I am a cynic. I believe aliens exist, but are not on earth. I don't believe in ghosts, gods, psychic powers, or that if other dimensions DO exist we can access them via meditation.
Any time I try to be open minded I pick it apart and am back to square 1.
Help me /x/, I want to experience the fantastic.
Step one is to be retarded, like 99% of /x/
Life is fantastic.
>>17816630
You believe aliens exist but fail to recogize that since humanity has started we have claimed that we have been influenced by or seen or communicated with aliens.
This is even stated in the bible when jesus says my kingdom is not of this world
why are you so close minded?
>>17816660
You're fantastic.
>>17816630
I think you can be open minded and still be a skeptic. There's nothing wrong with requiring proof before signing onto a belief.
I go ghost hunting but I don't believe in ghosts. I practice magic but I think it's just a placebo effect. I pray sometimes but I'm an atheist. I read tarot, but they're just cards, man. Just enjoy the ride.
OP here.
I've tried looking for ghosts. In cemeteries, abandened places, etc etc.. stared up at the night skies looking for ufos.. hell I even went to a few churches to try and experience that..eehh.. love of god nonsense. Nothing. I got nothing from it all. So I wonder, Am I unlucky or is the rest of the world full of shit?
eat 5 grams of mushrooms in a dark room
>>17816712
Stop looking for proof and just enjoy the experience for what it is. I've never seen a ghost either, but I still enjoy visiting a cemetery at night.
>>17816735
Have eaten shrooms. That's not a real paranormal experience. That's a drug.
Dmt
/thread
>>17816740
I took LSD and meditated and I had my first astral projection experience. I think drugs open doors that you can use to access other realms, it depends on every person to know how to use them properly
>>17816630
If you are believing anything without evidence, you are being irrational. If you are disbelieving anything without evidence, you are being rational. If you have no evidence either for or against something, then the way to rationalize this information is to imagine what your reality experience would look like if that thing were true, to imagine what your reality experience would look like if that thing were false, and then either hold both scenarios in your head simultaneously, or flip back and forth between them.
I recommend learning and practicing Bayesian statistics. In Bayesian statistics, if you see the sun rise 7780 times in your life, you are not 100% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. You are not 0% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. Within the frame of Bayesian statistics, there are two mutually exclusive possibilities regarding if the sun will rise tomorrow:
Possibility 1) The sun will rise tomorrow
Possibility 2) The sun will not rise tomorrow
So, even before tomorrow happens, you can project the probability of what will happen. With possibility 1) there are 7781/7781 instances of the sun rising. With possibility 2) there are 7780/7781 instances of the sun rising. If you average them both, you get a statistical approximation that asymptotically approaches the true probability as data is observed and collated. Which is, if you have seen the sun rise 7780 times in a row, and never seen it not rise once per day, then the probability it will rise tomorrow is 7780.5/7781.
The moment I put this into practice, I saw a spaceship that very day. True story. I put myself into a state of mind where things could make sense if there were spaceships cruising around Earth, and at the same time, it also made sense to me if there never were any spaceships cruising around Earth. The following week, my friends also saw spaceships, and I made sure to let them notice and mention it first, to confirm that it was observable from their perspective as well.
>>17818067
This style of thinking is not the scientific method. This style of thinking is not the same style of thinking that our medieval ancestors used. This style of thinking is not typical, or taught in every day classrooms.
This style of thinking is what computer systems use to analyze data and come up with probability based projections. This style of thinking is what physicists studying quantum mechanics use to model probability distributions. This style of thinking is relatively new, and more accurately ascertains the truth of events than previous methods of logic.
This style of thinking is not easy. This style of thinking does take more effort than simply assuming one truth state and waiting for somebody else to correct you on that. But this style of thinking is how you maintain a sense of scrutiny while simultaneously being equally open minded to anything the universe throws at you.
I'm a cynic too.
And I realize that science is just another grimoire(grammar) for understanding the world.
Also cynic means dog.
Dogs like what they like.
Old dogs don't learn new tricks.
But they all appreciate the natural world and their own instincts.
How often do you wait to bark until your rat-sacrificing dark-lord says it's okay?
How often do you lick yourself? It's pretty great. to masturbate, it's alsop great to be stroked by a hand of a consistant master, but nothing is certain, you never know if your master is gonna ship you off to the pound or not, or if he is just "pretending" to throw the ball for you.
That's why I'm a coyote cynic.
Magic is just grammar, logic is too.
You're just a dog, if you are cynic, you're just a cynic if you're a dog. And that's Just. Don't do more.
>>17818381
>Magic is just grammar, logic is too
Indeed. Polarizing ideologies tend to generate the same arguments, with different words. If you find yourself talking to someone who professes "Science is real, magic is not," you're gonna' hear the same shit that somebody professing "Magic is real, science is not," or even "This religion is real, all others are not."
There's only so many things you can do with a polarized viewpoint, and if two mutually exclusive viewpoints aren't exactly identical, it's only because they haven't exhausted their finite list of possible arguments yet. Leave 'em alone for long enough, and they'll eventually resemble each other so closely that only those following such polarity based dogmas will be able to keep track of who's on which side anymore.
Personally, I like to practice the opposite ideology of that. *ahem* Non-polarity! "If you're not against me, then I'm with you."
>>17818048
>I took drugs and had an """"experience""""
Every time
>>17818048
That's a flowery way of putting it. I don't know if there's another way of putting it other than flowery; there just isn't language yet to technically describe what drugs do. I'd explain what language precisely is missing, but it doesn't exist in order for me to do so. So instead, I'll use " " in place of that word that describes the aggregate sum of all consciousness you experience at any given moment.
Drugs that desensitize or resensitize parts of a person's " " do so by altering perception. As they feel their " " changing, they can get a sense of what the shape and logical structure of their " " looks like based on how those changes also affect things like perception, physical performance, etc. They begin to learn that when their " " is like this, then these things happen, but when their " " is like that, then those things happen instead.
Without influencing their " ", a person has no way of learning this skill; it's all done subconsciously. Drugs are one way of bringing the mechanisms of how a person's " " works into the foreground again, so that they can get a handle on their overall consciousness as a whole. And it does this by the only way it can--first breaking a person's " " into pieces, and then allowing them the opportunity to piece it back together with conscious intention this time around.
Now, it's obvious what word goes in the " ". But for people who don't know already what " " means, if anybody ever actually said the word in front of them, they'd throw a fit. So that's why decide to blank it out. I've read enough diatribes about how " " doesn't exist already, and we'll see if explaining this way skips triggering the skeptics in the thread.
>>17818381
Old dogs can learn new tricks without any problem
>>17818769
Not if you keep it trapped indoors for most of its life and only let it walk outside while tied to a short cord which is held by an emotionally manipulative authority figure
>>17816630
what if, time itself is some kind of liveform?
>>17816630
>>17816660
>>17816673
This thread is FAB-U-LOUS!
>>17818769
I think the allusion to dogs was supposed to be a metaphor. It's equating cynics who only stick to one philosophy to the idea of cynics only sticking to one philosophy. The cynic in this case, would be the "old dog." The habit of only sticking to one philosophy would be "not learning new tricks."
If you wanted to engage in this metaphor, you would say something like "It's never too late for an old dog to feel young again," or something. By going "old dogs can learn new tricks without any problem" you seem to either be taking the metaphor literally or responding to it in vein by saying that cynics can be not cynics, which doesn't make a lot of sense in this context.
>>17818775
It sounds terrible when you say it like that. But that is how some dogs like it. That's how some dogs need it.
>>17816630
You don't have to believe in anything to find paranormal stuff interesting. I am very skeptical about everything and yet I have fun reading about ancient magic, religions texts and demonology grimoires from the mid ages. I just take it as mythology and try to understand the mindset of people who wrote them, and what this says of the society and culture they belonged to. I can also have fun with horror and spooky stories even if I don't believe they are true, because I can suspend my disbelief.
Besides, being open minded doesn't mean believing whatever crap is fed to who, but rather that you will give a idea a fair shot before dismissing it entirely. If you can't prove it is true, it would not be close-minded to not believe in it; it would just be reasonable.
>>17818791
Oh, it certainly is. You ever have those times in life, where you see a social dynamic, and think "That's weird. I would never be that way, if I was in that position." And then by some seeming act of fate, you get wrapped up in their hijinks, find yourself in that position doing the same thing you said you'd never do. And lo-and-behold, up comes new blood who openly criticizes your guys' social dynamic. So, you wrap them up in your guys' hijinks, they take your place start doin' the things they said they'd never do, and you move onto new and better things.
That's time-form, swallowing you up, and poopin' ya out the other end. Or you can be the one digesting it in the metaphor, either way. It's a living story, that can only be understood by directly experiencing it. They used to call 'em spirits, before that word was outlawed by the scientific community who weren't all there yet when it comes to temporal physics.
>>17816630
Take a breakthrough dose of any of the following entheogens, and damnit do it with respect and reverence, not as a party drug:
LSD
Shrooms
DMT
Ayahuasca
If you ant to believe in ghosts, gods, psychic powers and other dimensions focus on those things during your trip. Read up on some gods you may feel patronage to, dig deep for the legit ghosts videos, meditate and read up on esoteric body work and read up just how many people experience other dimensions on these entheogens on Erowid. It's all real I assure you, you just can't force your readiness. It will come in due time though. Safe travels!
>>17818823
>You don't have to believe in anything to find paranormal stuff interesting. I am very skeptical about everything and yet I have fun reading about ancient magic, religions texts and demonology grimoires from the mid ages. I just take it as mythology and try to understand the mindset of people who wrote them, and what this says of the society and culture they belonged to. I can also have fun with horror and spooky stories even if I don't believe they are true, because I can suspend my disbelief.
This is the kind of attitude that maximizes a person's chances at contact with an ET society. Remember, ETs, if they do exist, don't think of themselves as aliens. They don't think of themselves as demons, or gods, or fairies, or anything else paranormal for that matter. ETs, if they do exist, would be on the look out for rational minds, that can absorb cultural information without turning it into some kind of religious fantasy. Because what else would they be here for, if not to exchange cultural information?
>>17818828
>You ever have those times in life, where you see a social dynamic
yes, i had this moment. The dots who were connected went far beyond any explanation.
So i begun to think about, if everything is in some way connected, the coloures, form, art maybe even the words we say, how we say it and so on.
all this influence the happenings and how they going to happen, when and where.
>>17818818
>818818
>818
>818
>>17818381
This post is almost as retarded as astrology
>>17816630
>I am an agnostic
Fixed that for you. You can thank me later.
>>17818884
The metaphor is that while cynicism is great, there's no need to tie yourself down to a single philosophy with it. You can wear your cynicism like a mask, taking it off and wearing a different kind of cynical mask depending the party.
You ever read the story "And Mimsy were thr Borogroves"? It's thr short story that got mangled into the movie "The Last Mimsy". In the story, a preschooler and s 1st Grader get introduced to what are basically Fisher Price toys from eons into the future. They begin to learn how to interact with the world in a non--Eulcaidian way, thanks to constantly playing with the toys and end up recreating thr method that sent the toys to the past in the first place. Meanwhile, their parents and a professor are trying to figure out what's wrong with thier kids and realize that thier brains are so used to Eulcaidian geometry/rationalizing that they can't visually infer what it is the kids are doing. In fact, the last line of the story is the dad seeing his kids walking away "in an impossible direction that he couldn't understand."
The same has literally been found of sceptics. Thr more someone is involved into sceptical perception, the harder it is for them to understand or even process the supernatural.If you've been a sceptic all your life, you can never get into thr supernatural unless something earthshaking supernatural happens to you.
[2] The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
[3] Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
[4] Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
[8] The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
[9] Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
[10] Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
[11] Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
[12] If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
[13] And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
[14] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Would you rather be a helpful cynic, a negative cynic, a roleplayer, or a gullible newfag?
[15] That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
[19] And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
[20] For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
[21] But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/john-kjv.html
>>17818707
So? I consider APing to be in the realm of the paranormal, so seeing my body from the outside definitely counts as proof that at least there is some truth to the whole thing. Maybe not all of it, but Lucid Dreaming and APing are both weird thinga
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/john-kjv.html
here anon, is the most important thing which a person can ever read in their life
peace be with you
>>17818950
Cynics can break out of it, if they are devoted and actually learn logic. And I mean, like actually learn it, like the actual cynics of Greece did. If ya' don't even know what a Modus Ponens looks like, nigga' you AIN'T logical. Strawman is not a fallacy. Strawman's a story. Affirming the Consequent is a fallacy. Denying the Antecedent is a fallacy.
Cynics who think being logical has anything to do with the way you act or the words you use are just pretenders. They ain't never cracked open a book about logic forms in they lives. They still worrying about what things are true, rather of which people are valid. They'd rather find a contradiction in someone's argument, rather than a tautology.
Real cynics can read stoic logic.
>>17818990
If you can do it, it isn't paranormal. It's just normal.
>>17819038
That's logically equivalent to saying "If it's paranormal, you can't do it." You just made a post that said "Doing things is normal."
What exactly was your post meant to accomplish?
>>17819023
this is pretty interesting, anon
i have a question. when i read a book on "classical logic", it actually seemed pretty dry and useless
is it possible that much of human knowledge and understanding in that sort of a "classical form" is useless? (i tend to think otherwise of course, but i put forward the question because of my past experience)
it was several years back, perhaps i should try to brush up on "classical logic" again
>>17819067
>I consider APing to be in the real of the paranormal
That's wrong.
>>17819101
Modern science hasn't explained how AP works, and supposedly some people can see things that are really there (clairvoyants) so until I see it explained in text books I would assume it to be in the realm of the "Paranormal"
