Forestluv

1. Agreed, evidence should be the arbitrator. I just haven’t seen sufficient evidence to belief most if the supernatural claims I hear. 2. There is a ton of research conducted on toxins, including industry. One of the hottest fields in biology is epigenetics, in particular how toxins create heritable changes in chromisomal structure. For example toxins in plastics have been exposed - this was in direct conflict to industry. 3. I did not give the most extreme examples. I included a mainstream movie produced by supernatural supporters trying to attain legitimacy. These were the BEST theories they had to offer and it all crumbled under scrutiny. 4. Science makes room for “supernatural” investigations. There are well funded laboratories that investigate string theory and quantum physics. The Two Slit / Eraser experiments are supernatural- they cannot be explained with our current understanding of nature. The scientific community awarded the reseachers with the highest prize in science - the Nobel Prize. If the supernatural can be demonstrated you become rich and famous in the scientific community. 5. You stated evidence should be the basis of wether an idea/claim is legitimate. Could you give me your BEST two examples of “supernatural” hypothesis that are strongly supported by evidence, yet are discredited as illegitimate by the scientific community?

I can see how the scientific community wants to define the boundaries of what counts as legitimate and "real science". To me, the term "supernatural" means something beyond our current understanding of nature. As I've stated many times, there will be future discoveries that would appear "supernatural" now. Yet, these are rare discoveries. Science seems more comfortable building upon what we already know vs going for leaps. Yet, anyone can speculate and make supernatural shit up. It doesn't mean it should be taken seriously. For example, I was discussing my research with a woman who is into metaphysics and paranormal. I told her that I work on a bacterium that infects insects and I am currently trying to determine how the bacterium localizes to brain tissue. She replied "Maybe it's an alien!!!". She was serious and she wanted me to seriously consider her alien hypothesis as valid and worthy of study. . . I just couldn't. We have a good understanding of cellular transport machines. Her idea would be the equivalent of noticing a stack of firewood near your shed and trying to figure out how it got there. Your friend tells you "Maybe an alien put it there!!!". Your friend wants to be taken seriously and wants the two of you to start searching for aliens. Wouldn't he seem a bit whacko?? Now what if he tells you how closed minded you are. That's what it sounds like to me as a cellular biologist. Just like we know firewood can be transported via pick up trucks and roads - we know that bacteria can transport via molecular motors and microtubules. Yet, if someone had no idea about trucks and roads - the alien idea might seem more reasonable. Similarly, if someone had no idea about kinesins and actin, the alien idea would seem more reasonable. Most people don't have an understanding of the underlying biology/science - that is one reason "supernatural" explanations seem more plausible. Consider the 2004 movie "What the Bleep Do We Know"? It was a serious effort to present "supernatural" ideas and gain legitimacy. I remember people criticizing scientists as being closed-minded. Yet, upon closer scrutiny the movie is filled with half-truths and inaccurate scientific claims. Bullshit that would seem plausible to uneducated people. It's been 13yrs since the movie was released - has even one idea in that movie been shown to be valid? Yes, there are phenomena we are unaware of that would seem to be "supernatural" with out current understanding of nature. Yet, that doesn't mean people can make shit up and be taken seriously without a plausible basis.

profit motives is a major issue in data integrity. Also, don’t underestimate fame. You get famous for new discoveries that change the way we view nature or developing innovative methods like crispr. This is a strong motivation for many scientists. I think funding for sellable products is more of an issue in biotech/pharmaceuticals and less of an issue in nonprofit academic funding via NIH. Here, there may be limits regarding the granting agency of what “real science” is and what is most likely to contribute to health. . . I’ve seen many researchers taylor their grants to what is “hot” or what they think the granting committee wants to hear - rather than their own intuition and interests. Yet, I’ve also seen older researchers become more free toward the end of their careers - to follow their calling. I received tenure a few years ago and a HUGE burden was lifted. I had been so consumed about job advancement and security, what experiments would most likely lead to publishable results, getting funding, my reputation in the field, getting goid letters of recommendation. When I got tenure, all of that evaporated. I had thought all that pressure motivated me. Yet, I’m so much more effecient and productive now that I don’t give a shit and just follow my curiosity. What a paradox

In this analogy, all of your examples of breakthrough science discoveries were about identifying new balls (not the underlying substance). So is your overall point that the scientific paradigm closes minds such that discovering new balls is more difficult (yet does happen over time) and/or that the scientific paradigm closes minds which prevents the discovery of underlying substance (these discoveries have never happened)? Yet, also consider that skepticism in science also has value. Each example you cited was an idea that was discredited as nonsense, yet later turned out to be true. Yet there are also many examples in which discredited ideas turned out to be nonsense. Just having an idea or making a claim doesn't make it true. Sure, the prevailing scientific skepticism will filter out some false negatives, yet it also filters out LOTS of false positives. We are bombarded with baseless claims from pseudo/bad science. "Tree bark extract shown to prevent cancer", "Mega-muscle-booster shown to get you buff in two weeks as you sit on your couch eating Cheetos". A few years ago, I met a guy in a mall claiming his "cutting-edge" new enzyme product would restore hair growth. He went on and on about the "miracles" of enzymes. I first asked him the ROA and he said oral - super easy!! . . . I immediately became skeptical and asked him how his enzyme would maintain it's tertiary structure within a pH2 gut environment. He had no answer and didn't have an understanding of amino acids, protein synthesis, folding and denaturation. Was I "close-minded" to discredit his claim? Is it just a matter of time until we find out that 80yrs of consistent reproducible results are actually not true and his enzyme will survive in a ph2 environment? . . . "Pseudo-science" is often "Bad science". Consider homeopathy and their "law of infinitesimals" in which enormous dilutions of a medicine improves efficacy. Sure, essentially no active ingredient remains, yet there is still the original "essence" within the mega dilution. An interesting idea that is contrary to the prevailing view of dose dependence curves. Experiments have indicated that these mega dilutions are at best equivalent to a placebo. Would a scientist be "close-minded" if, based on the data, s/he didn't accept the claim that mega dilutions are more effective? There is a difference between not accepting the claim "ghosts exists" and accepting the claim "ghosts do not exist". A good scientist does the former: s/he simply does not accept a claim without reason. You are writing as if all claims will turn out to be true. There have been and are countless bogus claims that never turn out to be true. We could replace the claim that "ghosts exist" with claims that santa claus, Bigfoot, the Lochness monster or an invisible farting teapot exist. People can make all sorts of shit up. Simply claiming something doesn't make it true. I'd like to know the metric(s) you would recommend to scientists to discern between ideas/claims that warrant an investment of time, energy and money to scientifically investigate vs. ideas/claims that do not warrant this investment. I agree there are scientific areas that are too closed-minded. I'm particularly intrigued by the notion of a form of "intelligence" (such as cleverless) arising from immaterial. . . Yet, there seem to be suggestions here that discrediting any idea is close-minded, which I'm not on board with.

@Leo Gura Those are all examples in which something seemed supernatural, yet the subsequent breakthrough discoveries were material-based (the discovery of microbes, the invention of electron microscopes etc.). I think the vast majority of scientists would accept that there are phenomena that would appear to be supernatural/metaphysical now - yet future methodological advances will reveal the underlying natural/material mechanisms. It seems you are proposing that phenomena that would appear to be supernatural/metaphysical now will be shown to actually be supernatural/metaphysical with future methodological advances. I'm not sure there is a precedent for this. There are independently reproducible results in quantum physics that cannot be explained through the material - yet I think many scientists would argue we just don't currently have methods to identify the material mechanism. On the other hand, I've spoken to a physicist colleague that seem open to the idea that phenomena like entanglement could involve immaterial influences.

Over history, do you think a scientist has ever figured out a new clever way to actually test what was then untestable? Would this be an example? : A few hundred years ago illnesses were thought to have "supernatural" causes. The current scientific paradigm and lack of methodology prevented scientists from testing alternative hypotheses. Then, a scientist figured out how to create a microscope which led to the discovery of microbes such as bacteria and viruses. Hmmm, this is a different perspective of "intelligence". It is like the cube illusion you posted. For a while, all I could see was a small cube in a box. Then, a large cube with a corner missing. Here, "intelligence" is generally viewed as a product of the ego/self. "I" am intelligent. "He" is more intelligent than "Her". Yet, if we acknowledge the self is illusionary, there is no self to be intelligent. Most scientists would still take a 3rd person perspective that "intelligence" can be reduced to physical synapses. Yet, if one opens their mind to a "mysterious" source of the intelligence (nothingness, infinite consciousness etc) it is a game-changer. . . I would say the physical brain is necessary for the cleverness I use, yet perhaps it is insufficient. . . Are you familiar with the Two Slit and Eraser experiments in quantuum physics? The results were "shocking" to scientists since it refuted a scientific paradigm. There is just now way for me to reconcile the results with a traditional scientific framework. I'd be one of those people who needs to hear it. Could you recommend a reading / video that may provide me some more insight regarding epistemic and metaphysical errors of most scientists.? I think I would be more receptive to someone who has an understanding of science and became awakened with a new perspective. Btw, I will be teaching a neuroscience course for the first time next semester. It could be quite interesting. . .

Hmmm, it appears one may need to define "intelligence". Part of the difficulty seems to be trying to do a dualistic inquiry into a nondual phenomena.

Hmmm, I've always recoiled from the "New Age" term. . . Perhaps I'm a New Ager that plays the role of a scientist. And playing the role of a scientist, I would ask how one would test if mutations are "intelligent".

I'm a scientist and it took a high dose of psilocybin to breakthrough the scientific paradigm. Just one point on evolution: the scientific consensus is not that evolution is random. Rather, natural selection drives evolution. . . Yet, the scientific consensus is also that the underlying mutations during evolution are generally random.

Isn't it possible to be conscious if one is not engaged with the thoughts? At times during meditation there is brain activity and thoughts. Yet, there is also immune system activity, cardiovascular activity, a dog barking outside activity etc. There are times during meditation where there seems to be consciousness and thoughts are just another thing in the present moment. In this realm, it would seem the same as saying "If a dog is barking, you're not being conscious".

This relationship WILL end at some point. ALL relationships end. There is an attraction between the two of you NOW. There are lessons for you here and now. All of the "What ifs", "I'm not good enoughs" and worries are distractions from the present moment and are blocks to developing self awareness and deeper connections with another. IME, my girlfriend cannot give enough reassurance to eliminate my insecurity - it needs to come from within. Rather than get consumed by fantasies of what may or may not happen - why not let go and surrender to the present moment? Why not let go of living in the future and fully experience now? You too have something good going. Be yourself. Have fun. Laugh. Explore. Try different ways to climax. Perhaps role playing. Perhaps pegging. Perhaps a romantic evening. Perhaps fool around in a forest. Whatever YOUR thing is as a couple. Do the journey together. That is where the magic is. It seems like this is an incredible opportunity for you to discover and express aspects of yourself. A new freedom.

Last Friday I ate some San Pedro powder (mescaline) I brought back from Peru. I bought the highest quality I could find - it was twice as expensive as standard preps. My intention was to have a "solo retreat day" of meditation/introspection. Around noon, I felt a calling to take some San Pedro. This was my first time so I decided to take a low/moderate dose. From 1:30-2:00pm I ate 25 grams. At 4pm, I was feeling relaxed, yet no headspace. So, I ate another 10grams. Next time, I will eat about 45grams within the first hour. Around 4:30 there was a new mild headspace and I returned to my meditation room / cushion. I played an authentic recording of Tibetan mediation bowls. it's simplicity just seemed right. . . This was a mild/moderate trip - yet it's essence was very different than any other psychedelic I have tried, including shrooms, lsd, ayahuasca, 4-aco-met, 4-aco-dmt, al-lad, eth-lad. Those psychedelics can be "pushy" or "possessive". There is a period where the psychedelic takes control and if I don't surrender, there is anxiety and struggle. Then, I am shown insights and lessons - whether I liked it or not - I had no choice. . . Mescaline was a very different teacher. The reality of the present moment was obvious, yet I still had "regular" mental functioning. I felt like I could "snap out of it" and interact with coworkers or family members if needed. I was *allowed* to think and mentally drift. Yet, there was this constant, unchanging clarity of the present moment. The candles flickering, the bowls resonating. I could become part of that consciousness or drift off. Yet, it was like the teacher was patiently there and accessible. Raising or lowering my awareness were both fine. There was a period where everything just "IS". Candles, dogs barking, a honking horn, rustling leaves, thoughts - exactly perfect in each moment. I was no longer associated with my thoughts. I was not observing my thoughts. Thoughts were equivalent to the barking of dogs. Everything was equivalent. It was all part of a singular present moment. . . There was nothing I *should* do. There was nothing I *needed* to do. Everything and anything was perfectly the present moment. There was a connection to past sages. There was a connection with a shared consciousness. I became aware that others were aware of this present consciousness. There was a feeling of a consciousness experiencing through my body. There was also awareness of the "game of life" - the character that I and others play. Wanting our way, striving for achievement, running around here and there in a rush, seeking what we want in a relationship etc. . . There was a sense that there is a "something" beyond this. . . I lost track of time, yet I now know I meditated for about 4hrs. straight - without any struggle whatsoever. The first time for me. Yet, when I stood and walked - the consciousness remained. As I used the bathroom, drank water and took an evening walk outside. At about 9:00, I was relaxed and present with a still mind - yet there wasn't much headspace. Overall, it was a bit underwhelming and I will take a larger dose next time. Yet, San Pedro was a gentle, insightful trip that I would like to add into my repertoire.

Does the preparation of live cactus take some skill? To get a clean prep. with an accurate mescaline concentration?

Again, I would express this to her, without going overboard. Yet, I would get grounded first, such that you can observe and sit with the insecurity and uncertainty. If the insecurity and uncertainty does the talking, you will appear as mess. If you are needy and clutchy, you can sabotage your own efforts. Rather than coming across as if you are clueless about yourself, you may be gay and she probably wouldn't want to date you, think about re-framing it. 1. Rather than being insecure about your sexuality, get curious. Sexuality is fascinating. Sit and observe sexuality - all the possibilities and potential. You could tell her you are curious about your sexuality and want to explore. Perhaps you find various flavors of sexuality intriguing. Get curious about her sexuality? Perhaps ask her if she ever considered exploring her sexuality and how so. 2. Rather than getting caught up fears of losing her, how about letting go of results and getting in touch with your feelings? Again, get interested. What is the source of the fear? Perhaps you could describe these feelings and discuss them. It sounds like you are experiencing a variety of feelings: attraction, connection, caring, insecurity, fear. How interesting. Perhaps you are starting to care for her in a meaningful way and the insecurity is a protective mechanism to protect yourself from getting hurt. Perhaps she has also experienced sexual insecurity and might want to share about her own experience. The discussion doesn't need to be set up like a black and white decision: either we are boyfriend/girlfriend or we break up. It could be about learning about yourselves. Simply sharing your experience together. When someone opens up, gets vulnerable and is supported by another - that is where the deeper bonding is at. If she wanted a dominant alpha male, she would not still be in contact with you. Yet, you don't have to go to the other extreme and be all needy and clutchy.

Thoughts about the future occur now. Actions to prepare for the future occur now. EVERY thought or action arises in the present moment. It’s about being aware now.

I would be honest with her, without going overboard. I’ve recently started dating someone I really like. I experienced some feelings similiar to you. I told her I was experiencing several flavors of feelings including attraction, joy, love, insecurity and fear. I also described my blocks to connecting deeper with her. Many women would have left at this point, yet this woman likes a guy that has self awareness, wants to grow and can communicate emotions. And now I know she supports me for who I am and not someone I am trying to portray. Remember, these are just thoughts and feelings. You can observe them without attachment. When I shared my experience with my gf, I was stable - not needy. There is a big difference between a guy clutching a woman as cries that he needs her and pleads for her to never leave vs. a guy that initites a sit down conversation and shares that during his recent meditations he observed insecure thoughts/feelings. He became aware that he really likes her and fearful thoughts/feelings may be arising as a prorective mechanism against getting hurt. Yet, this protective mechanism is also a block to developing deeper connections with her. Rather than trying to reduce the insecurity through unhealthy behavior, he shares how communicating this to her is working through the block which enables personal growth and deeper connection. The first guy is an unstable needy mess - women will run away. The second guy is in touch with himself, stable and can communicate effectively. I pretty much told my gf what I wrote above and let the chips fall as they may. She was blown away and told me she had never met a guy so open and able to express himself so clearly. Again, it is very tempting to “overshare” under the delusion that I am being open. Yet, it is actually very needy and comes across as needy. I have to be in the position of a grounded neutral observer and speak as if I am describing someone else’s thoughts/feelings that I have been observing. And remember, EVERYONE experiences insecurity and fear. She WILL be able to relate to you to some extent. Yet, getting consumed by insecurity/fear prompts clutchy/needy behavior which attracts unhealthy people and repulses healthy people.

@AleksM Generally the statement “you have no free will” refers to the lowercase y. when you say “you have 100% free will” are you referring to the lower or uppercase you? I think it is pretty clear Leo refers to lowercase you in his video.

I’ve found people are much more interested in Game of Thrones than discussing the nature of suffering.

The ego doesn’t like it when the curtain gets pulled. I’ve had some, uh well, let’s say difficult moments with that.

They are just thoughts. Observe them without attachment.

Seems like semantics to me. The meaning of “you” is being redifined by the OP. I could make the statement “You are a giraffe” true by changing the meaning of “you”.

Over the last year, themes of unconditional love and compassion for others have been part of my personal development. Psychedelics coupled with meditation have revealed some internal blocks to deeper levels. These blocks include stereotypes, fear and judgement of others. Most of these blocks were subconscious and when they were removed there was a strong sense of "oneness" - a shared experience of struggle, insecurity and suffering. Since judgement was removed, this oneness included those I would normally judge. In particular, those that harm others. It's far easier for me to experience empathy and compassion for victims. Yet, over the last few months, I've also been feeling empathy/compassion for those that harm. Thoughts and feelings of children that have been abused and go on to abuse others. The struggle, insecurity and suffering they have continuously experienced. As well, child abuse and trauma induce epigenetics changes that alter gene expression and physiology. They have a physical brain injury and the epigenetic changes can persist for decades. In addition, I've become aware that my illusionary self concept does not have free will. It is not the chooser of my thoughts and actions. This has fundamentally changed my perspective of responsibility, accountability and punishment. In particular, I no longer view criminals as bad people that chose their actions. I see them as a product of their physiology and life experience. If an individual harms another and is a high risk to cause future harm, it seems just to remove that person from society. Rather than "punish" a person that had no free will and was acting in accordance to his/her physiology, it seems more just to offer rehabilitation and should be released from prison if/when the person develops a mind that poses a low risk of harm. My girlfriend recently challenged me on this perspective. She provides services for victims - in particular abused women and children. She also has three young children that she wants to protect from harm. Her experience carries a lot of weight to me and I found it difficult to disregard her viewpoint. She described the the suffering of victims that she works with and although I have compassion for the victims, I felt like I was put in a position to defend the person that caused the suffering. She said anyone that abuses kids deserves to be punished and if anyone abused her kids he should pay the price. . . We both seemed to have empathy/compassion for an abused child and I posed the following question to her: "At what point do we lose compassion for the abused child?" She mentioned at 18 or when he is an adult. Yet, the mental damage and suffering of the abused child persists into adulthood. His actions are a product of his environmental input and physiology. I also believe that the "he" identity is illusionary and there is no free will. She did not seem to accept the absence of free will, which appears to be fundamental to my perspective. She did seem to concede that abused children carry damage into adulthood and later changed her answer about losing compassion to when "the individual takes more lives than his own". For the same reason as above, this idea was not satisfying to me. It seemed like she was assuming the abuser had her level of awareness and rationality. Yet, it's not like her or me committing harmful actions. The reality of the abuser is very different than mine and I have no idea if I can even imagine that reality. Yet, I have have some psychedelic experiences in the insanity zone in which it seems like I "get it". . . The conversation shifted to abusers that had not been abused and are just "bad people". Abusers that may find abusing others empowering and satisfying. I had a harder time feeling compassion in this scenario and defending my position. By the end, she framed the conversation as two sides and said she takes the side of the victims. Afterwards, I had a bad feeling - like I was taking the side of the abusers (although the perspective is holitic - there is past and present suffering experienced by all individuals in the environment). Regardless, I felt like I was placed in a position to defend abusers and at times that I was justifying their behavior. This left an unsettling "icky" feeling that is still present two days later.

Over the past few months, I've had some glimpses of what seem to be described as nondual. My body and mind seem to be moving in this direction. At times, it's been awkward having a nondual perspective around people with a dual perspective. Yet since I've lived my whole life dual, that's my default and where I naturally go when I'm around co-workers, people in the supermarket etc. A few weeks ago I started dating a gal who has casual interest in personal development, meditation, yoga etc. I've noticed she is a bit of a "coffee snob". She only drinks high quality coffee. She knows all about different types of coffees and likes to *over-share* her knowledge. In a similar way, I've noticed that I can be a bit of a "nondual snob", in which I *over-share*. Examples: Her: Look at those clouds. Aren't they beautiful? Me: When you define them as clouds and beautiful you are saying that they are not something else. That separates them from every-thing. They are not separate, they just are. Her: I enjoyed spending time with you today. That was fun. Me: Time is a concept. There is only the present moment. Those thoughts and memories are just a story within a dream. The only reality is right here in this present moment. Her: I'm interested in learning more about you. Tell me a bit about yourself. Me: Well, there is the true "me" and the illusionary self. Generally, the term "you" is used in the context of the illusionary self. This self illusion is merely a projection of thoughts and bodily sensations. That "self" doesn't exist through time. The true "me" is within infinite consciousness in this moment in time. At times, we've had some introspective conversations in which these thoughts seem appropriate. Yet other times, she says a lighthearted comment or question and I ruin the moment by pulling out this nondual snobbery. It just doesn't go with the flow and it's a killjoy. A few times her facial expression is like: "huh??. . . ok, whatever. . . ". I'd like to connect with someone in the actualization area, yet I'd also like to learn how to express it without forcing it and disrupting the flow of events.

@outlandish I've pretty much let go of enlightenment as a "thing". My mind and body now is now moving to just being in the space of the present moment. To be aware as every-thing arises from and disappears into a mysterious no-thing. It's much easier to do when things are flowing smoothly. I recently started dating a gal I really like and insecure/fearful thoughts/feelings have started to arise. Stories of what I should have done in the past, what could happen in the future. What if I become blinded by love and can't see reality clearly and she discards me? My mind is assigning meaning to everything and trying to figure things out. All of a sudden, it seems like I am back to the lowest level of consciousness.

First, I acknowledge that I am very limited in general for experience and knowledge. There is FAR more I don't know than know. Also, each time I say "I believe", walls arise and I am more closed-minded than a mindset of "I don't know". I try to be aware and challenge these beliefs. What is the source of the belief? Is the belief true? And be willing to let it go. It is difficult for deeply-held beliefs. For example, I recently started dating a gal I really like. She has talked about being "monogamish". I have a belief I can only go to deeper levels with someone in an exclusive relationship. A nonexclusive relationship would be "just for fun" and I shouldn't get emotionally involved. I feel it and tell myself I am programmed that way. It is a very deeply-held belief. Yet, what is the source of that belief? Is it true? . . . During meditation last night, I let go of it for a while and there was no attachment or identity. Possibilities arose. Those possibilities may not be my truth, yet it was clear the belief and my self image is limiting and I had never seen those possibilities before.