Carl-Richard

Now you're being carried away by the absolute/relative conflation. I don't have anything against Allislove or Nahm bringing up the absolute perspective as an answer to your question, but you should know that the very second you asked your question, you started operating in the relative, and that is why I went there as well. Allislove and Nahm are just trying to reel you back in while I'm the devil who is willfully engaging in the illusion of separateness. In an absolute sense, there are no distinctions; no rocks, no animals, no people; no enlightened beings, no unenlightened beings. But in a relative sense, there are rocks, animals, people, enlightened people. You could say you're indeed aware of this distinction, but please choose one or the other instead of jumping back and forth.

Fear of insanity is just one of many fears you have to work through.

When I used to meditate, my body would start to ache at around 45 minutes and that is where most of the progress happened. I say push through unless you're afraid you're hurting yourself.

Animals are sentient, present, aware, conscious, but so are unenlightened humans. Humans are also "sapient" (wise beings capable of thought). Rocks, trees, animals and humans are being. However, enlightenment is when being shines through the prism of sapience, or when the illusory nature of thought is illuminated by the light of being. Animals, rocks and trees aren't sapient and therefore not enlightened.

Stop it. About animals, Breakingthewall said "they simple are", and you answered "That is enlightenment". Does that not apply to rocks?

Is a rock enlightened?

Nature is low consciousness. People have to stop falling for these fallacious naturalistic arguments.

Then why should he listen to you?

I think what he is talking about is the good old Advaita trap., a.k.a confusing the absolute and the relative

You were born with an inquisitive mind that needs meaning and purpose, so you have to learn how to deal with that. Some people just have less going on up there so they don't seem as affected by it. But you'll also notice how easily riled up they can get over nothing in particular. There are pros and cons of being a meathead.

Eric Weinstein also has his own wiki with a lot of contributions to systems thinking: https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Main_Page

Good example of why ENFP and INFJ are considered a best match; the dance of divergent and convergent intuition (Ne and Ni). Ne takes one topic and connects it with other topics in a movement of expansion, and Ni takes those topics and strings them all together into a narrative. Then Ne uses that as a springboard to other subjects and the cycle continues. This is the essence of the dialectical movement (constructive and complementary discourse): divergence and convergence, elaboration and condensation, analysis and synthesis, fragmentation and integration.

Keywords: facets, aspects, center of gravity, continuum. Stage Orange isn't exclusively defined by atheism. Atheism/theism is just one facet that can be arrived at through different pathways (Red can also be atheistic). It can be affected by other facets like cognition, spirituality, aesthetics, morality etc. For example, your friend might have Orange cognition and morality along with some aspects of Blue/Red spirituality and aesthetics. People adopt beliefs and identities all the time that seem to deviate from their center of gravity (nobody is just one stage but instead a shaded continuum). For example, there is currently an Orange fad about simulation theory: the idea that the universe was created by immensely powerful beings outside of our world. Sounds eerily similar to traditional monotheism don't you think? There is an obvious monotheistic aesthetic to the theory, but it's nested within a techno-materialist metaphysics (which arguably makes no difference when you're already conceding to the creator aspect). There are many examples of Christian apologists with a deeper knowledge of philosophy and logic than most atheistic philosophers (stronger Orange cognition but maybe more Blue spirituality/morality). Look up the debate with Sam Harris and William Lane Craig. Harris abandoned the debate format midway and derailed the discussion into a pathos-fueled activist tirade. Not very "science, facts and logic" of him

If I managed to predict exactly when my microwave is done 86% of the time, that doesn't tell me anything about my predictions about aliens. Even if I made predictions about aliens with 86% accuracy, the problem of induction states that a prediction can never tell you anything certain about the future. Current predictions don't tell you anything certain about future predictions.

He wasn't killed. He was put in "formal jail", which entailed him staying at a friend's house in Rome. It was technically Copernicus who brought up the possibility of heliocentricism, but Galileo created the telescope and made some observations, then did some calculations using Kepler's equations to provide some evidence for the theory. Regardless, it's true that if we were to apply a consistent definition of pseudoscience, the church at the time (the original scientific institution) were actually more scientifically rigorous than Galileo. He had been making unfounded claims about the rotation of the Earth and the nature of comets (wrong in both cases), and despite pushback, he said heliocentrism is the true model. The reason Copernicus didn't get in trouble is because he never claimed something without evidence (like "my theory is the true one"). The church were initially not too pessimistic about a heliocentric theory, but the way Galileo treated his critics and competing theorists (who were all scientists) is in many ways to blame for why he was jailed. This is obviously not to say that he deserved what was coming to him. It's a point to show how stupid the term pseudoscience is.

The problem of induction my friend.

Red herring. Look at the title "conscious society".

"Canine teeth" is an anatomical feature. It's present across different mammalian species.

There is a formal definition of pseudoscience according to philosophy of science. You have something called "the demarcation criterion" which is used to define what science is and what it isn't (pseudoscience). The term pseudoscience is primarily used to refer to subjects that fall outside the demarcation criterion and that somehow competes with or challenges something that falls inside that criterion. Feyerabend's point was that the demarcation criterion is meaningless because 1. it has always been subject to change and 2. no scientists actually follow the criterion, especially not the revolutionary ones (like mentioned earlier about the Copernican revolution). For example, at the beginning of the 20th century, the neopositivist movement in Vienna established the verificationist doctrine as their demarcation criterion. Karl Popper (Feyerabend's academic advisor) criticized the limits of verificationism and established falsificationism as the new criterion, which is where most scientists are at currently. Feyerabend then criticized falsificationism and discarded the demarcation criterion entirely, and people like Eric Weinstein and Stephen Wolfram, who can be considered modern revolutionary theorists within physics, have expressed an affinity for this view.

Seems like you're just using as a derogatory term.

What do you mean? Is this the start of yet another solipsism thread? What's next — veganism as we're on the topic of animals? "Buckle up and strap in for our latest rendition of the eco-fascist/solipsist-nihilist/neo-spiritualist crossover! All you need is a stable internet service and some ill-defined sparetime! This is an experience you will not regret having for the 5th time this week!"

Say hello to my little friend: Paul Feyerabend (and his "epistemological anarchism"). He is a legendary philosopher of science who makes convincing arguments for why there is no such thing as pseudoscience: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend

What happens if you flex the same muscle over and over? It grows. Even when you're not working out, your muscles are still there — they don't just disappear. Flexing the muscle don't just have an effect on you while working out, but it also makes you stronger in everyday life. What if meditation works the same way? What if you can build such a strong meditation muscle that you start noticing a difference in everyday life? That is infact exactly how it is. Does that mean you must learn to flex your muscles really hard every moment of your day? No. You'll just exhaust yourself that way, and more importantly, your muscles will not have any time to grow. There has to be a balance between work and rest. You'll feel a little stronger every day if you keep a consistent practice and give yourself time to rest.

This level of discourse is an indicator of when a topic has run its course. Guess we have to wait a couple of days for the next vegan debate thread to pop up