Showing posts with label IONS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IONS. Show all posts

Wednesday, 23 July 2014

Ideological Principles-No Wrong or Rights

Written by Mathew Naismith

This is going to be quite a heavy read for anyone just into thoughtlessness. I view my life like this, if I was supposed to be completely thoughtless, why did I choose an existence that incorporated a mind? I would have been better existing as a rock not a being with a mind. Yes I believe we should learn thoughtlessness but not over and above the mind but to use thoughtlessness to help us use the mind more wisely.  

I actually wrote the following for an IONS site but once again I’m going to share this around.

I have just thought of an interesting analogy of contrasts; if a person came up to a scientist and said I saw a flying pink elephant ,the scientist would 0% believe them. If the same person came up to a psychotherapist, as opposed to a psychoanalyst, the psychotherapist would 50%-100% believe them, the difference is amazing. The psychotherapist has to believe that this person saw a flying pink elephant even if it was just a delusion.

The psychotherapist doesn’t actually believe themselves a flying pink elephant exists but they do believe that the said person does believe they saw a flying pink elephant. The logics and reasoning processes used between these two sciences are quite obvious. The psychotherapist doesn’t need actual physical proof of such an animal to exist to formulate a deduction but an actual scientist would.  I suppose that is why psychotherapy has it’s own sphere/concepts of reasoning and logics as neuroscience is to physics to one extent or another.  These are not specialised fields for no reason.

This brings me to spirituality; spirituality’s, similar to the sciences, has a huge array of varied ideological principles using different forms of reasoning and logics. Now if a person came up to a spiritually aware person and said I saw a flying pink elephant, what would be the answer? The answer would be between 0%-100% depending on what kind of spirituality/religion they were into.

Logically, how could anyone put all spirituality into one basket (together) especially a logical science minded person? Logically you can’t, just like you can’t place all sciences in one basket but it happens quite frequently. Why do supposed logically minded people do this when it’s so illogical to do so? Dogmatism, to show that every other ideological principle, other than their own, is flawed.  

So every other ideological principle is flawed but didn’t this take flawed illogical logics to make such deductions in the first place? Of course such deductions from such flawed logics can’t be taken seriously.

During the religious Dark Ages, the churches in Europe would not accept any other evidence in contrary to their own ideological principles, any evidence supplied had to be within certain doctrines otherwise it wasn’t accepted as evidence.

Modern day science; this ideological principle uses the same process today, if any said evidence doesn’t conform to their ideological principles of science logics, it’s not evidence.  I get this Dark Age mentality quite a lot on science orientated sites, if any said evidence doesn’t conform to certain science principles; it’s not accepted as evidence just like the churches did back in the Dark Ages of religion.

It is so easy to judge one ideological principle is wrong or right over the other, this would mean psychotherapy is wrong to physics or neuroscience. I have even had a number of science minded people tell me psychotherapy isn’t a science especially when I used psychotherapy to prove a point.  This kind of Dark Age mentality of judgement only clouds our logics, it certainly doesn’t enhance it!!  

Monday, 6 January 2014

Lacking Confidence-an Ego Trick

Written by Mathew Naismith

Recently I become involved on a science minded site that is also accepting of the spiritual side of life as well however some people on this site are quite intolerable of anything to do with spiritual matters however believe it or not this wasn’t the problem, the problem was actually me.

People will believe what they want to believe & will at times defend this belief to the utter end which is fine & expected especially on sites like this one. The funny thing is this is where science & spirituality are the same, they both have their extremes which produce extreme beliefs however again this wasn’t the problem; the problem was I still lacked confidence in what I knew. I just didn’t realise what I knew until now, none of us do until something tells us so but of course we also need the wisdom to listen to what is being told at the time.  

I kept being drawn into arguments by people who were all about science & yes they did know their stuff even about certain aspects of spirituality however their mind was set on concrete evidence all the times when science itself isn’t of concrete evidence but theories. Even after this was determined & after producing evidence that fraud is quite prevalent within science studies these science minded people wanted sound concrete proof from others who were into spirituality even though they couldn’t supply such things themselves within their own arguments. Why was I being drawn into such arguments? It was simple which I didn’t realise at the time,  I lacked confidence which was brought on by the ego telling me I wasn’t good enough & knew enough while  in discussion with such science minded people.  After tacking a step back from the situation I then realised I knew more than they did in many ways. As soon as I produced sound scientific evidence they went immediately on the defensive & argued about any silly point they could even to the extent in attacking my persona, this proved at the time I was as good as them however I didn’t realise this until I took a step back & became the observer.

I’m into science, philosophy & spirituality to one extent or another so I do know my stuff however I allowed people, with obvious controlling tendencies, to intimidate me or more precisely intimidate my ego  which I expressed a little too freely obviously which gave  me lack of confidence while dealing with such controllers. We talk so often about the ego giving us an over bloated confidence & how negative & destructive this can be but lack of confidence is just as bad.

As soon as these science minded people on this science/spiritual site became threatened by my presence I should have realised then & there I was as good as them even in regards to science matters.  The good thing to come of this is I know now what I know & what I don’t know really doesn’t matter at all.  Allowing actual experiences of life to teach us awareness & wisdom in this way can have it’s drawbacks however within these drawbacks we find even more wisdom but only if we are wise enough to be aware of such things in the first place.   

Tuesday, 31 December 2013

Accepted Deception within Science

Written by Mathew Naismith

This ugly side of life, deception & lying, an accepted norm within science minded people. Don’t get me wrong here, not all science minded people are deceptive & liars actually few are like not all spiritual aware people are religious fanatics however I am dumb founded when blatant deceit is an accepted norm on a science/spiritual discussion board.   The surprising comment below has come from a person who worked in a lab environment for 25 yrs so it’s probably slightly bias.

Never accept deceit, lying & corruption as being the accepted norm as in this lies more chaos & I’m afraid one can’t burry their heads in the sand hoping it will go away, it won’t as history has told us this.  If we want to manifest a better existence we need to do something about this & become non-accepting of such behaviour within ourselves & others.  You don’t have to do as I have just be aware of what this sort of behaviour brings, I’m not fighting fire with fire, all I’m doing is making others less aware aware of such behaviour & aware to never accept this behaviour as the norm if we want to change things.  Acceptance is fine but so is being non-accepting of the things that will keep us in chaos unless we want to continue in the same old ways.  


I have to agree with noetpoet for universal reasons: 1) this is not our living room, it was created by dr radin, and behaving as described in someone else's living room is juvenile 2) regardless of mrmathew1963's guilty/innocence status this isn't an amazon forum where people behave like animals and speak to each other likewise, this is an ongoing discussion where science, religion, and philosophy meet; it can be difficult to maintain a cool head, we have to keep cool heads. a counterpoint should be stated well thought through and void the emotional content.

if a 'bad' occurs, make an apology and just move on. for instance, i and dustproduction miscomprehended one another at first glance, we just dumped the negative and pushed forward.

In the words of Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery: 'Just keep it cool baby, yeah.' these are not easy subjects to navigate and make sense of. Using a hammer doesn't fix anything (although a hammer usually works well in other cases).

G'day wbilly3814

If someone continually & purposely deceives in discussions like this that's OK with you then? When a criminal is a known criminal they are titled as such are they not & if a scientist is a known scientist they are titled as such? So if someone is noticeably deceiving we are supposed to brush it under the carpet? No wonder the world is in the mess it's in!!

How many times has NoetPeot apologised for his obvious deceptions? I did not expect deception to be the accepted norm on discussion sites like this one, sorry my mistake.

Don't you think the way NoetPoet has complained about my behaviour rather unbecoming in the manner he did? Who are the ones acting like real animals again?

All I was trying to do is balance out the discussions diluting the obvious bias towards anything that science is unable to prove at present but NoetPoet & Dusty obviously got rather narky & resorted to obvious & blatant deceptive means but I suppose how dare I point out what is obviously accepted on this discussion board.

If human kind is going to continue to accept deception & lying as the norm you’re going to need a God to help you, I’m dumb founded at this response & somewhat saddened!!

Note: The admin on IONS isn’t a part of this deception nor are they supportive of such actions. 

Saturday, 30 November 2013

Consciousness in the After Life

Written by Mathew Naismith

Synchronicity raises its head again; while in discussion about there being consciousness outside of the brain on an IONS site a magazine that my wife & I subscribe too arrived & on the cover of this magazine was the heading, Life After Death, it’s about a neurosurgeon’s own OBE.  This is quite interesting because it usually needs well educated people to experience these kinds of things first hand before they will even consider their existence However a Dr Sam Parnia is doing just that.  I should mention here, being well educated doesn’t mean you know more than less educated people it just means at times one can only reason to set learnt mode of thought which can be egotistically driven, once you bring in egotism you bring in doubt on any findings or research conducted.  In this case, for neurosurgeon Eben Alexander, he was lucky enough to experience life after so called death for himself.

Neurologist Oliver Sacks is sceptical of what Eden is saying here however Dr Parnia is researching such claims by a simple test of placing a random pictures above beds of people who experience OBE’S. These findings are yet to be published however this doesn’t disclaim what thousands of people like Eden experience firsthand.

We could say here that any findings or research conducted by Dr Parnia can be again influenced by egotism however it’s a little less likely because it’s not too egotistical to be a laughing stock within your own profession. Even by researching such phenomena would denote a lesser chance of egotism hindering any true findings.

While working in the welfare arena twice over in my fifty years I have quite often witnessed how egotism & taught set modes of thought can influence learned people’s judgment, if you haven’t experienced anything firsthand it’s nearly impossible to make fair unbiased judgement.  The strangest thing I have witnessed is learned people actually having these experiences & not changing the way they reason. I have often asked myself why & the answer that keeps coming up is egotism, if you think you’re above most other people you will keep making misjudgements which is driven by egotism.

I’m not university trained however I was offered a job in charge of my section, while working with people with various disabilities, over & above university trained people for the main reason I didn’t have a set reasoning process or egotism to hinder my judgment plus of course I had firsthand experiences.    

This sort of judgmental egotistic attitude with a number or learned people isn’t just to do with people who have a higher level of education but people in any arena that takes a higher level of education to know. I have come across this on spiritual sites, if you’re not learned in certain arenas you’re usually ignored because how could one possibly know without studying.  Neurosurgeon Eben didn’t need to study to know what he experienced & neither did thousands of others who have experienced OBE’s first hand.  Consciousness does obviously exist outside of the body but some people’s egos tell them otherwise.