: "At its core, proof-seeking is rooted in fear, self-doubt, and low self-esteem. What if I believe something that turns out to be false? What if I make a mistake? What if I stray too far from the herd?"



Great, so let's all trip to dream land and believe whatever we're told to, because since all experience is subjective, everything that one says is true, at least to them. I'll start paying more attention to what the guys down at a mental clinic say, because since all experience is subjective, they can't be wrong, can they?

While your thinking, steve, makes sense to some extent, it allows someone who accepts it to create all sorts of wishful thinking based on things that they heard and chose to believe, because they "need no proof anymore".



edit: I forgot to add, i guess that after this article done by steve no one can deny anymore that there's a dragon in carl sagan's garage. Article down here written by CARL SAGAN. Hehe funny since he's the one that steve disagrees with.

Carl Sagan: The Dragon In My Garage

I agree that this qoute from steve cant be true. If we did search for proof out of fear and anxiety etc then surely those who did go through with it would be recognised as individual and brave

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by shnu

Thanks, edited in.

If you click on the right arrows in quote boxes, just after the bolded username, you get to the quoted text.

Oh cool, I never noticed

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

At its core, proof-seeking is rooted in fear, self-doubt, and low self-esteem. What if I believe something that turns out to be false? What if I make a mistake? What if I stray too far from the herd?

While I may be willing to accept that requiring proof is rooted in fear, I'm not sure about the self-esteem part. Does this mean that the top nobel-winning scientist of the world have a low self-esteem he says "show me and I'll believe it" when another scientist claims he can turn instantly turn a person into a frog just by touching them?

I understand that there are some things you can not have objective proof, such as lucid dreams, physics stuff. However, to state that requiring proof in the world for objective stuff that can be observed means you have low self-esteme leaves me puzzled.

[Michael Chui]

Angela,

How do you reconcile this with your disagreements with religions involving a Personal Interventionist God?

All,

Proof (or evidence) is just a way to share your perspective with another. It means that, if we agree on our assumptions, and we agree on how we draw conclusions from them, then we agree on our conclusions. That's it.

It's meaningless in subjective reality, as Steve pointed out, but if you don't use subjective reality, then you need proof for every claim. This isn't about the mental patients down the street; they exist only because you created them, under the model of subjective reality. Under the model of objective reality, they exist independently, and their experiences are their own, and any claims they make are subject to independent proof because their conclusions do not agree with yours, and so there is a distinction between your assumptions and theirs that needs to be rectified in order for the two of you to agree on your perspectives.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Angela,

How do you reconcile this with your disagreements with religions involving a Personal Interventionist God?

How do I reconcile WHAT with my disagreements about the p.i.g.?

Do you mean, my questioning why people would demand proof for a personal belief, which is what I have appeared to do on the p.i.g. threads?

If that's what you mean, I've been careful to state my understanding of a demand for proof when the concept is an interventionist one. In the case of a p.i.g., believers can be extremely interventionist, and that's when I'm likely to get irritated and tell them no evidencee, no complyee. But you probably notice that I have no quarrel with people whose religious beliefs don't require them to interfere with my life. Rare as they may be.

I haven't seen any cases of people talking about their experiences with OBE's, psychic phenomena or lucid dreaming behaving in an interventionist manner. Oh, except people like Sylvia Browne; she is interventionist and I'm fine with confronting her for proof of her "abilities."

Is that what you're talking about?

[impaul99]

Great post Steve. I don't know why people have such a hard time with this one. I think it's a great article.

I have noticed that the further along I grow away from the thinking of the "general public" the less possible it is to "prove" to them anything. Not because it's "unprovable" but because they don't want it to be "proven" to them. Meaning, the only way for them to get "proof" if they want it is to try to gather it themselves.

For example I used to think Psychics were BS at one point in my life. My exposure to them was limited to seeing that Cleo lady (or whatever her name) on TV and I thought it was a pile of crap. But, as I grew my spiritual understanding I saw the possibility that psychic phenomena COULD exist, but I still had no "proof" for myself, so I started looking into it. I got a reading from Erin, worked with a spiritual coach that has psychic abilities and then got a reading with a totally different psychic. The psychic I got a reading from knew stuff about my life nobody should know unless they do have psychic abilities OR perhaps work for the CIA and had my house tapped or something which I really doubt.

To me, that was "proof" enough. However, there is no way I can prove psychic phenoma to someone like my self 5 years ago by having a conversation with them. Maybe if I was psychic myself I could do it, but just talking about it...good luck. If they are really curious about it and are ready to accept a world where psychics exist, they'll seek out "proof" in their own way. Reminds me of The Matrix. Unfortunately nobody can be told about The Matrix, you have to see it for yourself.

I guess the summarized statement would be that the only "proof" you'll ever get in life is the "proof" you discover yourself from your own experience. Nobody else can really be trusted in a SR model.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Angela

If that's what you mean, I've been careful to state my understanding of a demand for proof when the concept is an interventionist one.

...

Is that what you're talking about?

I'm just noting that you seem to be, on one hand, bothered by the idea that people need proof, and on the other hand, need proof before believing in a particular X.

[Andrew Brunelle]

You do not need proof for your subjective experiences. There is no need to prove them to others. If you experienced them, then they existed. Also, in subjective reality, when someone comes up to you with an experience, it is a part of you communicating, so a creation of yourself is telling you of an eye-opening experience.

As for objective reality, if another person separate from you talks of an experience that was subjective for them, it is impossible for them to prove to you what they were feeling while in that experience.

My brother and I have arguments constantly about our childhood about who did what and when, but I know what happened and apparentlly so does he. There is no way to prove who is right, because we all have our subjective experience memories. So it doesn't really matter all that much. So I just focus on the now, and look optimistically towards the future.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I'm just noting that you seem to be, on one hand, bothered by the idea that people need proof, and on the other hand, need proof before believing in a particular X.

I'm not bothered by the idea of people needing proof (of personal, noninterventists beliefs), just wondering why they demand and feel they're owed proof by the believer. I think that feeling owed is a sure road to pain.

Also, I don't need proof before I believe X, necessarily. But I do demand convincing evidence of X if X requires intervention in my life. So I guess I require proof before compliance with X.

[Lola]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

My brother and I have arguments constantly about our childhood about who did what and when, but I know what happened and apparentlly so does he. There is no way to prove who is right, because we all have our subjective experience memories. So it doesn't really matter all that much. So I just focus on the now, and look optimistically towards the future.

My brother and I don't fight necessarily, but we do have wildly varying memories of our childhood histories. Once, in response to him questioning that difference, I remarked that dynamics of older child/younger child and male/female aside, he and I essentially grew up with completely different parents.

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by Angela

I do demand convincing evidence of X if X requires intervention in my life. So I guess I require proof before compliance with X.

And there, my sweet friend, is the rub.

Let's take astral travel just as an example. Sure, one can experience it subjectively and if that's their truth, fine.

But here's the thing: Such an experience runs so counter to the currently-understood laws of the universe, physics, time and and even personality that they completely turn those notions upside down. For instance, can an "astral being" (not sure of the terminology here, so please bear with me) travel faster than light? Can an astral being travel back in time? Does an astral being have mass? Is it affected by magnetic fields? Is it truly "the soul" or something else?

Enquiring minds want to know! That's not based in fear, not by a long shot... it's rabid curiosity! And if it is true, it could blow the fundamentals of, for instance, communication right out of the water. Imagine the possibilities of having one's presence or consciousness in two places at once, or having the ability to gather information at, or faster than, the speed of light! Or travelling to, say, Mars for research purposes without ever having the corporeal body leave Earth!

The possibilities are as endless as one's imagination...

but only if it can be proved.

So don't allow the fear of examining the phenomena derail the tremendous potential benefits.

[Angela]

Well, cdn, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I understand the idea of being curious about non-rational beliefs, and asking such a believer why he believes something that seems runs so contrary to our normal naturalistic physical reality beliefs. I'm all for that if the desire to understand is there, or even for skeptics who want to expose something that might be fraudulent.

What I'm referring to (the "road to pain" part) is demanding evidence or proof; that is, feeling like the believer owes you evidence or proof. Because nobody owes you anything, the way I see it, and if you insist on believing they do, and trying to squeeze out something someone doesn't give you freely, you'll never feel fully compensated.

However, like I was telling Michael, if someone's beliefs interfere with your choices, then demanding convincing evidence, or resisting their interference, is perfectly appropriate in my book. Still, nobody owes you anything, even in that case.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

But here's the thing: Such an experience runs so counter to the currently-understood laws of the universe, physics, time and and even personality that they completely turn those notions upside down.

Understood by whom? By you? By me? By some other projection of your mind? For laws of physics to be understood, some conscious being must be there to understand them. And that's an inherently subjective experience.

What is the "they" you're referring to? Is this also some construct of your imagination?

Are you aware that your entire understanding of reality exists only in your mind? And that what you think of as objective reality is nothing but your own mental projection? It's imaginary. Make believe.

You're building an argument based on imaginary constructs. You seem to believe that imaginary authority figures and an imaginary objective universe can dictate how your reality works. That is your choice of course, but have you ever tried loosening up on that belief a bit?

Can you prove that any conscious being aside from you actually exists here? That would seem to be a necessary first step if you're going to argue that anyone is capable of understanding anything here other than yourself. Otherwise whenever you bring up the "laws of physics," you're really just talking about your own subjective version of those laws, which only exist in your mind.

You concocted the laws of physics. You concocted the authority figures to support them. You concocted these imaginary people to challenge those beliefs too, so you could continue growing beyond those limits. It's your dream after all.

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

But it does suggest that perhaps, like ourselves, the existence of the universe can be explained without resorting to appeal to a higher power.

Not likely. The simplest explanation appears to be design. Either that or we exist in one of a billion (perhaps trillion) universes that don't support life. Also, you cannot explain consciousness by purely materialistic means. Therefore cannot completely explain ourselves at this moment.

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

But here's the thing: Such an experience runs so counter to the currently-understood laws of the universe, physics, time and and even personality that they completely turn those notions upside down.

Thats an appeal to authority. Science is not a position, its a method. Your understanding of science seems to be rooted in the 19th century Newtonian world view. I'm not saying contemporary physics automatically justifies astral travel but it sure turns the notions of time and space upside down.

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Understood by whom? By you? By me? By some other projection of your mind? For laws of physics to be understood, some conscious being must be there to understand them. And that's an inherently subjective experience.

Don't confuse the laws of physics with the way I perceive them. They are two separate things. I perceive them subjectively in my own way, but when multiple subjective perceptions by others (humans) are correlated, cohesive picture emerges which we call the law. And how do I know there are others out there? Read on...

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Are you aware that your entire understanding of reality exists only in your mind? And that what you think of as objective reality is nothing but your own mental projection? It's imaginary. Make believe.

Of course my understanding of reality is in my own mind and is my only. However, it is not based on imaginary and make believe. It is based on observation of actual physical behavior that is outside of me. How do I know that everything is not fiction and made up by my mind? Because world keeps to exists when I stop paying attention to it.

Try this experiment. Take an envelope and place the letter inside of it that promises the bringer of the letter $10,000 if he brings it back to you. Lock this letter in random time delayed box that you ship across the country to busy Starbucks. Timer opens the box randomly any time between 1 and 30 days.

If reality is all make believe and things don't exists when you stop paying attention to them, nobody will show up to claim your money...

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Can you prove that any conscious being aside from you actually exists here? That would seem to be a necessary first step if you're going to argue that anyone is capable of understanding anything here other than yourself. Otherwise whenever you bring up the "laws of physics," you're really just talking about your own subjective version of those laws, which only exist in your mind.

So why this blog then if nobody aside of you exists? Are you trying to just understand yourself? Why did you start forums? To talk to yourself?

Once I witnessed the person experiencing delirium tremens. One of the common symptoms include intense hallucinations such as visions of insects, snakes or rats. This person started "seeing" giant spiders on the walls attacking him. 3 of us in the room have not seen them. 5 minutes after, episode passed, and person stopped seeing spiders.

Whats the point of the story? Mind is a powerful thing. It can make you see things that are not there and make them very real "to you" (subjective). That does not mean they actually exist...

I completely agree that understanding that our perceptions of reality are subjective is extremely powerful. From standpoint of personal development especially. However, subjective perception does not in any way change the actual event that perception is based on.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by tekomino

Try this experiment. Take an envelope and place the letter inside of it that promises the bringer of the letter $10,000 if he brings it back to you. Lock this letter in random time delayed box that you ship across the country to busy Starbucks. Timer opens the box randomly any time between 1 and 30 days.

If reality is all make believe and things don't exists when you stop paying attention to them, nobody will show up to claim your money...

You can do the same experiment and get the same result in a dream world while you're dreaming. Either way the experiment, the imaginary Starbucks, and the outcome still exist only within your mind. You're imagining the whole thing.

There is no "outside" when it comes to your consciousness. Everything happens inside. The whole notion of there being something outside your consciousness is itself a mental projection, so even as you talk about the laws of physics and the existence of some random Starbucks, you're still inside your own mind. That's where all of these constructs are being created.

Show me something that exists outside your mind and not within it.

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

You can do the same experiment and get the same result in a dream world while you're dreaming. Either way the experiment, the imaginary Starbucks, and the outcome still exist only within your mind. You're imagining the whole thing.

I'd say you are observing not imagining... Another thing to note about dreaming, did you notice that only things and people you've known before you felt a sleep manifest there?

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Show me something that exists outside your mind and not within it.

Thats like a chicken and egg problem. If I know it is outside, it is within automatically, no?

But the fact alone that we can have this conversation, that you and me do not share same memories and experience proves that something does exists outside your own mind. Unless I tell you my memories you don't know what they are...

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Not likely. The simplest explanation appears to be design.

That 'simplest' explanation requires that the designer be explained, which automatically increases the complexity of the explanation beyond the thing being explained.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Also, you cannot explain consciousness by purely materialistic means. Therefore cannot completely explain ourselves at this moment.

Being unable to fully explain consciousness in purely materialistic terms does not mean that what we can explain is invalid.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

You can do the same experiment and get the same result in a dream world while you're dreaming. Either way the experiment, the imaginary Starbucks, and the outcome still exist only within your mind. You're imagining the whole thing.

The difference between the dream world and the real world is that the real world is consistent.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Show me something that exists outside your mind and not within it.

Are you demanding proof?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Are you demanding proof?

D'oh! Hoisted by your own petard! Very funny, Mark.

[impaul99]

LOL. This whole thread is rediculous. I like the article, but why do things on this board always come back to the same argument?

Here's how I look at all of Steve's written word. If you believe in the Subjective Reality model Steve wrote about where nothing outside of our minds exists, then read his articles.

If you don't, don't bother because they won't make sense and you'll just end up argueing the first point of whether SR actually exists.

It's like if you don't believe in Islam, don't go to a Mosque. If you don't believe in Christianity, then don't go to a Christian Church. etc. If you do, realize that the person talking up front is speaking from a point of view based on his beliefs. You are always free to leave the premises. You don't have to believe him or her. But why waste your time argueing?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by tekomino

I'd say you are observing not imagining... Another thing to note about dreaming, did you notice that only things and people you've known before you felt a sleep manifest there?

Thats like a chicken and egg problem. If I know it is outside, it is within automatically, no?

But the fact alone that we can have this conversation, that you and me do not share same memories and experience proves that something does exists outside your own mind. Unless I tell you my memories you don't know what they are...

I have lots of dream characters that don't exist in the physical world. Erin does too. In a lucid dream, we can even create fresh characters from scratch just by materializing them. They needn't have physical counterparts.

During a dream (lucid or otherwise), I can have a conversation with a dream character and not know what the character will say in advance or what memories it will claim to possess. Does that prove the dream character exists independently of my mind? Would you assume the dream character possesses its own memories that I'm not aware of, or is it just a simulation of sorts? Why should the physical world be any different?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

The difference between the dream world and the real world is that the real world is consistent.

Erin and I both experience persistent dream worlds that we can visit again and again. Time even seems to pass when we haven't been there in a while.

For details see Erin's post on Naptown:
Erin Pavlina - Spiritual Wisdom for Conscious People » Blog Archive » Welcome to Naptown

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Are you demanding proof?

Proof is an objective construct. I'm requesting an experience.

[Angela]

Ha! He wiggled right out of your trap, Mark!

This is a fun thread.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Angela

Ha! He wiggled right out of your trap, Mark!

This is a fun thread.

Yeh its pretty funny. Hilarious. Lets see Mark wiggle and wriggle out of the Danny Dennert, we are nothing but robots, debacle and its endless connotations. Ahh yes...robots.

Howstuffworks "How Robots Work"

It all seemed so logical, open-minded and profound, consistent, and then, Danny who? Never heard of him.

Its Miraculous really.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Angela

So I guess I require proof before compliance with X.

Okay, I see your angle. That's a solid enough distinction for me.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

You're building an argument based on imaginary constructs. You seem to believe that imaginary authority figures and an imaginary objective universe can dictate how your reality works. That is your choice of course, but have you ever tried loosening up on that belief a bit?

So what isn't imaginary, Steve? And on what basis is it not imaginary? Are we hailing back to Descartes? Cogito, ergo sum, and nothing else?

As the joke goes, "I think not." *Poof!*

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by impaul99

LOL. This whole thread is rediculous. I like the article, but why do things on this board always come back to the same argument?

Perhaps because the posts are frequently about the same topic.

Originally Posted by impaul99

Here's how I look at all of Steve's written word. If you believe in the Subjective Reality model Steve wrote about where nothing outside of our minds exists, then read his articles.

If you don't, don't bother because they won't make sense and you'll just end up argueing the first point of whether SR actually exists.

Whether or not time is wasted depends on why one is arguing. I do it because it helps me learn. That's what I'm here for. If others don't wish to waste their time they're free to not respond, or respond saying they don't want to continue.

And the same perspective applies to whether or not one embraces SR. Time and time again the focal point of SR is on experience. Not understanding or knowledge, but pure experience (and note that I said 'focal point'; I'm not denying that understanding and knowledge are part of the SR perspective). There's nothing wrong with that, but ultimately it's a lesser part of what I want out of life, so the SR perspective is a lesser part of my overall perspective.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Erin and I both experience persistent dream worlds that we can visit again and again. Time even seems to pass when we haven't been there in a while.

For details see Erin's post on Naptown:
Erin Pavlina - Spiritual Wisdom for Conscious People » Blog Archive » Welcome to Naptown

True, dreams can be persistent, but generally that's not the case (before now I hadn't heard of any case of any dream (or series or dreams) being so consistent (at least none outside of stories)).

What would be even more interesting is if someone else turned up in Naptown and met Erin there!

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Proof is an objective construct. I'm requesting an experience.

The experience of a demonstration of the validity of a claim. Sounds like asking for proof to me!

Originally Posted by Angela

Ha! He wiggled right out of your trap, Mark!

This is a fun thread.

Just means I gotta build a better trap, innit?

Originally Posted by Uplift

Yeh its pretty funny. Hilarious. Lets see Mark wiggle and wriggle out of the Danny Dennert, we are nothing but robots, debacle and its endless connotations. Ahh yes...robots.

No wriggling required. Dan is a philosopher. Abstract concepts are their forte, and analogy is an effective means of communicating those abstract concepts. There's no reason to believe that what he said was anything but an analogy. Dan is clearly not naive enough to believe that our bodies are truly made up of microscopic mechanical constructs.

But I don't need to defend Dan. Without a statement from him neither of us can truthfully say what he meant, so he's no support for either of our arguments, how about we agree to disagree?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Whether or not time is wasted depends on why one is arguing. I do it because it helps me learn. That's what I'm here for. If others don't wish to waste their time they're free to not respond, or respond saying they don't want to continue.

"If you wish to know The Way, don't ask for directions. Argue." -- Zen Judaism.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

No wriggling required. Dan is a philosopher. Abstract concepts are their forte, and analogy is an effective means of communicating those abstract concepts. There's no reason to believe that what he said was anything but an analogy. Dan is clearly not naive enough to believe that our bodies are truly made up of microscopic mechanical constructs.

But I don't need to defend Dan. Without a statement from him neither of us can truthfully say what he meant, so he's no support for either of our arguments, how about we agree to disagree?

Consistency?

Yeh, but Mark, one minute, without a statement from Danny, according to you, who can know what Danny really means (so why even listen), next minute without a statement from Danny, according to you, you do know. The actual facts are, not once did he say 'like', or similar to. I actually watched the thing, and thats not what he said. In fact, he fervently said its all we actually are, repeatedly...robots. The introductory blurb describing his view highlights it. He believes we are robots. There is only reasons to believe it wasn't an analogy.

Robots consist of computers, programs and circuits. And robots have designers, creators. And those creators designs evolve. No accident, no random event. And looking at a robot isn't looking at the designer. Theres nothing to argue about there. But as this demonstrates some people will argue about anything, and will never be open to anything, no matter what, trying to twist anything to fit their closed belief and love of argument.

So robots obviously, factually have designers, and Danny says, we 'are' robots, 'thats all we are', whilst simultaneously mocking those that don't get it. You tell us to listen to Danny, to be enlightened, as it suited your slant on your argument at that moment. So whats the point of dismantling them, robots, no matter how carefully, or how qualified, thinking the designer will be found inside. Obviously the faulty conclusion will be, look we are the best robot dismantlers around and we see how all these bits fit together, even what they do, and we are telling you there is no designer to be found anywhere. So one can't exist. Yet this is the mode you suddenly take when assessing robots when it suits your belief.

Oops thats right, now you claim its all a misunderstanding, Danny never said we are robots.

Then you point out the effectiveness of analogy... yet you point out its an extremely limited, non applicable tool in other posts, again to twist and suit the belief, the all consuming belief.

Its like gyms. There's always the people who stand around arguing. And they love to point out their lack of experiencing results. 'It doesnt work.' Thats their whole workouts. Months and months of arguing in circles. I'm never suprised by their lack of experience. And somehow, in their arguing, they turn the arguing into months and months of going to the gym, of working out.

But back to Danny, and naivity. Here's a guy supposedly knowing how everything works, supposedly supported and recognised by BMW, paying out rip off crooks and charlotans, who next thing blatently is asking for money, for handouts, for him and his side kicks. And judging by the size of his gut, he doesn't look that broke. Then he tells us he's an expert in the human body, how it all works, and he's a walking physical disaster. No idea. A brain needs oxygen and nutrients too. Why some people are clearly naive enough to promote him, or idolise him, who knows.

As I said, I go by example, and all I have here, is an example of inconsistency, back peddling, wiggling and wriggling.