Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 7, 2021 14:06:58 GMT -8
Into the Upside Down by Rod Dreher. Have you all read The Doors of Perception by Aldous Huxley? It's fairly short and worth a read. It would be a good preamble for this article. The main thing is: drugs are bad. And they may be a very dangerous way to try to have a "religious experience." No surprise there. But it is interesting to wonder if the drug in question (DMT) is merely producing hallucinations or is opening the door to something else. Could reality be as weird (and dangerous) as this article suggests? What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Dec 7, 2021 16:47:51 GMT -8
There is ample archaeological evidence that man has been using "natural" drugs for a religious experience for at least the past 30,000 years. Hemp has been found in graves of Neanderthal and Homo Sapian graves as offering to their gods. And of course, there is alcohol in so many forms, from Mesopotamian beer, the wine of the of the kingdom of Israel. Not to mention the distilled malts of Scotland and Ireland made by monks.
It should not surprise anyone that a lot of religious experiences result from a close relationship with the weed, grain or grape in altered form. However, there is a small percentage of religious experiences that defy altered conscience explanation. Much of that experience actually ended up in the religious writings of many major religions, excepting Islam, which is a fraud.
The goal of a religious person must be to determine the truth from the verbiage. Ah, there is the rub, one mans truth is another heresy.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 7, 2021 17:09:10 GMT -8
An interesting observation. And I'm no Puritan when it comes to drugs and perhaps gaining metaphysical insights. Maybe. Probably. But I don't see the local chain pot-smoker as the guardian to the gates of heaven.
I don't wonder if a good 35% of Catholic doctrine isn't simply regarding trying to differentiate between getting Blotto and actually, in some way (natural or chemical, mainstream or ascetic), gaining a spiritual insight.
But let's face it. All religious traditions that I'm aware of believe in demons and angels of some kind, of a realm that is in some way in conflict -- often with earth and humans in the middle. Pat noted to me (on a different subject) that it is apparently standard Christian belief that the devil runs that earth (and that we are to look elsewhere -- higher up -- for guidance for how to live our lives).
I'm not sure. As much as I decry the atheistic/materialistic/naturalistic outlook, it's quite a leap to say that some take a drug (DMT) and start seeing and conversing with demons (or at least other realms).
Maybe. Possibly. All I know (from that article, not personal experience, although I do one day hope to try mescaline) is that DMT is probably fairly dangerous.
But an article like that makes you think. A rarity these days.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on May 5, 2024 13:59:52 GMT -8
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on May 5, 2024 16:12:21 GMT -8
In fact, several billion people around the world believe in reincarnation. Therefore, there would be nothing terribly unusual about these stories for many. With a middle name like Aija, I wonder if the family are from India. Yes, I have run into blond Indians. They were mainly Parsees.
There have been reports about such things for a long time. Reincarnation? Spirits which haven't yet gone where spirits go to communicating with children? Imaginative kids? Who knows, but I was not convinced of anything by this piece. I would bet, at least, part of it is made up. That is how newspapers operate. It's too cute.
I am somewhat skeptical that both the dead people/previous incarnations in question appear to be Jewish. What are the odds? I also didn't much like the swipe at a Church of Christ preacher. I think most adults of our parents' generation would generally be a bit skeptical the imagined friends of their toddler grandchildren, not just preachers. Today is different. People who believe a piece of paper across your face is going to save you shows just how credulous we have become.
That said, the subject is interesting. I wonder if there are any scholarly books out there which cover it in depth?
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on May 5, 2024 16:34:50 GMT -8
From afar, one doesn't know the carefulness or gullibility of the researchers. It sounds as if this particular group is careful. And I'm not opposed to the idea of mind-outside-of-body, which is what this really is about. Is there a human soul?
If so, then we're talking about, I guess, whether there can sort of be some random cross-talk between channels. That seems reasonable, although I'm not quite sold on it yet.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on May 5, 2024 17:36:13 GMT -8
In general, I agree with Shakespeare, who wrote, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
My skepticism is not of the researchers, it is of the reporter. Reporters, as a group, have never had a high reputation, but it is in the sewer these days, for a reason. What is interesting is that regardless the reputation of this bunch, much of the public still seems to believe much/most of what is published.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on May 5, 2024 19:15:57 GMT -8
Given that the mind is immaterial, that the universe seemingly sprung from nothing (that is, it could not create itself), I laugh (it's more of a derisive scowl) every time I hear the mantra of something or other being declared true or untrue because "science" has said it is so.
Science couldn't find its ass with two hands. Centuries ago (this may not be an exact analogy) Thomas Aquinas understood the difference between being and form. That is, it's one thing to measure something (or note its particular shape or form). It's another to explain it's being-ness. Okay, the atom has such and such a charge. But why does it exist, and how can it?
Science can only do measurements. And that is obviously very powerful. But it can't delve deeper than mere superficial appearances (even at the atomic level...reductionism does not dig down and reveal why anything exists at all). It can't do metaphysics. It can't do philosophy. It can't make moral judgments. (Well, it can make bad ones and often does.)
"Science" can only ever measure and then pretend at a deeper ontological knowledge – a knowledge that it can never have, even if they declare that any question outside of pure empiricism is irrational or irrelevant.
I had a chat with an AI bot the other day. I was seeing if I could drive it crazy. I couldn't, really. (Hint: it's already deranged.) But I had a plan. I asked it how many women were players in the NFL. It answered something like "70% of NFL players are men." And then I said, well, okay, then who are the other 30%? It answered "women." I told it there were no females playing in the NFL. It answered, "You are correct. 100% of NFL players are men."
And this was all a deft rhetorical trap, of course, so that I could then ask: "Why is that?" It then answered something like "Because women might not be encouraged to pursue careers in the NFL, because of discrimination, because of this, that and that other."
And I had to laugh. It's so wonderful to see that the most cutting-edge computer creation of our time (so they say) is as dumb as a rock. Not that AI won't get better and doesn't have its uses. But I won't use it. I have to admit to actually coming to despise the things. Even if it could help with something, I would (and will) refuse to use it.
"Science" makes us dumb, despite the PR to the contrary. As Dennis Prager says, only a college-educated person could believe all the nonsense that they tend to believe (such as that there are more than two sexes). Science would not accept the notion that there is more in heaven and earth than we can see or imagine. That notion, they would say, is just a sneaky way to get "God" into the equation. And they will corrupt thought to no end in order to keep the notion of God out.
Just as so much thought is corrupted just to keep out the rather obvious idea that there are two sexes.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on May 6, 2024 11:18:18 GMT -8
Because it is programed to be dumb. I have my doubts that the finger prints of programmers can be removed from their product. AI cannot get away from its creators. Their prejudice and neurosis are built into the thing.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on May 7, 2024 7:55:09 GMT -8
I think you just added (upside-down wise) to one of Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics:
We'll add that fourth:
This could also be listed under "Everything I Need to Know About Utopian Societies I Learned from Star Trek".
In the episode, "The Ultimate Computer," Dr. Richard Daystrom's M-5 multitronic (A.I.) unit is hooked in to control the Enterprise during war-game maneuvers. It runs amok. They are saved (somewhat) by the fact that Kirk can appeal to the moral code of the computer because Dr. Daystrom had used his own memory "engrams" as a model for the computer.
Anyone want to bet their life on the "engrams" being built into these things by woke, politically correct, Leftist tech-tards?
|
|
