Originally Posted by moonlit
Good points, but it seems to me that the idea of separate realities makes you uncomfortable.
If this is directed at me, it's evident to me that you either literally didn't actually read what I wrote, but skimmed over it, or you severely misunderstood literally every point I was making. Don't make assertions about what makes me "uncomfortable." I'm not making assumptions about you as a person, I'd appreciate it if you didn't sink to that level either; it's untrue and irrelevant, as that statement in no way contributed to the discussion.
Originally Posted by moonlit
We also have senses that are not focused in the dimension we physically reside in. Dreams are one of the simplest ways to understand this.
This is an example of what I mean. What does that even mean? Where did you get that information? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or snarky, I really am asking sincerely. It really just sounds like a statement you've pulled out of thin air, and are saying that it is inherently true simply because you've said it. I am not disagreeing with you I'm simply asking how you came to that conclusion.
Originally Posted by moonlit
And no. Dreams have been studied for thousands of years by people who were/are mediums, psychics, channellers, mystics, you name it, and they all have one underlying theme- that that world is as real as ours is. But they don't have a degree in science, so who cares what they have to say, even though they have a connection most people would be terrified of and confused by.
What is your definition of "study?" I don't have a science degree either, don't be dramatic. In no place have I said that the dream world isn't real. I said it's happening in your head, which is true. It's entirely real, obviously, you're experiencing it. Just because it's in one's head doesn't make it not real... I think we are saying the same thing in different ways here.
Originally Posted by moonlit
Soul reading is a thing, there are records you can access where every thought vibration is kept in the mind of the universe.
Yes, I'm quite familiar with the Akashic records, I've written on them dozens of times in several dozen threads on this forum, several years ago. For reasons that I'm certain are different from yours, I also believe that every thought ever exists somewhere as well.
My question is, if it is possible to access every thought or even that ever occurred, tell me what song was stuck in my head yesterday at 12 noon. I am fairly sure you won't be able to, and that you'll have some sort of convenient explanation as to why you can't. I'm not saying that is impossible, and I'm not saying if something unexplained doesn't follow science it is wrong or doesn't exist. I am saying that science aims to recreate circumstances in a controlled environment to see if they are happening the way we think they are happening.
I understand that there are other systems of reality, I have not disagreed with you about that point. I am saying that within this one, there are already repeatable, reproducible, measurable explanations for things that many people experience, and that what little we know about other systems of reality are usually inconsistent with themselves, and involve some sort of very elaborate and 100% theoretical explanation for it. Occam's Razor.
Science isn't always the answer, but logic can be applied anywhere. If I say that "all red cars are red cars, and therefore red cars are red cars" then that is a true statement, regardless of how you apply it. It provides its own context based on very fundamental things that we know, and then uses it's own context to make a statement that is inherently true. Although it provides its own context to create a true statement, it is still based on things we already know: Colors, universally quantifying statements, and "if, then" statements. The only outside knowledge in the statement is the definition of parameters. Everything else is provided by the statement itself, and is not based on anything in order to determine its validity.
I hope I didn't lose you there, but science is similar to this example in the sense that it takes parameters that we already know, and applies them to things that we don't know to learn about them. It can make estimates based on knowledge, and is often wrong, but it reveals when its wrong on its own. Even though it is a system, its a system that checks itself and remains OPEN. Saying "I believe something, therefore it must be true" is the literal opposite of "open-mindedness."
I started as a firm believer in any phenomena I told existed, and then I learned to question EVERYTHING, even my own beliefs, and even learned to question the questioning of my beliefs. I am not arguing against the existence of things, nor am I arguing for them. I AM arguing that scrutiny, openness and curiosity are the only "correct" approaches to anything. That is my point! I am also not saying that science has the answers; it does not yet. I AM saying that science provides a way to organize what we DO know and combine that with what we DON'T know to create its theories, instead of just trying to explain everything with magic. Even the unknowns in science are based on theories that are known, can be reproduced, repeated, and measured. Astral projection and related phenomena is based on theories that are based on theories that are based on theories, none of which is reproducible, repeatable, or measurable.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S WRONG, OR NOT REAL, I have never said that I don't believe that it's possible, and that's my point. You insist that it must be, and I am neither saying it definitely isn't, nor that it definitely is. THAT is what I'm saying is the approach to take with these sorts of ideas. Anyway, I tend to ramble, sorry about that. I hope you see what I'm saying.
EDIT- added:
Originally Posted by moonlit
Also, the very act of thinking something creates it, so your specific "soul reading" could be real, if you invented it.
Interesting that you mention this. I believe this as well, but I believe that within the context of consciousness, the majority of a consciousness in a body of consciousness must believe something in order for it to manifest- if there is a majority of consciousness which conflicts with a thought, I believe that the conflict interferes with it; speaking strictly within the context of consciousness- a different system of reality that I believe in, which cannot yet fully be merged with science. I acknowledge that I could be very wrong about that, it's just what I believe based on what I know. See how that works?
|
|
Bookmarks