People are so close minded!!!!!! We still dont understand anything.

**Voldmer** · 10-22-2013 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Yeah, it would be just as unreasonable to believe a "X does not exist" claim as it would be to believe an "X does exist" claim, if there is no evidence for either. But the default position is to assume the thing does not exist while carrying out your daily life and thoughts. If we were to do otherwise, we would be forced to seriously consider every idea that came at us.

This I completely disagree with; there should not be a bias before evidence has been presented. But of course it would be admissible to present as evidence anything, which one feels is relevant. So, if you have spent all your days never seing a unicorn, then that can be used as evidence in favour of the theory of non-existence of unicorns. It should be kept in mind, though, that there is a first time for everything, and prior to this first time the evidence points in the wrong direction ... Take swans as an example: in earlier times Europeans thought that all swans were white. Then Australia was discovered, and so were the black swans ...

Originally Posted by Dianeva

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Agreed!

Originally Posted by Dianeva

That's about how stupid it would be to suddenly flip your entire world-view upside down to believe in an afterlife after reading accounts of near-death experiences or something.

See, here you loose me completely: why on earth does evidence in favour of an afterlife not count, when there is zero evidence offered for its opposite hypothesis?

Originally Posted by Dianeva

evidence should be weighed

Yes! Always!

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Irrelevant that that could happen. If you know the truth, you're in general better able to plan your own future. We all have certain desires we're striving for in life, states of mind we want to achieve. When we know more true things, we have a clearer understanding of how to achieve those states of mind.

I of course agree with you completely, that knowing the truth generally leads to making fewer mistakes. But to assume that people are waisting their lives, because they firmly believe in an idea which later may be revealed to be false, is unreasonable - people are not created as robots with the explicit purpose of carrying out work flawlessly.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

The sadness of it is a subjective thing. Perhaps you don't care about the truth. I do. I'd rather know a sad truth than a happy lie. That's just the way I am. That's just a subjective disagreement, so it doesn't really matter. I thought that the desire for truth might be a universal human desire, but I suppose I was mistaken.

I'm less concerned with finding truth (partly because I suspect that "the truth" would be unfathomable) and more concerned with eliminating delusions.

How you've reached the belief that desire for truth is a universal human desire is rather mysterious to me. From my perspective, humanity seems insatiable in its quest for living the lie. Compare how many people spend their time meditating, and contemplating, with how many people spend their time glaring at mindless entertainment for hours and hours every day.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

You might be misunderstanding the point of this example. I said after that the scientific method is what we use to determine the probabilities. In reality, the blue beads would be the "chance that the claim is true." (based on evidence, reason, experience, etc.)

Maybe I did. But to me it came across, as if you implied that the game is already loaded in favour of those who don't believe in the extraordinary - as if the burden of proof was not equal for the two sides. And the burden of proof most certainly is equal for both sides. Nobody gets a freebie.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Yeah, you're right about that one, I just suspect it and shouldn't have asserted it like it was a known fact.

I have to admit that I have had the same suspicion of a link between the two. Somehow it seems reasonable that logic is being applied in the mind below the level of consciousness (or maybe logic at that level simply equates to force of habit).

Originally Posted by Lucidpotential

Excellent post Voldmer. One of the best overviews on the subject I have read. I would love to hear your thoughts on belief/expectation verses skepticism in regard to Lucid Dreaming. It has been my experience that if you don’t belief/expect something is possible in a LD then it is near impossible to make it happen in the dream. For example I find it hard to fly in a LD if I don’t already have the expectation (with out prior evidence) that I can fly. Thanks in advance.
LP

At present, I don't feel up to distinguishing between "believing" and "expecting", so I'll simply talk about expecting.

My experience matches yours; I tend to get the expected in my dreams (lucid or non-lucid). If I expect the nice girl on the bike to become a witch with luminous green froth oozing from her mouth, then half a second later she'll be that witch. Expecting to loose the dream and wake up will rapidly awaken me. Etc. etc.

From my own experience, the expectation is the decisive issue, but I think that my real expectation is not always known to me, and sometimes surprises occur. For example, I may think about a certain person appearing around the corner, but the person who does appear is someone else. My gut feeling (well, intuition really) is that knowing what you actually expect is rather tricky. An art in itself.

One thing I am hoping to achieve with lucid dreaming, is to get a subtler understanding of my own expectations. Lucid dreams certainly seem the perfect laboratory in which to study this, because expectations so rapidly materialise in dreams.

Returning to your question about expectation versus scepticism, it seems to me that a lucid dreamer who does not expect anything in particular, should not be able to control the dream at all. Nor, for that matter, would this person act in any way in the dream, because every action must be caused by the belief/expectation that the act will lead to a desired outcome. Such a person would be a perpetual observer of the dream - doomed to always go with the flow.

**sloth** · 10-23-2013 04:20 PM

I believe nothing.

**TimeDragon97** · 10-23-2013 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by sloth

I believe nothing.

I don't believe you.

**Seltiez** · 10-24-2013 08:25 PM

This thread lost its point after my first post. I realized how stupidly i explained everything with know reason. I talk about life and some of you speak about scientific point of view.
If anyone understood my point that i only meant inner freedom of every negative thought can be achieved by being completily open minded. Thank you.

**Seltiez** · 10-24-2013 08:27 PM

Lets stop this thread it is so stupid. Were not even talking about same thing anymore.

**TimeDragon97** · 10-24-2013 11:47 PM

We seem to have differing definitions of "open-minded". Open-mindedness is the willingness to consider new ideas and change one's own views. Simply accepting any viewpoint on a whim is gullibility. Again, I am a skeptic. I require evidence. That does not make me a closed-minded cynic. One can be both open-minded and skeptical -- I require evidence, but I am completely willing to change my views once said evidence is presented.

**Seltiez** · 10-25-2013 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by TimeDragon97

We seem to have differing definitions of "open-minded". Open-mindedness is the willingness to consider new ideas and change one's own views. Simply accepting any viewpoint on a whim is gullibility. Again, I am a skeptic. I require evidence. That does not make me a closed-minded cynic. One can be both open-minded and skeptical -- I require evidence, but I am completely willing to change my views once said evidence is presented.

I didnt take time to understand skeptism. I thought you meant it more that way that you as a skeptic will not accept any tips on until you get proof. Like lucid dreaming you will not try to lucid dream even if wanted before you get proof its real. I meant with being open minded not closing anything out just leave the info there if the proof if you ever find accidentaly. I dont want anybody to believe me but i have experienced some weird stuff that that is simply impossible to science explain. Sometimes the experience is the proof. Just dont close anything out.
I realised how stupid i was to ask people believe because not everyone will experience something that made me believe
Also astral projection is real it might be created by our mind but it is possible. it is very different from lucid dreaming.
But its useless to waste time if you dont believe in it. That is what i meant by being open minded. Sometimes you have truth you gut if you want to have experience like astral projection.
Do you understand what i meant now?

**JoannaB** · 10-25-2013 03:25 PM

I think I know what you mean kind of. See I know that precognitive dreaming is real because I have experienced it. Science has not proven its existence, and I have no clue how it can be real, but I know it is real. A closed minded person would dismiss the possibility because from a purely scientific point of view precognitive dreaming should not be possible, right? An open minded person will say that even if they have not experienced it, and even if science says that it should not be possible, but because there is enough anectodatal evidence of it, they are willing to not dismiss it as for sure impossible, but rather will say that they personally have not experienced it, and science does not offer proof of it, but they will not dismiss people who say they have experienced it as crazy. Is that kind of what you mean?

**Seltiez** · 10-26-2013 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by JoannaB

I think I know what you mean kind of. See I know that precognitive dreaming is real because I have experienced it. Science has not proven its existence, and I have no clue how it can be real, but I know it is real. A closed minded person would dismiss the possibility because from a purely scientific point of view precognitive dreaming should not be possible, right? An open minded person will say that even if they have not experienced it, and even if science says that it should not be possible, but because there is enough anectodatal evidence of it, they are willing to not dismiss it as for sure impossible, but rather will say that they personally have not experienced it, and science does not offer proof of it, but they will not dismiss people who say they have experienced it as crazy. Is that kind of what you mean?

Kind of

. My point wasnt about any astral projection or any ghost or supernatural stuff. I used those as examples. I meant that many people think already that they know everything and will not put effort to understand anything new that isnt taught to them at school. Some people dont put effort to understand their thoughts or feelings. Like why do they hate something or why they act certain way. Its like their closed them of as part of them self without ever questioning anything that their taught. Like why do many americans hate muslims ? Is it because of world trade center(And if it is isnt that Generalizing people)? Is it because of movies that all terrorist are muslims? Or is it because their racism? Or maybe just maybe could it be usa themself?
I mean that many americans are think that their country is the best and refuse to think from another perspective(I used america as example. I dont want debate war again).
Its because some people are raised to think certain way not with open mindness more neutral point of view. I just hate how easily people are manipulated because they dont undertand the thoughts or feelings that comes to them. I meant that people judge without ever realizing whats wrong with that they judge. Like drug addicts. Some people think theiy are just losers but isnt there more behind it? Nobody would become drug addict without no reason. There more behind it. Do you understand at all what i mean by close minded? Im very bad with words i wish i could explain it better. Close minded people are already chosen what they see before they seen it or heard it. I mean by open mindness understanding every thought and perspective before choosing what you think but if you think closely you see how many people have already chosen what they think before understanding what others is saying.

**TimeDragon97** · 10-26-2013 08:43 AM

That's because our education system is broken and people are stupid. People aren't taught to think logically and critically, especially in the Bible Belt.

**Seltiez** · 10-26-2013 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by TimeDragon97

That's because our education system is broken and people are stupid. People aren't taught to think logically and critically, especially in the Bible Belt.

You said it

! Its that simple. People arent stupid they are raised to be stupid but there are always and will be close minded people and open minded people. All we can do is to try to make people think for themselfs. In our current society we arent allowed to question stuff without someone who thinks he knows everything coming with the knowleadge he thinks is fact but shouldnt we first understand what that someone says before deciding anything? Its so stupid that people call themself smarter because they know more or think more logically. I hate it when some people believe what i say without questoning it themself. Some people are just too lazy to think that probably the problem.

**Voldmer** · 10-26-2013 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by JoannaB

... from a purely scientific point of view precognitive dreaming should not be possible, right?

Actually, science does not know. Theoretically precognition could be imagined, because strictly speaking there is no paradox in the future affecting the past (although there are, I think, limits to the possible ways in which the future could affect the past). If "wormholes" exist (and they have been hypothesized by physicists), then something akin to precognition should also be possible.

It could be argued, that precognition does not follow from the laws of physics, as we currently understand them. But proper physicists would never suggest that we already know the final form of the laws of physics. Only charlatans would.

**Original Poster** · 10-27-2013 01:53 AM

The duty of science is not to decipher possible and impossible. That is the extension of logic, the two are not synonymous. And logic is limited to a nearly infinitely small range of perception called human experience. One cannot say that precognition defies science without misusing the word, but they can say it defies logic based upon their experiences.

The important thing to keep in mind is teachability. Teachability is the hardest lesson to remember, it is very easy to jump to the conclusion that you know, or that you have learned enough. I'll give you a hint, you've only truly learned enough about something when you're excited to learn more. Believing yourself to be an open minded person is typically a hindrance to teachability. In fact, when one claims to be teachable that's an indicator that their teachability is very low.

But that doesn't mean you have to listen to garbage sputtered out by poorly informed wingnuts, either. I pick and choose who I listen to based upon the fruits of their labor (listen to people who have what you want).

**Seltiez** · 10-27-2013 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Teachability is the hardest lesson to remember, it is very easy to jump to the conclusion that you know, or that you have learned enough. I'll give you a hint, you've only truly learned enough about something when you're excited to learn more. Believing yourself to be an open minded person is typically a hindrance to teachability. In fact, when one claims to be teachable that's an indicator that their teachability is very low.

But that doesn't mean you have to listen to garbage sputtered out by poorly informed wingnuts, either. I pick and choose who I listen to based upon the fruits of their labor (listen to people who have what you want).

I like what you said. We should never mark ourself as wise or open minded because you can always be more and if you think you are already that might slow you down. I think we should stop marking ourself as something like stupid, wise, pathetic, loser, annoying, geek,.... could go forever. Because this cause us not to question what they do we already made the decision about them beforehand. I always try to understand before making decision about anything. Not so long ago there came thought to my head that why do i judge myself and others without ever questioning the reason. I came conclusion this way of marking people cause so much negativity and misunderstanding.

This question is for everybody. What was your reason for posting here? My answer: I want to people understand their reason before they react. Being more truthfull them self. I think that is act of open mindness. This thread is so confusing just thought this might make it more simple to understand.
If someone is still confused about my posts i wasnt speaking about science or logic but human mind and emotions how not understanding your source of emotion or thought causes negativity and misunderstanding. Im just really bad with words sorry if i confused some of you.

**JoannaB** · 10-27-2013 02:59 PM

Seltiez, are you sure you are being open minded enough about this thread?

You keep saying that this thread is not about this when people respond, but the thing is it is not about this for you, but even though you started this thread, you are not the only one to determine what it is about: all participants in this thread determine that. That's how conversation goes: people talk, and others respond, and sometimes the response does not match the original intent, but it is more open minded to just continue the conversation and accept othe people's ideas of what the conversation is also about - in addition to your initial thoughts when starting it, there are others.

**Seltiez** · 10-27-2013 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by JoannaB

Seltiez, are you sure you are being open minded enough about this thread?

You keep saying that this thread is not about this when people respond, but the thing is it is not about this for you, but even though you started this thread, you are not the only one to determine what it is about: all participants in this thread determine that. That's how conversation goes: people talk, and others respond, and sometimes the response does not match the original intent

I might have acted like hypocrite trying to say be open minded even when i try to correct everybody so strongly like i know everything. That is because i was misundorstood i wanted to correct myself. I dont know how this works im not good with expressing myself and i know i misundorstood many also. I read my every messeage there and i sounded like it was all about me but it is because this is strong subject for me. I just wanted to make my view clear thats why i said i wasnt talking about science i didnt mean that people should stop talking about it here but wanted to people understand my point. What would be the point of my message if nobody understood me? Im not saying that im open minded. I wouldnt know that myself. I just try to think more openly

Originally Posted by JoannaB

but it is more open minded to just continue the conversation and accept othe people's ideas of what the conversation is also about - in addition to your initial thoughts when starting it, there are others.

I accepted the ideas i said everybody is speaking the truth but it came out wrong. Thanks for giving me new view of my posts. I will stop now this debating just isnt my thing i just impact more negativily here. Not everybody are good with words we also want to be heard. I just focus on me being more open minded. And again i am not saying i am open minded i meant people are and im no different im just aware of it. Change is hard at least i try. I was just too serious but im out of from this site.
Still this thread is pretty mind opener

so many opinions an views.

**Sageous** · 10-27-2013 05:27 PM

^^ So then, Seltiez, the thing for you to do to keep this thread valuable might be take the truly open-minded step of stepping back and letting other posters take up your initial theme and discuss open-mindedness from their perspectives, without any parameters... that could be fun and potentially worthwhile, I think!

Indeed, I think you already inadvertently opened the door to this discussion in your recent post:

This question is for everybody. What was your reason for posting here? My answer: I want to people understand their reason before they react. Being more truthfull them self. I think that is act of open mindedness.

Listing -- even just considering -- your reason to post here, to opine about open-mindedness and what it really is is actually an excellent jump-off point for gathering different people's opinions of open-mindedness, and self-delusion in that department.

I hope people continue this conversation from this perspective, and it is excellent and quite constructive that you the OP will let them do so without corrective comment.

**Seltiez** · 10-30-2013 02:53 AM

Here is mind opener

Can You Make It Through This Video Without Your Mind Melting - YouTube . Just thought might be appropriate for this thread it explains how much larger we could think and opens the fact how little we know. Dont worry its short and entertaining.

**Arra** · 11-01-2013 03:23 AM

First I'd like to say that I'm not trying to attack anyone in particular, like Seltiez. I have no idea if you're the kind of person I'm talking about. I'm just ranting about the video and ideas in general. Probably going into way too much detail.

I personally found that video very annoying. Firstly, it's not that amazing. Is there really anyone who hasn't considered most of those ideas at some point in their lives? Are most people really so thoughtless and non-philosophical that ideas like that send them into a state of mind-blowing awe? I guess because I've thought about it so much myself, and heard it discussed in philosophical groups, classes, online, etc. it doesn't seem very amazing to me. I've always been philosophically minded and considered philosophical ideas like that when I was too young to have any idea what they were.

So to me, when I see a video like that, as an analogy, it would be like if someone came up to me and said "OMG you wouldn't believe what I just discovered... Get this it will blow your mind! If you want to multiply a number by 9, just hold up your 10 fingers, and put the finger down that you want to multiply by 9, then count your fingers on both sides and that's the answer!" My reaction is just like "uh... okay?" Not only do I feel like they're an idiot, but I feel like they're assuming I'm just as much of an idiot and should be blown away by it too.

Also, that video kinda seems to be implying that all of those things are really likely to be true. That false notion that a lot of people seem to have that just because an idea sounds cool and is possible, it must be true. Plus, there are a lot of misconceptions. Mainly, it's not like knowing any of those things to be true will make you think differently about the world. You still have to interact with it in the same way. You could discover that time is really an illusion, but it's not like that will make you suddenly start perceiving it all simultaneously. Even if time completely relies on subjective experience, what does it matter? You can only experience things subjectively, so to you time is still real, in the same way you've always believed it is. I'm not saying it wouldn't be fascinating to discover, it just wouldn't change your world view as much as you (those people) seem to think it would.

Those things are cool to think about but I guess I just hate when people treat them like they're these awe-inspiring facts that you can't wrap your brain around. For fuck's sake, stop elevating them that much. Treat them scientifically like you would anything else. Have more confidence in your own minds' abilities.

**Original Poster** · 11-01-2013 05:36 AM

I didn't even bother watching the video until you responded to it, then I decided I had to see it for myself. Usually when a video calls itself something like that, I don't bother. And rightly so, that was a waste of two minutes.

I actually do happen to believe that all reality is vibration, and all time and possibility exist at once, but exist only within the mind (not specifically your mind). All of these things, I have argued tirelessly. I also believe that knowing this can change your actions to certain degree. But not just believing those things. There's a lot more "mind-blowing" ideas I've attempted to share as well. I've seen the universe begin and end on DMT and my conclusion aligns with Alan Watts (listen to him if you actually want to get your mind blown). Existence is a dance. We are a screen saver. Believing this effects your attitude. It unravels undeserved significance and can alleviate your anxiety. It can allow you to act for the sake of the present moment and spend less time fearful of the future. The benefit of understanding the true nature of reality coincides with the benefit of enlightenment, which as Alan Watts paraphrased from some other dude, is exactly like normal life but about six inches off the ground.

**Seltiez** · 11-01-2013 03:24 PM

Just thought the video was interesting way of looking things

. I didnt personally react to video as it was something new or exciting just thought someone would find it interesting and think little more not believe it. I think this might make some people think more openly doesnt mean it will affect their life but maybe it might make them question their previous knowleadge and learn more. Just to make it clear i have only gone trought junior high school and got a job(So everybody dont take me too seriosly my theorys are from me. no facts). I try to push people to think the theorys themself and maybe compare them to scientific studies. If you see fault in this correct me i just wanna learn more and teach if i can.
Everybody doesnt think for themself rather believe what scientist say blindly. This makes people is to brain wash. I used to be the same thats why i try encourage people to think themself about everything and believe themself little more. How much more would we discover if everybody thought about their own theorys and compare them rather than just thinking the scientist already know everything.

I went back on my word about leaving thread but i try to bring the thread alive again.

**Karloky** · 11-03-2013 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by TimeDragon97

I am a skeptic. I require proof. Speculating and wondering is all well and good, but I won't really believe anything unless evidence is presented. I am completely open to the idea of things like astral projection, but I have little reason to believe that it is anything more than a dream because there is no proof.

Lucid dreaming, on the other hand, is a rather scientifically accepted concept.

how then some guy from my friend......ended up in his room and it looked exactly like it does and has seen his body

**Sageous** · 11-03-2013 05:23 PM

^^ Perhaps he was dreaming?

I've dreamed many times of being in my room and seeing my body, many times lucidly, and knew I was not having an OBE or, much less, astrally projecting. When it was "just a dream" it was easy to prove, because I was willing to question whether I was in a OBE and do a couple of tests, like confirming, as that guy did, that room exactly matched the one I left (it never did, even though on initial inspection it did appear just right) or that the body over which I was hovering was, say, wearing the same clothes in which I had gone to bed (it, oddly I think, almost never was).

Open minds work both ways, I think. If you keep it open during an amazing experience, you might allow the truth of that experience in, rather than form a truth around what you believe it must be. And sometimes that truth is far more amazing than the initial judgment!

Also, and open would likely avoid considering an entire category of supernatural activity to be real because "some guy" his friend knows says he saw his body in his room... to do so on such meager evidence implies that you have closed your mind to other alternatives. Yes, those alternatives might be boring (like the guy was just dreaming), but they also might serve to surprise... if you let them in.

**Original Poster** · 11-03-2013 07:58 PM

I've had fake OBEs too. I've also had real OBEs.

**Sageous** · 11-03-2013 08:24 PM

^^ Okay.

I actually wasn't making a point about the validity of OBE's in that post, just the choices made to determine their validity.

I too have had experiences about which I tended to conclude were OBE's, and even some that fit right into AP's definition (though my opinion of their nature tends to stray from popular notions), but they were not relevant to the point of open-mindedness, I think -- unless I also mentioned that I did not immediately assume what happened to me were OBE's or AP's but really examined them, both during and after the event, with an open mind, before drawing any conclusions.