Science can be violent

[tvaeli]

With scientific argument, which is told to be safe, people are left without work and homes, without their lives and social spheres. When their life sciences are "proven" to be false, they can be considered mad. When scientific argument spreads, this can be seen as war - taking away the freedom of mental health, the academic positions, government careers and business profiles. All those things are guaranteed by human rights, for righteous at least. These things, when they are result of scientific argument, such as disproving, debunking, making a scientific experiment (with a person claiming supernatural powers, for example), are all with life (and death, at least on some level and in some time) considerations and should not considered as safe as "neutral scientific debate" is supposed to be.

Properly, those arguments go somewhat out of scope of the law after scientific revolution - the still-present causes to people and their potential diagnosis of not seeing the world objectively, or not having a proper personality and social connections (people claiming to have been lived higher realms in previous lifetimes are accused in social disorder of misusing this fact or hypothesis, even if they take care to use their actual proven abilities in life situations and follow the material verification of life truths; people believing God are suspected in following the wrong argument of a Pope, even if they believe God is equal to logic and life sciences, his "punishment" or more neutral law of karma provable in experiment and logic, and subject to philosophical thought).

When we meet scientific arguments, which have consequence to human lives, we should consider whether the existence of several near-to-truth models, paradigms and their apparent contradictions, applicability of different types of axiomatic systems to similar life situations, or optimism of a person with "sixth sense" and the lack of philosophy of questioning the strength of their own senses is considered. As in material world, we apply philosophy to our senses, in spiritual realm we should do the same - this is claimed in Buddhism, saying it builds up a method for neutral, scientific study of the mind. We should doubt in our spiritual senses and do all the meditations of Descartes, starting with proof of "I am", followed by proof of spiritual realm or consistence of that kind of mental imagery, etc. We should repeat, do we achieve the same results in the material world - if the sixth sense is true, we should be able to verify it in material world up to high degree, where we can be a little bit wrong by trusting our senses, but not completely off-track; our model is at least up to some degree true. These verifications and verification of integrity of material and spiritual realm, and deep philosophy, which also considers that others have less senses, but must be able to repeat the results in the material world to gain basis to their own sensible views, and avoid becoming mad - these all should be used to guarantee the equality of people in sense that with their limited knowledge and ability to connect the facts and reason, they can still practice philosophical or scientific lifestyle of verifiing their life matters and that people around them are not completely mad. For this, a religious person must follow each source of knowledge, including the five material senses, and to include all those realms so that they are scientific in each method of perception. This integrates and unifies our realms, opening all chakras from down to up, and when the final integration is done - taste of one -, there is an unified and balanced model, which does not seem mad (or actually, really is not). This has to be done by spiritual person to meet with scientific argument and to allow all those people to live together with them, being able to trust their senses and instincts, so that people with limitations to their world model can still be philosophic, doubt and check the facts. They also, up to some degree, trust in their higher sense - when they have emotion like fear or hope, they follow it somehow without reasoning about every cause and effect. With some limitations, each one of us has some higher senses and each one of us, even a complete skeptic, has at least a little trust to those mind activities; they won't do it if they have a really strong feeling against it, like strong and unreasoned fear. But they cannot see the higher realms. When we balance our minds and senses, we are just like them; we allow all the positive and negative processes of our mind, doubting in the positive and resolving the negative, then we look just like other people. When all philosophic clarity, every doubt and possibility to view it in different ways is introduced, and when we give every sense and sphere it's philosophic food, we become into unity; our ideas, when completely balanced, sound also to skeptic, and little degree of spiritual notions integrated with their material counterparts and verifications, or proof that they do not change the ethics and logic very much, but only add some slight quality, which is at least not dangerous, we can flow along with scientific truth. For me, when I sense something in irrational, subconsious ways, I also take the challenge to find out the facts in physical realm, without being too suspecting and creating a self-proving clairvoyance; the effects of higher senses, then, create so small effects in my natural activities that those are safe to ignore to skeptic - there are no fundamental contradictions. Other things, I live them only in world of people with similar senses and abilities to reason, so that the spoken part of this relates to co-occurring, synchronized information in material world, and proper notions of doubt are included, for example I notice that this is not a strong proven claim, in material world, which I sense only by gut feeling. This integration makes the difference between science and spiritual realm very small - but by using those insights from spiritual realm, you can still have a lot of benefit, but equal benefit comes from strengthening your material instinct.

Now, when scientific argument still comes to debunk us, or when we show them that they do something wrong, resulting in "conspiracy theory", there can be danger to human lives; in case the opponent paradigm is not viewed objectively and given a degree of truth, so that they could continue their scientific work or use their arguments for their lives, there is a scientific violence. This can be outside the scope of laws, which otherwise protect our wealth and mental well-being. Scientific arguments debunking a theory can make really bold accusations, where the possibility of bad mental profile arises; whereas, who trusts the God or their visions properly, with every measure about a danger, for example following a grand religion, which has been made safe in time, has their protection against mental illness - so it's only a slight degree difference in the views, where a whole contradiction is shown. To do our scientific argument without endangering people's lives, we must respect and give all honor to the aspects, by which their model is still relevant in reality and not making them mad.

I give the examples:

• Scientific and spiritual realms are different, but ethics as a theory, talking about energies, their effects and conditions and their height, still applies. We can apply, in all cases, the theories about whether we are harming a person, making a gift, lie or speak truth. Buth realms consist of people having the energies, applying them for good and bad, and winning and losing, etc. Spiritual realm claims only more subtle and powerful ways, which guarantee and execute the same ethical causes - so there is no relevant contradiction.
• Logical limits exist in both spiritual and scientific realms; it can be seen that resources are limited and you have to do something to receive positive synchronicity or help of God, all those realms must have their ends connected to ends.

So, ethics and logic, and all their implications, apply in similar way in spiritual and scientific realms. When people do good to each others, they are empowered, when they do bad, they lose their collective power. This gives rise to theorems of ethics. Very often, science and religion reach different results despite the underlying theory of causes and effects is different. God still helps the people, who help others and life good lives; but in science, you also receive positive feedback, equal to good karma, from society. Terms of good and bad karma, in the end, are equal - spiritual theories claim that this result is very fast and direct, having an influence on the situation, but from complete balance of all the instincts and work on the conditions, and the total balance of the mind, the scientific theory must assume similar integration, where you see good ends making raise to more good ends, but you cannot exactly reason about every line of consequence - so this law itself is somewhat higher than logic, it still appears somewhere, where you cannot say exactly, who and by what would help you for applying this line of ethics, and where and how big is the benefit, when this ethical work is done. Scientific theories must also be calculated to their limits, to infinities, as by pass of generations, long chain of situations, where the ethics has to reappear, they give some estimated complete direction, which expect that in unexpected ways, the total theorem of the positive effects of our actions must come back somewhere, even if it's the life-quality of our descendants, which is our interest as well. The good karma we create comes back somewhere, when we look it from higher perspective than our lives. When science sees this unity, it's enlightened, this is the sixth and sevent chakra of scientific thought, when we see those limits in infinity of our ethical theories; where we must apply similar reasoning even if the effect is not direct, reasoned and immediate in our lives - they can be such in lives of the others, and make our complete chains of causes and effects better, people might trust us more. The claim that ethics is continued in past and efterlifes, either in heaven or next life, also calculates such limit - we calculate our ethical reasoning past the line, where it meets the last reward we can see. We avoid lies, because however clever we are, an unreasoned lie would create a contradiction in complete chain of events, causes and effects in our lives, and fill us with paranoia for the rest of our lives. We would not do more because of fear of God or karmic consequence. In religion as well, for example in Buddhism we do the mind science to see these karmic chains ourselves and be critical about them; in enlightened religion we become equal to God - we reason about God's ways, still seeing in our yin aspect, that the society and thus the reality we live in, sees some more than ourselves. Now, when all this makes the different between believing in afterlife or believing in honour and need to think about the consequences of our actions to others, very small, and also the ethical reasoning is applied over the direct fear of punishment, we see that by proving or disproving claims about these serious philosophical differences of underlying reasons, we do not prove very big differences in applied life sciences. We can help science become more ethical and religions or people with higher senses become more philosophical and skeptical and set their words so that it is synchronized with material evidence. Scientific argument should be synchronized with limits of the ethics - where we do not see the reward and punishment directly, but know that ethical theorem goes on and on in the complete chain of causes and effects of lives of the individuals, groups and civilizations, and our little work on ethical situation, which has no visible proof or reward, is reasoned by all that. Spiritual understanding, trust in God, and higher senses must not contradict with material things, and often they must surpass the verification many times to become clear - how we interpret a dream or energy feeling, there can be so many nuances that if we do not involve all other senses, we get off track in the reality and this becomes a visible mistake; often the dreams and hopes combine with our higher sense data, or exceed of the idealism combines with our trust in God, and then we have misinterpreted in our data; we have disappointment. When we interpret our dream, we do not notice another force behind the reality, which we could verify by material observation. Or we do our material observation selectively, not being complete in material world. Always, the basic principles of science and even that the material world should be important to us, are very important in the spiritual realm, senses of deeper relations, where we cannot even see, whether it's our subconscious thought getting very far with it's instinctive reasoning, or is this a direct sense higher than our material senses - we get some feeling about the situation and it's source is irrational. But these sources need to be verified in material life, and the material life should be followed properly, not only verifying our spiritual sense, but following the material reasoning of what and when to verify; we can prove the spiritual realm, but the material realm as well can be proven. The higher senses are very complex to understand and they are distinct from material plane, so that direct observation and honest life in the material realm would give much added value, and clarify them much further - after this philosophy of life, living the doubt, we also trust those senses better, as we have seen the stronger fact and removed the noise; this is an ever-lasting process. When we try to make important decision based only on what we have felt, we get the same way off the track as with normal feeling, biased or unobjective; when we do not enrichen our feeling with philosophy, it's a very vague sense, but when we do, we can see the right place of feelings in our life, and how they are objective about the surroundings - we also start to feel the need for philosophical doubt.

Creatures of the material world are very objective and they can harm and endanger the less developed spiritual sense very much; their doings to organize the material world are very real and relevant to us, and the power of mind, when used for a wrong reason, will be found out in material reality and measures applied there with scientific method, if done by good karma, are very efficient against your spiritual senses. Material beings and their sources of objectivity can not be underestimated.

When a materialistic person, who cannot have any gut feelings or higher senses of will and purpose in their environment, get their reasons from separated situational truths to higher visions, to visions of civilizations, applied ethical norms and principles behind historical events, successes and failures, they can be very objective about applying the ideals, which are directly felt when your third eye and crown chakra are opening. You cannot even be completely, philosophically sure that this is not what is exactly happening in your brain when you see visions and deeper meanings of reality - your brain could be understanding the causes and effects of the life around you, and thus showing you the most probable data as a symbolic imagery; brain can do this as we know from existence of dreams and feelings. In a sense, visions of higher senses contain this probabilistic element, and only with skepticism and verification of facts can they be properly applied - hopeful thinking completely kills them otherwise. Material people in material world can measure these overall feelings very much, and when they get together the theorems about ethics of the karma, they can measure these tendencies in material world. When good wins in the end, bad can go a long way before it loses, or before the society gets rid of it - this is also visible in religion, where you wait for something higher. This is the yin element, and yin, by nature, is material. Spiritual life completely leads to material realm. In spiritual realm, the deeper, underlying principles get much further in their direct effects - in material world, these principles still exist and they are very relevant in complete chains of causes and effects, of past and present or of actions of other people. In ideal ethics, you carry them to the end, and then, you get visions of symbols related to them, which brain creates so closely in the same logic with the spiritual visions, that the material person would also draw a blue sky or red glow around a person, where the spiritual person would envision those very same material symbols. So the material logic of the spiritual realm is similar, and there are similar chains of causes. Thus, we can see that there are variables, which change, and their balances are to be corrected, but those are really only the variables, which apply to some higher model, which is neutral to whether God is operating, laws of karma in effect, or whether the evolution is getting rid of the bad ethical behavior, or the city government has given us such means that we cannot break the possibility of better karmic activity and obstacles on the way of the wrong. So we are discussing the material of those models, whether one or another kind of force is doing that, but as we get more ethical and evolved, we are not discussing so much the real consequences of the models; and when we are more philosophical about the material, giving the possibilities that it works in different way - for example, that our symbolic dream means that we got so many signals from the society and the material world that our brain formed those resulting symbols for us, which we can understand instinctively. I think a sensitive with not so much high IQ, however sharp their senses, can not completely prove this; I have seen many sensitives with lower IQ, who I completely trust in their general meaning, and who see very subtle forces, but who are not philosophically so advanced to say for sure that it's not simply an instinct and the result of their material experience, visualized naturally by the ability of brain to form dream symbolics. The auras they see, they can be such dream-language representations of their brain, which they see very vividly. A material person, definitely, when they go to the end in generalizing and unifying the model, will be able to execute them with more or less only the senses of the material world, and then they are enlightened - they are a perfect fit to our spiritual enlightened world. But our language must be not very our-own-senses thing, but language is communicative and it must be careful to include the words, connections and sounds, and the visible causes and effects, which form in the material world. Realms are so synchronized that what we believe by our intuition of truth, this is a kind of nuance, and philosophical possibility enrichening our tone and adding some extra words and hints, which would not even sound to material person very much. This is our introspection, the way our internal senses work. Forming our language completely from words like "frequency", "energy", "will of God", "law of attraction", etc. - those all form conceptions achieved by non-common, non-communicable thinking or perception, and to be social, a person must listen carefully and connect the facts about how others perceive and verify the surroundings, and how long they reason from their direct senses; the sound, letters in our words, structures of sentences and sounds of subtones, they must be integrated to these models; material person also connects wisdom with "light", corruption and loss of power of societies with "darkness", hate and love with "red", etc., and we can somehow create sensible sentences about the visions we see, not being so sure about how our senses physically and biologically work. We can be sure that material people are sensible enough to tell us properly, which brain activities and neurochemistries are measured to be aspects of the same forces, and it's quite probable that when we see a higher vision or prophecy about society, the same brain activities are electrically charged with a scientist proving a higher theory or vision about the society, and that it's applications would change the world for the better; we can be quite sure that in material and spiritual plane, we all thus agree what is "changing the world for the better", "getting less wars", "making people more understanding" etc. Speaking with very spiritual terms, where the sound and structure of our language is not synchronized with physics, is like a scientist talking about our brain chemistry and physical properties of the objects, instead of expressing their emotions and speaking of the work we have to do. When the language is profound, we do not understand much, whether it's materialist or idealist speak, and the "will of God" does not seem very bad to materialist when we simply state that "getting less wars is a will of God", but it sounds out-of-balance to everybody when we empathize it too much or do not leave space for interpretation, where it's simply a parallel or metaphor; our philosophy rather supports that it could be. When we organize our society very high, we indeed see many unexplainable synchronicities and unexpected good ends, and when we get visions of them in unity, it's like vision of God or supernatural synchronicity - the word "God" as being a base truth itself, it's then materialistically not very off-topic, because it's the overall effect of all causes and effect, and there are too many to be specific about it; as this kind of God is what we need to build in life, we can see how the concept of God can still be seen as a source of this life energy and united flow. So we must be philosophic about what we mean by God, and give people, who are in their own stages of development and always need to check facts by themselves, even if they are very stupid and cannot understand, how we measured something - we give them their own inspiration and explanation of facts and we make our language profound, so that it does not make off sounds when we listen with different paradigms; this united symbolics exists - for example, materialist would also associate "swimming", when talking about adapting to situations in life, and when we get a vision of water element, we should consider that in natural language, it could be a "metaphor". Balanced personality does not make off-sounds in different paradigms, notes, which appear as unharmonic frequencies in our tone - in the same way as a person, who has finished the work with sciences of ethics and physical life, has high visions and does not sound off for a spiritually enlightened person, who has a direct sense of some higher ethics or underlying principles. Ideally, they both sound more or less the same and use similar imagery, the same sets of colors for different emotions, the same animal pictures for similar characteristics, and they would draw their ideal worlds with much similar physical constitution as we draw heavens. Thus, there would be two equal cityzens and their language would be used for communication, not for abstract or hard-to-understand technical talk in their own disciplines and neurological conditions; I might see a vision of fire when I see an angry or passionate person, but I rather express it as a metaphor of fire than try to be objective about the structure of my senses, and describe the specific attributes of an object - then, we have common language, and this is a very important part of understanding.

We have to do the same work for other people to still survive, when we make a scientific argument. A sensitive girl really describes what they see, and this is a long way to be philosophically mature; the same way the materialist speaks of brain chemistry and connects many facts of life with this, and might seem mad for a spiritual girl. A materialist woman might not know much and not find the complete explanation of what they are doing, they might not be able to prove democracy or capitalism, or find a solid foundation for their ethical theory. They are all living in an introspection, and there, the worlds of different people are very different. When they make an argument, see "contradictions" between their visions, senses and understandings of implications, when they are not very sure that another person can also be human, and live a sensible life, with completely different basis, different senses and length of how far their reasoning goes - we are scientifically violent and we might have bad effects on life of other people.

Some people execute these bad effects very fast, and then they are double-alert when someone criticizes their world-views or assumptions, and fight this subconsciously like a real battle, where they had to be right in the very beginning. Such unhealthy people must still be respected, but they cannot execute all the life consequences very much, and the laws of life and death are there in those consequences. Scientific debates might end up being real wars making life impossible for some, when they don't respect that others, also, have some degree of verification for their truth. For example a scientist might have a spiritual model of how water behaves - be correct or wrong, but this is an important hypothesis for many people, and they should be able to study this further, even using the taxes of those people; in the end, this would be proven or disproven, but their progress is very important for those people to see, how the principles they see would be applied to material world; they have to study the patterns, which seem to be relevant in this. In the end, ethics or what we call the world of God, somehow they must be present in the material process and it's laws, and this science is not very fast, but it helps these people to find the solutions in their own terms.

By "sound of language" I speak it should be profound of material experience, philosophical and spiritual insight, feeling, etc., and all those aspects should be in healthy balance and serving their own ends, integrated completely. Then, different people with particular senses and understandings, can feel it's still familiar and reasoned, not becoming off-track and not making those awful sounds, which break the connections between people. People on different levels of knowledge, mind, senses and associative connections of them with symbolic imagery, they can feel it's a safe language not being distant from their experience, prone to insane activities or suggestions. For example, if you have a high blood, your life must prove it; if you have good past lives on other planets, your cultural integration and elevation must prove this; if you have strong connection with God, the actual flow of events must show it's a deep connection with life, not something else - and your particular interpretation of those underlying principles must resonate well with other particular interpretations, paradigms, which hold in parallel and all explain the world; each sense is very important, and in each sphere you must go from beginning to the end, so that this aspect of your experience is strong and convincing. We must not expect too much from people, who do not achieve all that, who only measure your ethics by their feeling, or give a value to a situation based on higher principle or a vision, or want to see a material constitution of the thing you are talking about - all these people experience a limited life with only some aspects, and all of them are in some part of the spiral of development, and cannot integrate all their aspects; those limitations are very natural and we must work on the consequences, making different people closer to each others and to avoid the fears; if your relation to your subconscious mind about the underlying causes of society is to channel messages from God, which suggest you bless and love, then materialistic people would have hard times to understand that you simply want "bless and love", not a satanistic message from pope or similar entity; those people can be very narrow in thought and limited with expressions of their introspective nature, and then not very connected with society of different people - I read those things seriously even if I sometimes do not like a tone of such people; sometimes I do not have an experience to verify spiritual claims - but I see some philosophical principles, which are still there, for example that my lifestyle has effects on my health. This is a bad communication if you can not create more neutral messages explaining, how all those things are related to different views about the reality, but still, a scientific person can come with whole bunch of numbers we do not understand and say that this is our situation, or a person with scientific views and low IQ can still give explanations based on Newton's theories, not quantum theory, string theory or theory of relativity; they can have very vague explanations about what they are doing physically, and they might make claims based on external authorities - overall, they are not able to fix the machine they use, or have funny explanation about how it achieves it's means; we give respect with people with all these different limitations and they all exist. We must know how we live with them, for example with a sensitive, who explains our life only through colors and shapes, and does not use common words like "hate", "love" or "greed". Another can speak of destiny for good people, where we only see the good activities bringing some reward. Another might solve the raise and fall of civilizations with game theory, not with bible or Buddhism or I Ching. All these results are appropriate solutions of life problems, when applied correctly, and all those schools of thought have warning about the improper use, they have survived for centuries and millenias, solving central problems of life. All of them have some uncertanty of their philosophies as philosophy, by nature, is uncertanty of very close correlations and very obvious implications. Also, a sensitive can have very low IQ, but they are not completely incorrect with the most important matters; they might fall off to the interpretations, which have to be seen as "symbolic" - whereas another sensitive has checked all the realities behind their intuitions, and form many connections with their levels of uncertainties by using the words "gut feeling", "hypothesis" etc. Their senses are not closed to particular models, which often have slight mistakes and incoherences obvious when measured with other models. We cannot completely "debunk" all those people, but we have to find a common language and trust in other people's abilities in somehow solve their situations, even if they use bizarre words and correlations; when we are criticized by other kind of model, they are often right, but it's hard to integrate and position in our own model. They all have to go through their own philosophical process, search of truth and good lifestyle, and not of ours; when they trust our very personal senses and views, they go wrong anyway as they cannot understand the basis they are using and they can not develop this - by this, spiritual persons should be healed by spiritual doctors, who can talk about chackras and energies, but also the connection with material root; material people should be healed by material doctors, who can speak of the same things in material terms.

Edited April 24 by tvaeli

[Danioover9000]

   Yes, science can be violent. And? What is your argument? What are you arguing for/against Science being violent? What counts as 'violence' in a scientific context?

   Also, video below is a story showcasing the power of confirmation bias and other cognitive biases before any experiment conducted, and how unaware this scientist is when he's locking himself into a drawn conclusion that confirms his bias, yet isn't aware that his 'experiment' was coopted:

 

[tvaeli]

On 4/28/2024 at 2:50 AM, Danioover9000 said:

   Yes, science can be violent. And? What is your argument? What are you arguing for/against Science being violent? What counts as 'violence' in a scientific context?

   Also, video below is a story showcasing the power of confirmation bias and other cognitive biases before any experiment conducted, and how unaware this scientist is when he's locking himself into a drawn conclusion that confirms his bias, yet isn't aware that his 'experiment' was coopted:

 

My argument is that as the scientific arguments against other sciences (as many of us have quite much confirmed their facts) should be seen, in cases where people are fired and outcast of social circles, until the police kills them as poor, simply and directly as violence, and we should not support scientific arguments, which do not care about the well-being of the participants. Science, it's argumentations and debates, are wrongly being seen as safe and necessarily very ethical, almost an ethalon of ethics. In case of violent scientific activities, like "debunking", which definitely leads someone to life, business, scientific, political and social hardships, until they seem so dead that even the constitution (constitutional laws protecting them, like being a honorable person) is endangered, but the scientific side has been only carrying out the high ethics of introducing the Truth.

The arguments pro and contra religions, pro and contra spiritualism etc., they are very complex and I have seen that you do not have anything to do with your Quantum Physics arguments in case a person is scientific mind somewhere in the Newtonian physics and 18th century - they are still not debunked, they are perfectly valid scientists as laws of gravity and inertia do hold and ghosts do not exist, but they do not go very far with quantum physics arguments and possibilities arising. We can see that these are complex arguments and often, used by spiritual people who do not know quantum physics neither - they know only those few arguments. These complexities go on and on, so instead of only looking the scientific arguments of scientific debate, we should be aware of whether these are fair battles, whether people are injured or traumatized etc., and consider those arguments on their own. After all, we also have freedom of faith, which does not give a d*mn about whether it's a very scientific argument, which is used.

[tvaeli]

What I want to say, there is whole science of multiple paradigmas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm.

This states that in case two persons have multiple paradigms, they can have equally valid models of the world, with their easily correct parts, confusions and biases, but their arguments are contradicting. For example, spiritual views reason ethical arguments, which are practically very similar to the arguments of ethics in science of psychology, but when they argue about those, they would need impossibly and impractically complex arguments to see, where their sciences would not contradict. Those arguments are unreachable for common people.

So, when your model is working in real world, thus quite scientific and sane, it does not result that it would not contradict with equally strong model of another person. Contradictions are perfectly normal between two sciences, like science of spiritual people and science of the materialists. Those are strong, almost provable contradictions, and inside other model, following an argument of the other person is leading to insanity. When materialist is following the God in a way they could understand, it would really lead to social and personal incapability, they would be like slaves; where a spiritual person has enough argument to read the channeligns of God with critical mind and find the true arguments, which fit their picture of godliness of a mission; so they do not simply take a gun and start shooting a non-christian people, or do something other insane (by Bible as well, or by Koran). I am very philosophical and critical about what Pope says about God - and if I would be a Christian, by some turn in my life, I would be equally critical. Simply because I am philosophical. If I would see a vision of God talking, and I don't know, why this should not happen to me - all kinds of things always happen - I would be equally philosophical and not act before I have this somehow integrated to my philosophical view, what God said, otherwise he really has to say this to another person. I am constantly critical, constantly skeptical and constantly philosophical, despite that I theoretically believe in God of some sort, and most of spiritual arguments I have heard. Atheist, having some medievial imagery of God, when there really was the inquisition, would possibly go mad with similar vision from God or some channeled message. For me, those people channeling messages from aliens, I don't know about their physical validity, but they bring me strong cultural arguments and that's all - I can see, such kind of complex cultures must exist, they are very developed at least in psychology of such people, who channel, and I read them with same awareness and thoughtfulness, as I would read a good science fiction or fantasy book - it does not matter much, what is the physical evidence. I am interested in more practical topics, whether they introduce better, not yet achieved cultural traits and higher social psychology to me, which is the practical value, and the scientific or spiritual evidence of such aliens - this is merely a philosophy for me. I am sure, in quantum field, those aliens could be simply a possibility, it could be left completely open whether they are there in the end; but this is very practical for me, that imagery of advanced civilizations and possibilities to evolve have appeared, in this sense of creativity - I don't care much, about how the psychology of channelers works, but good work about possible advancements of civilization, and arguments that many people naturally are able to do such advancementss, these are really practical. Someone says God favors them - I read, they are highly synchronous people, that's the argument, and the arguments about existence of God are a philosophy. Someone says in past life they lived in society, where greed does not exist - I do not care about their past life, this is a complex philosophy and never completely true, but I do care if I see they do not have greed, and I have my practical consequence of this. Because of being multiparadigmatic; I do not think that by creating a highly material model of the world I could have a different argument, which even sees reincarnation as something else, like similar person being born by some DNA and other consequences, having some genetic memory of past events or cultural, subconscious understanding. This model could possibly completely connect all the ends, including memories from past life; I think this kind of materialist model is very complex and hard to argue with a person of low IQ. God could be explained by genetic tendency to bring highly synchronous events, and this could explain almost every application of religious theory - except the case that it's a separate paradigm, explaining the facts with simpler model and thus being very scientific; as simpler the model, as more scientific.

But considering all this - how different paradigms are equally valid, still contradictionary -, we reach extremely complex scientific picture, because with average IQ, you cannot reach a single case of two, equally valid and still contradictionary, facts. You cannot find a single case, where two models equally hold, still implying direct contradictions. But, with low IQ, you can reach ethics. So the theory of multiparadigm, it's not really a theory for a simple man, and thus it has very abstract, hard to reach consequences, it's kind of aristocrat theory, not a democratic small talk for people; it would not become mainstream or make huge amount of money What, then, applies, is that theory of ethics, ethical views between those several models, views that people could believe many things, but when they do not fail socially and materially so much, if this is not the necessary implication of their views, then they have ethical rights as all the other people, and right to think in their own ways. Ethically, in todays world, we do not punish people for mere thoughts, and this follows also from theory of multiparadigm, where this carries no scientific value at all if we find a contradiction - we would have to go impossibly deep with it.

So, ethics over science in this case. We would know that we are speaking of scientific theory of multiparadigmatic views and really, truly mad people, who cannot have objective image about whether other people are attacking them or some model, which turns them to violence, those people should be restricted, analyzed, and guided to less violent lives. You cannot listen to some religious or scientific leader without giving it a thought, and you cannot follow much more advanced model than the one, which allows you to draw fast and simple conclusions; we need to support the personal thought. God can be completely right, but if His model is much more complex than yours, you do not have anything to do with this, and you would appear mad if you follow the model merely as you understood it. So even about words of God, whether God exists or not, you have to philosophize and not follow them until you understand the point.

So what is concluded from the multiparadigm views is theory of ethics, which is quite simple, not a theory of science, which is very complex. For people with different gods, different views, different cultures, we only need to show some respect and understanding that in their cultures they can live and survive; we need to point out where they are apparently weaker and less developed than us, but also respect that maybe it's normal and they have other values there. For example, maybe you don't make very big muscle, but you use this time to read books. Maybe you don't make a lots of money, but you have so many friends that they help out in case of financial troubles. Maybe you did not read many books, but you are so social that intelligent people would bring you the most important points. In all those cases, someone sees you very negatively, but others can perfectly live with you; for example, you are too weak to beat your enemies, but you can call the police and use your contacts with grandmother of mafia boss, who simply shares recipes of food with your grandmother. Then, mafia is doing their things somewhat outside your social circle, where equally bad people really have to use their muscles and guns. Or you cannot fight with a gangster, but you studies their honor and do not hurt them where some people would. Your life model can be based on different values, and then you do not even understand a person who says that you lack their specific quality. In all these matters, you can have a "scientific argument" about psychology, physics, chemistry etc. Somebody can debunk your social theory, and you really run into contradiction with their ways to protect themselves - but you cannot say that your risks are then considerably bigger than theirs. In all this, theories run into contradiction, not only hypothesis or hypothesis with theories - those contradictions are interesting thing to study, but they do not prove that one side must win and other must lose. Good scientific argument between scientific and spiritual person brings us closer to truth, but this truth is not so much about who wins and who loses, it's about how these areas of life would benefit from each other's powers. When they are arguments of violent kind, where one person, debunked, would run out of all social honor and be taken as insane or a a liar, not considering that any spiritual process would almost certainly have some physical process happening synchronously, and the physical measurements would indeed still result in more or less the same laws, but this does not disprove that they achieved their effects with their own theories, which can be much simpler and thus more scientific to achieve such practical outcomes. Law of Karma almost certainly has it's measurable connections in physics and social sciences, and all it's separate effects can be somehow described by these - I almost know all those "explanations" -, but it does not disprove that it's a very simple law related to all those, and it's logic holds on it's own, not needing all those sciences and complex explanations to be true. Models, which do involve law or karma, with ones which do not, those models can contradict.

So, by multiparadigmatic view, between different sciences you need more ethics than science, and this ethics is something you can explain to girls. Sometimes, this ethics turns out the magic ingredient bringing out the truth that somehow, these different models indeed fit, and won from power of each others; but this is something not to be expected, because it's a very complex process. Ethics is not very complex process and thus, where we see violence in scientific argument, we should directly respond to violence. For example, when a physical doctor is telling you that by your theoretical argument, people would listen to Pope, who tells them to do inquisition, this doctor is basically accusing you in death crime, but it might be the case that in your model, any death crime does not follow. When you accuse someone that in how they cook potatoes, the deadly poison would appear, you would be taken very seriously as peace-breaker; when you accuse a religious argument, for example to listen to God, with dangers like this - you are accusing in crime, and finally, you cooperate with police and doctors with physical violence against this argument, reaching the inquisition yourself. When you present this argument against God, you must also present the arguments that some people listen God, but they are still philosophical and want to see the evidence for the claims. Or, they have such God, which does not tell them to kill people at all - somewhat, your image of God is created by yourself, you can see that God of Muslims gives them different arguments than God of Jews gives to Jews; in some sense, it's the same God, but in some sense, those are two different Gods - so, some person might have a very non-violent God, whereas other person has a violent God. Some person might have a God, which they can trust entirely, while some person must be cautious about their God. In our genes, after all our evolution, we see some archetype or certain truths as signs of God, and some aspects of the World or the Universe, or the Universal law, as God speaking to us. Maybe, your image of God is such that you see all the natural disasters, political struggles and life hardships, and you finally depict a higher entity behind those, but your unconscious notices of all those evidences are so strong that you basically state a physical paradigm, a solid truth in terms and language of God speaking to you. Another person sees the same signs, but the impression is so vague that when they get a vision of God, their God is as stupid as their process of reasoning about those events, and they are dishonest or aggressive against some people, who are not doing a big crime. Philosophically, the actual reasons behind what you see and sense, they are too complex for you, getting deeper and deeper, but they leave so much open that you can have different models, which fit to your personality. With those different models, you can be either quite realistic about the world, or you can be paranoid and accusing people, who are just living their lives somehow. An atheist might be very paranoid and accuse all the conspiracy theorists, believers in God, believers of Karma or any other kind of "reward and punishment", or certain cultures, like Muslims, in overall, and thus they would respond, finally, quite violently - which shows that they are in effect, as mad and paranoid as they see others being. I know many muslims, who do not give a d*mn about me being a white person, and I think I know enough of their culture and I have taken their books somewhat seriously, that maybe I subconsciously avoid some death crimes; an atheist would have hardships to explain their ethics, of torturing animals, wasting the land resources, creating slave labors, accusing people in their beliefs etc. etc. etc., that they feel that they are more accused based on their genetic makeup or beliefs; my scientific theories are also quite safe to tell to muslims, or to spiritual people, and my political theories do not insult conspiracy theorists. I somehow manage in most of this. I can be angry in those spheres and accuse them in things, but this is somehow resolved as a normal conflict. Lately, I cannot speak with atheists any more, for example I cannot say we have had spiritual wars, because the materialistic view of those symbols is not so safe - when spiritual war ends with law and bless, in my transcended ways of battle, then the scientific war ends with such aggression and violence that an atheist would think I am dangerous, when I'm being very honest with them. They translate my symbols to material equivalences and those are telling them something bad happens in my subconscious mind. So I'm kind of having a battle with them - I try hard to listen and to follow their reasons, but I do not believe in the world, where war does not exist; I believe in the world, where the transcended war does not leave dead and injuried people behind. In this, I start to see that scientific argument is becoming really violent - when they accuse all the different people in death crimes and sins, then despite that they say that reward and punishment are not natural and do not follow from scientific laws, they still do something instinctive like punishing for these death crimes, and they look dangerous with their hints to doctors and police. I can understand this has been happened to many ..what I can say, we have to be like with any other enemy, listening to their argument, understanding where we are breaking a material evidence and where our mind powers have been catched doing material attacks, and where they have been neutralized with observing the scientific evidence and doing all the responses, and where they have been connected with our personality - there, the materialist accusing spiritual people in not considering some of their endangered values, it might be correct. They might want to live exactly that way and then, your spiritual battles are dangerous, and battled in degree of how much material evidence they provide - this means, more or less in their completeness. I think this kind of evidences, these days they make scientific people alert of spiritual people. In this, a normal war thinking must be achieved, studying where they have been hurt by any kind of fact, abandoning them where they thought they are doing good, ignorance or thinking that you are higher; they also want to have some say in our things, otherwise they feel they are kind of "dead", or outcast. This is the war I see between paradigms, rather unconscious implication of some spiritual thinking, which vaguely fits their paradigms of why they have some spiritual world-views, like blind listening to God or Pope. Somehow, we must balance our views so that they lose only what they lose anyway, so that they won't feel the vibrations of better futures, and that even from the success of their enemy, they win something from the raise of quality of living; this is the forgiveness, and you cannot enjoy a complete victory before it has raised to the level of forgiveness - this is the spiritual truth about the spiritual war, you can have battles inside you, but you must have peace outside. They do not deserve any karmic punishment, which does not come anyway, and they won't see the one, which comes. Here, you must transmute the dark and light into something, which gives everybody some degree of raise in life quality where you win the battle, and you must not get the hate from the battles. This transmutation done, what is left, is the innocent spiritual dialogue, and you must make sure that it does not give rise to material nonsense - but ones of us, who have more limited views of the world, they can be incapable to sound very true to atheists, like an atheist homekeeper woman still talks about guardian angels and horoscopes, despite simply working in kitchen with materials - non-philosophical spiritual talk must also be protected as those are the weaker thinkers of us, who do not consider every philosophical argument. Where you have considered every philosophical argument, you have strong karma to protect from something, but now the scientist is easily debunked by being a low-IQ person of their society, and not understanding your high philosophy; for spiritual people, they look like debunked by attacking some of the most obvious truth, but usually not very dangerous. But now, some people are left, who are fighting atheists and very dangerous. For this, I have seen that we need ethical arguments, synchronous to Science or all sciences, but hard to follow where it leads to scientific argument; with women, we need to speak more of this ethical argument, than about scientific truth. This ethical argument has an evidence of it's own, and it resonates with what we know of the world - joining, ethically, more cultures and world-views or political paradigms, it's doing the same thing what the Christ was doing to the pagans, it's definitely seeking a happy end for this world-wide crisis, a fairy tale, where police does not yet exist, but this family of cultures and paradigms is living in their little pagan village, where everybody does not even know the law, and this fairy tale takes quite long in the struggle before it reaches it's happy end. The solution is seeing ethics in this and how all the sides are somehow true, but win from cooperation, and all the ethical rules apply, and you cannot change people so much or help them by what you learnt, would help another. It's a long way to civilization in this - in the world, many bad things happen, where cultures cross in the ways that the police would do nothing, or is very slow like american two billions spent on terrorism - you cannot know, whether it had any big effect, but it's so big amount of money that they have started to doubt in similar underdoings, and think that if they do the same with war in Ukraine they would start losing money. So in this village, we live in deep pagan period and we do not talk about ethics. Multiparadigm view, it would create patterns of ethics out from patterns of scientific theory, where two models are equally fit, but different and contradictionary, like two persons might be equally fit, but different in personality and not like each others.

[zurew]

@tvaeli 

So the TL;DR is that ethics  should be the relevant  symettry breaker (the thing that differentiates two or more things - in this case 2 scientific paradigms from each other) ? - So in other words, if you have 2 scientific paradigms that are equally fit in terms of theoretical virtues (  testability, empirical accuracy, simplicity, etc), then we should choose the one that is more ethical?

[Ajay0]

I remember Bertrand Russell saying that we need a science to save us from the dangers of science, as in wmd.  Hopefully people will give more weight and attention to this wise statement of his. 

[tvaeli]

18 hours ago, zurew said:

@tvaeli 

So the TL;DR is that ethics  should be the relevant  symettry breaker (the thing that differentiates two or more things - in this case 2 scientific paradigms from each other) ? - So in other words, if you have 2 scientific paradigms that are equally fit in terms of theoretical virtues (  testability, empirical accuracy, simplicity, etc), then we should choose the one that is more ethical?

No, I don't mean this.

I mean two scientific or non-scientific paradigms, which let people to live; the other paradigm can be spiritual, not scientific, and the person must just somehow manage to live.

Ethics is that you do not bring your argument in a way, which would destroy the well-being of this person; you do not get any evidence - they get evidence themselves, by their deep understanding and proper senses for their own theory. You just let it live.

"Debunking", for example, is thought of as if it was a scientific debate, absolutely high ethics in terms of people not attacking each others with violence, listening carefully and bringing precise arguments. So nobody is harmed and the world becomes more enlightened after every debate. But in reality, when people have their personal ideas and they are debunked, they social circles and financial well-being is harmed, and this brings them closer to death, they are less alive in the result, it's not a full life any more, but partially a death. People can think really bad of them. Just because there is a contradiction.

Ethics is that you let those different theories, which contradict, to live in the common world without harming them. As long as a spiritual person with their weird terms and understandings manages to be human, they just are - they are just humans with limited understanding. You can help them clarify their lives, but you cannot destroy them in terms of doing ethical science.

A girl talking with ghosts somehow, they do not have to have any evidence - the case that they do some work, do not attack others and speak more or less nicely makes them nice persons and you really do not know what comes out from their talking with ghosts.

[tvaeli]

For example, you might not believe in theory of synchronicity and you might "debunk" it, but the fact that people, who believe in it, still behave human, is enough scientific evidence to claim that you should let them survive and do their things.

[tvaeli]

The case is not messing with the words "me" and "you" - the case it's my theory does not make it to be your theory, if it's valid as my theory, it could be incorrect as yours, and when I say I believe and have faith in this theory, it does not result that I say that you should believe and have faith. It's simply a model, which fits my mind, senses, IQ, experience etc., and it does not make you responsible of anything if I manage to prove it to people like me, who have achieved similar states. Somebody would live just perfect with materialist theory, somebody might believe in God, and somebody live spiritually, but they do this on their own - if it's true that I should notice the synchronicity, and in my language it can also be that synchronicity is simply true and scientific, any listener of me can repeat my experiments, then for others, it does not relate in such way that they instantly have something to do with this "neutral science", in case they prove they cannot repeat this experience, the facts do not fit them and it's their personal case that the unified theory and facts are different. One should just live and let live.

[tvaeli]

And, also, maybe the science in my case would not be a verification of facts. For example, somebody might just live by feeling ..they do some verification, for example they feel disappointed when they are wrong, but their axiomatic system might not give this any special meaning - they follow the feelings and make them more pure. They reach a different type of talk and speak with their friends, who also follow the feelings, and they make up ways to communicate with different types of people, who respect them, and manage in the world. Then, the "scientific theory" is not scientific at all, but humans can live that way, and find out very pure and advanced feelings.

[zurew]

16 minutes ago, tvaeli said:

Ethics is that you let those different theories, which contradict, to live in the common world without harming them.

That depends on how much harm a particular wrong theory can produce. If you are not advocating for your theory, you just live your life by it and you don't do any direct harm to anyone then Im generally okay with it (but thats rarely if ever the case).

I agree in general, that trying relentlessly to persuade or to attack a person's idea (just because we disagree) is not really a mature way to go about things (especially if the disagreement is about some random thing that don't really have any weight to it), however I think there are contexts where it is appropriate to do so.

I would even go to say that in some cases you letting certain ideas to just float around without any pushback - is the unethical thing to do, because you let other people to get potientially mislead by wrong or not well evidenced ideas and that can directly lead to physical and material harm and that will be kind of on your hands as well, because you didn't do anything about it.

[tvaeli]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

That depends on how much harm a particular wrong theory can produce. If you are not advocating for your theory, you just live your life by it and you don't do any direct harm to anyone then Im generally okay with it (but thats rarely if ever the case).

I agree in general, that trying relentlessly to persuade or to attack a person's idea (just because we disagree) is not really a mature way to go about things (especially if the disagreement is about some random thing that don't really have any weight to it), however I think there are contexts where it is appropriate to do so.

I would even go to say that in some cases you letting certain ideas to just float around without any pushback - is the unethical thing to do, because you let other people to get potientially mislead by wrong or not well evidenced ideas and that can directly lead to physical and material harm and that will be kind of on your hands as well, because you didn't do anything about it.

When I was young, I got very exited about new ideas in different areas of life and I expected fast success. In time, I learnt that the progress is slower, the people's abilities to really make them work is not so big and there are confusions and misunderstandings.

I see in history and the world that people, when they meet spiritual perspectives and financial possibilities or potential changes in government, they think that small theory with some practice would immediately lead them to paradise or unbelievable success. This positive thinking is a major problem happening with people, where in reality, millions of problems come.

This is a common bias in human thinking that people are looking for some sensation, something exceptional. People, who start some spiritual practices, they are talking that they are doing something very high, but in reality, the effect of such practices is moderate. I think this mass sensationalism, which makes them move money and power in insane ways when they hear about different theories, is a thing to be cured - who is responsible, is not always a beginner with their undeveloped theory, but also the people around, who expect something for them.

I explained someone some psychic abilities I have developed and she asked me to prove it in ways, which would break my karma. I practice Buddhism and my abilities are entirely based on laws of karma - I can have good energy for processes, and it's much deeper than what I could achieve by plain material techniques easily, but it's insanity to ask me to break the laws of karma and I cannot prove anything such way. I can only flow with the nature, aligned with the force, because it's an intelligent law I'm using. I understand that she is looking for some different powers, helping to manipulate people, rob the money, control her life and get good results from evil deeds - for some reason, I really cannot help her. I can understand people are constantly running around all the theories with their bad karma and trying to make it active, but even with the business or governing, people would rather see the bad karma and not want to give them anything, or they would be so stupid that they would mess up your thing. When I use my abilities to create some good energy, then intelligent people would catch it up and generate different kinds of similar good energy, and it would do the magic - hard to say, whether it's psychological or magical, but it definitely works that way, good ideas, energies and materials spread and generate more of these results; this law of energy inevitably happens in social communication, be it conscious, unconscious or telepathic and mystical, and the karmic laws of ethics together with logic always appears. However good your psychic ability, but when you apply it with bad intentions, the spirits, God, people, magic or material entities - it's hard to even count, which things, or to measure, how you actually communicate with them, because we constantly send and receive subconscious signals of all kinds and brain definitely creates some holistic model out of it -, all these entities turn against your bad intentions and you fail, or if you do not, the energy circle would not get it's ends connected and it fails anyway, with more disappointment and mistrust generated. When people see others using energies, ideas, communication or even money and power - they come with their bad intentions, expect fast success, and use all means for "motivation", reward and punishment. They want to see their own money. It's hard to say but all those things work better with higher missions and complete models, with social and ethical aspects. Brain itself fails, as it's connected with reality, and gets into dark modes if it cannot get the good karma, energy, together around this idea.

This positive thinking is a madness of people, which should be worked with, so that people with different ideas can experiment and live also their high hopes of the youth, until they see that in all areas of life, the real success is slow and moderate, and that they need to moderate themselves in speech and actions to any effect at all; and in all realms, which have power, the laws of karma also apply. Also there are usually scientific theories, which would explain their activities through different terms, and for example common theories of magic can easily be explained with personal and social psychology - the magic nature of force has much potential, but it does not get very far from what you would expect from those theories; when it gets, the intent has to be very pure, and probably more advanced versions of those theories would explain all this when it gets more common. To repeat an experiment, you do not need one person with ability, but many persons for many generations, who would be able to show something in labor settings - rather you would measure the outcomes of life and show, whether those theories are able to be healthy and support good lives.

So the masses, who run into insanity, are also responsible if people cannot practice their ideas.

Otherwise, very often a scientific language of a witch, magician, spiritual person etc., they are very poor; and especially with witchcraft and magic the ethics should be questioned - there is black and white -; in spiritual theories the ethics is good, but it applies in life and less in laboratory settings or about concrete facts, the laws hold more about the wholes, not their parts and connections. The language of people of all those fields is very vague and often filled with hardships of logic and scientific facts - still, if a person develops a theory of feelings, or rather practices advanced feelings, they get a kind of "social theory", which is not scientific, but is a science; and when you read such different people - I am usually skeptical about many concrete facts, but I get some important points from their general thinking, and I am often later able to prove them in my own life. But I do not see any laboratory setting, I cannot really prove that more people are smiling to me today than yesterday, and in laboratory they would probably smile just as much as they want

But as people with weak scientific background, from experience, they get just enough theories and principles to survive and get better - I do not trust that you "debunk" a person, when you disprove a specific claim; rather they are not very scientific, but they can have very good science about something. I am very skeptical myself, but also very open-minded - a wrong idea would not kill me, I do many different things with it until I understand, what I can do with it and how to live with people with such ideas.

The society, instead of fearing new or undeveloped ideas, needs to develop more complex social practices to accept the diverse world. When we completely kill an idea, it will attack from outside - suddenly, even if we did not get rich before, we have ran out of this idea and that really kills.

[tvaeli]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

That depends on how much harm a particular wrong theory can produce. If you are not advocating for your theory, you just live your life by it and you don't do any direct harm to anyone then Im generally okay with it (but thats rarely if ever the case).

I agree in general, that trying relentlessly to persuade or to attack a person's idea (just because we disagree) is not really a mature way to go about things (especially if the disagreement is about some random thing that don't really have any weight to it), however I think there are contexts where it is appropriate to do so.

I would even go to say that in some cases you letting certain ideas to just float around without any pushback - is the unethical thing to do, because you let other people to get potientially mislead by wrong or not well evidenced ideas and that can directly lead to physical and material harm and that will be kind of on your hands as well, because you didn't do anything about it.

To put it into other words, the laws of Cause and Effect of Buddhism, my favourite "theory", are the Karmic Laws. The karmic law, simply put, is that when you get all the ends of the positive energies connected, you reach a cycle of positive energy and this cycle breaks harder than the one, which connects negative energy.

With science it has none to do, when the science talks about "neutral" energies. Buddhist powers have nothing "neutral" - an energy either supports or does not support life force, or other principial truth, and like a business project, it must create a whole circle or ecosystem of this positive energy, which then is principially it's Law of Nature. Most spiritual theories work like this.

Material evidence is completely irrelevant. We have a lots of chemistry, like smells and other chemicals, we have subtle signs of body and the language of eyes, and many other things connecting us with the world - they all work together, and when you get them balanced and strong, you have telepathy. Whether there is an anomaly of laws of physics is irrelevant, as irrelevant it is to break the laws of physics with radio, TV or satellite connection - probably the atoms or brains somehow react and when the effect becomes more common, it would be measured and the scientific model would not change much.

People, who positively think, that a new idea or spiritual theory would create anomalies in laws of physics, laws of finances or politics, and create them insanely positive outcomes; or that they would make people unconditionally move against their own good and bring money to their pocket - those people are insane. Their expectations, rewards and punishments are very bad and break the whole karmic ecosystem, often leading to debunking. When the karmic cycles are broken, for example the financial system is not effective any more - spiritual person might have made change for the worse, but all those causes and effects are seen by financial people, other people are corrected and the witch would run out of energy, their karmic cycle turn negative and the type of energy they use would not work any more. When such "witches" become very effective, positively affirming too much money and looking for all causal cycles, which can produce that, then the things get hard.

People let themselves rather be "manipulated" towards their own well-being, noticing changes for better and supporting them with their own will. Here, the "magic" works quite well.

And you really should not talk too much about physical anomalies or break-up of the material world; material laws have their own reasons and turn out to be there in one or another way. It's a bad thinking to connect spiritual laws with material anomalies and that is a serious bias; rather the spiritual laws work well with many material constitutions. Such, the "telepathy" should not be measured by degree of material anomaly, because the material theory is irrelevant for the theory of communication - it just needs to work somehow. Rather, we need to find good energies arising, whatever their constitution. Spiritual person is not someone to break some laws completely, they are there to create better karma.

Edited April 30 by tvaeli

[Basman]

On 28/04/2024 at 2:50 AM, Danioover9000 said:

 

The guys hypothesis makes no sense. Why would a group that depend on each other for survival start killing each other?