CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › urbanwalker72 › Posts

Posts by urbanwalker72

171 posts shown.

UFC Kickboxing Championship in Indianapolis??? in Martial Arts & Combat Sports ·
Thomas Wright said:They aren't even high-level fighters. The most famous one was Lascenko, who lost, so I feel like the money was wasted.

That's fair, but considering how much you paid, $20 you’re expecting UFC or Glory level talent for that price, 😁

It is slightly unrealistic to expect that. In the States, the most expensive fighters appearing at local American events usually cost about $10,000 to $20,000 just to show up—and that doesn't even include the overhead for venue rental, logistics, travel, or hotels. And those are fighters on the level of Monson or Ricco Rodriguez. If you look at an event like Gladiator Night in Key West, the ticket price sits around $100 $40 and you get a packed house, but that's only about 2,500 people. Try filling a stadium of 10,000. Even Glory had an event in Milan recently with 15,000 attendees and they are practically dancing in the streets from success.

To be honest, looking at these two events, I suspect Zovko is operating at quite a significant loss.

Even if he had brought in someone like Arlovski, as Stojnić requested along with a few other attractive names, the costs would have been astronomical. To bring in someone like a declining Sapp, you'd likely be looking at a $20,000 fee. He should have set the base ticket prices $133 lower for the nosebleed seats; otherwise, he ends up with an empty arena, much like what happened in San Diego where tickets were priced at $80 $133

It is far easier to sit in the stands as a spectator than it is to shoulder the burden of being the organizer. 🤣

Given the circumstances, I actually think this organization is doing a commendable job considering the opportunities available to them.
UFC Kickboxing Championship in Indianapolis??? in Martial Arts & Combat Sports ·
Drew Lewis11 said:http://osijek-cro.com/video-sport/hr...tvo-kickboxing

Hey everyone, has there been any official word on whether they are holding a fight in Indianapolis?
If so, does anyone know the date, the venue, or where tickets might be available? I haven't seen anything posted on the official website yet. 🙂

Haha, calling it a "UFC-style kickboxing championship." That is quite an announcement. In reality, it is just the UFC organization running fights under standard kickboxing and MMA rules.

And yes, it looks like it will happen... toward the end of May in Indianapolis for UFC 5.

The reason we haven't seen concrete details yet is likely because even Zovko hasn't finalized the entire fight card. He has been pushing the schedule pretty hard lately... moving from San Diego to Tampa, then to Indianapolis, then to Palm Springs... almost every three weeks.

Thomas Wright said:Don't bother going; the UFC was a total disaster back when they were in Tampa. They’ll stop a match to declare a winner, then suddenly change their minds and tell them to keep fighting while the fighters are just sitting there stuck in full mount.

That isn't necessarily true. 😁 Considering the budget they operate with and the market reach they have achieved, I believe the organization is actually quite decent.
Induced spiritual experiences in Spirituality ·
Angela Cox4 said:Look, urbanwalker72—if a person actually puts in the work and trains their mind, they could basically tap into abilities straight out of some wild sci-fi blockbuster. And I’m not just talking out of my ass here; I’ve definitely dabbled in that headspace myself enough times to know what I'm talking about. Honestly, if I’m being totally real, I get sucked into this stuff because of those "paranormal" vibes, but it’s more than that—it’s about digging into the raw, unexplored depths of what humans are actually capable of. It's all about unlocking that hidden potential we're all sitting on.

Look, here’s the thing—it’s actually possible to read someone else's mind without them ever opening their mouth. I'm talking about picking up on those silent cues, those tiny shifts in energy that tell you exactly what's going on in their head. And honestly? It goes even deeper than that. You can actually nudge someone's thoughts so effectively that they end up believing the idea was entirely their own. Like, they think they just had this sudden epiphany, when really, you were the one pulling the strings the whole time. Of course, you don't see this happening every day—you need a massive amount of raw talent and some serious, disciplined training to pull that off. That's why it stays such a rare, almost invisible skill.

Your perspective offers nothing unexpected to me. In a purely theoretical sense, anything remains possible, as nothing can be dismissed with absolute certainty.

However, a concept only establishes itself as truth when it is demonstrated in a manner that allows even the most hardened skeptics to verify it for themselves.

In my view, that is the only fair approach. It is hardly reasonable to expect a stranger to simply take one's word for it.
Induced spiritual experiences in Spirituality ·
Elizabeth Castillo87 said:Fear is a hell of a thing, isn't it? It either forces you to scream your lungs out or just completely freezes you up right when you need to move, leaving your kid even more vulnerable than before. But honestly, between the raw instinct and that deep, unspoken love most people don't even want to talk about? Your reaction is basically set in stone. It’s like some kind of mathematical certainty. You can't fight it.
Here we go again—back in that weird, hazy territory where people claim they’ve had these massive spiritual breakthroughs. It’s one of those things you hear about constantly from moms who have been pushed right to the edge. You know the vibe: when your kid is in actual, life-or-death danger, something just... snaps. It’s like you suddenly step outside your own skin and start operating your body like some kind of high-precision machine. It doesn't even feel like *you* anymore; it feels like you're just a pilot in a suit. There are tons of stories out there documenting this exact phenomenon. The most legendary one? The story about a mother who somehow managed to lift an entire semi-truck just to get her trapped child out from underneath. I mean, come on. It completely flies in the face of every single law of physics we were taught in school, right? But when the adrenaline hits and the stakes are that high, who knows what's actually happening?
Even if you refuse to admit that stuff like this counts as a spiritual experience.

Quincy:
And besides that, why on earth should we feel obligated to run headfirst into every single terrifying experience just to try and conquer it? Like, seriously, what's the point? Maybe—and I might have touched on this briefly in my last post—but let's be real: for some of those "mystical" encounters, that fear isn't just some mental hurdle to jump over. It’s actually a legitimate survival instinct. Sometimes, fear is just your body telling you that something is genuinely wrong, and ignoring that isn't "spiritual growth," it's just plain reckless. Why push through it if the alarm bells are ringing for a reason?
Look, if an experience does nothing but trigger pure, unadulterated fear, why on earth would you go looking for it? Seriously, what’s the payoff? If it doesn't offer anything constructive, it's just dead weight. You gotta steer clear of that stuff—it's not going to do you any favors. Why invite the anxiety if there's zero upside?

Quincy:
So, I know this woman who went through this one massive, isolated psychotic break—and man, it was intense. She completely lost her grip on reality. We’re talking full-on nonsense, screaming at nothing, totally neglecting herself... she just stopped washing up entirely. It got pretty dark, too; she started picking fights with everyone close to her, just lashing out at her own people. And the kicker? In the middle of all that chaos, she genuinely believed she had a run-in with Jesus and walked away convinced she was actually His wife. Can you even imagine that kind of headspace?
Man, you really do know everybody, don't you? Your contact list must be absolutely massive.😍

So, let me get this straight—are you actually giving any credit to logic when it comes to idealistic philosophy, or is your brain strictly wired for nothing but materialism? Like, seriously, does anyone even bother with the "ideas first" crowd anymore, or have we all just collectively decided that if we can't touch it, weigh it, or shove it in a box, it basically doesn't exist? I mean, come on. Is there really any room for actual reasoning in those lofty, abstract theories, or is it all just smoke and mirrors to avoid facing the gritty, messy reality of the physical world? What do you think?
So, here’s a thought that’s been rattling around my brain all morning: just because the math behind multi-dimensional spaces works out perfectly on paper, does that actually mean those dimensions *exist*? Like, seriously. Is a flawless calculation some kind of cosmic receipt proving reality, or are we just playing a really high-stakes game of pretend? It makes you wonder... is mathematics even a science? Or is it just this incredibly elaborate, self-consistent language we built to keep ourselves from staring too long into the void? If the equations balance but there's nothing there to touch, what are we actually doing? Is it discovery, or just really intense pattern matching?

The question feels somewhat too broad; I would need to examine specific instances of evidence and see how they align with their own logical premises before determining if I am even capable of providing an answer.

Calculations regarding multi-dimensional spaces are perfectly accurate within mathematics. Does that serve as proof of their existence? Or is mathematics not truly a science?

Mathematics exists as its own distinct realm, and a mathematical proof represents perhaps the highest level of evidentiary integrity the human mind has ever produced. It does not merely interface with physical reality, but weaves through the human psyche, philosophy, art, spirituality, and everything we perceive as being real.

Indeed, multi-dimensional spaces in a mathematical sense do exist; that has been established. However, I believe you are conflating this with physical multi-dimensional spaces, which remain unproven.

When a theorem is proven in mathematics, it does not inherently mandate its existence within our observable reality, even though such a correlation occurs frequently. When something is found to exist within the mathematical landscape, there is often a suggestion that we might encounter something similar in the physical world. This is quite natural, given that mathematics possesses a much richer tapestry of structures and quantities than our observable universe.

The profound and inexplicable bridge between mathematics and our physical reality remains one of the most significant mysteries the human intellect has ever grappled with. There are numerous hypotheses regarding this connection, such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathema...rse_hypothesis

This is a deeply complex subject that requires a certain degree of mathematical literacy—true understanding, really—and it winds extensively through the philosophy of mathematics.

If we wish to pursue this, we ought to move the discussion to the Philosophy or Pure Science boards, as we are drifting quite far off-topic here.
Induced spiritual experiences in Spirituality ·
Sandra Morgan2 said:My point was that reading it makes you realize anything goes in science—it's just like any other human endeavor. Bad Science is what happens when scientists are driven by ego, a thirst for promotion, greed, or outright fraud. It's when they falsify data, take bribes, or massage their findings to please whoever is cutting the checks...

😕 Art isn't concerned with making claims.

Well, is it? Take a poet like Mevlan Dželaludin Rumi, the 13th-century mystic. Doesn't he claim we have a spiritual body in addition to our physical one? He also asserts that it outlasts death. As a poet, he doesn't need to present empirical evidence to anyone to prove he's right.

......

Treat your body as the soul you carry.

When you are with the one you love, do you fall in love with their clothes?

Seek instead the one who is truly dressed.

Unity with God is sweeter than any physical pleasure.

We possess hands and feet unlike these.

Sometimes we see them in our dreams.

That isn't an illusion. That is true vision.

You have a spiritual body;

do not fear leaving the physical behind.

Sometimes someone feels this truth so intensely

that they can live comfortably as a hermit in the mountains.

🤔 Could you perhaps provide a bit more specificity regarding your analysis? I am struggling to grasp exactly which passage you are referencing within that book, and I find myself wondering which chapter you have actually reached in your reading.

The vast majority of this work serves as a scathing critique of how the government, the media, and the general public fundamentally misunderstand the scientific method. The remaining portion focuses on the more technical nuances—specifically the accidental or deliberate misuse of statistics, biased sampling methods, and the flawed interpretation of double-blind clinical trials within the realms of pharmacology and medicine.

Could you provide a specific quote? I am finding it somewhat difficult to grasp the exact essence of what you are trying to convey.

Quincy:
Consider the profound insights of Mevlan Dželaludin Rumi, the thirteenth-century mystic and poet. He posits that we possess a spiritual essence that exists alongside our physical form—a soul that transcends the finality of death. As an artist of the spirit, he feels no obligation to present empirical evidence to those who seek only material proof of such a sublime truth.
In the thirteenth century, nobody was concerned with proving anything through empirical data, least of all poets. Generally speaking, once an individual identifies as an artist, they lack the inherent ambition to objectively investigate phenomena, as art is, by its very nature, a deeply subjective pursuit.

Art serves as the profound mirror held up to the soul of a nation, capturing the ephemeral essence of the human experience through various creative mediums. Just as a master architect might design a skyscraper to define a skyline like New York City, artists utilize color, sound, and form to construct the cultural landscape of America. Whether expressed through the sweeping strokes of a canvas or the rhythmic cadence of a poem, art remains an essential pillar of our shared identity, translating raw emotion into a universal language that transcends time and space.

Art serves as a deeply personal human endeavor, one whose inherent significance remains difficult to fully grasp. Much like the complex interplay of light and shadow in a classic American landscape painting, the true essence of art lies in its ability to mirror the intricate depths of the individual soul. It functions as an essential element within the intricate web of communication that connects the artist, the creative work itself, and the audience..
Throughout the various epochs of human history, the significance assigned to art has shifted dramatically; however, since the dawn of the modern era, we have increasingly tended to attribute the following characteristics to the concept of art: Just as every distinct discipline maintains its own sophisticated and independent vernacular, so too does every individual art form possess its own highly developed and autonomous language. Art exists as an entity that maintains its own independent and liberated standing within our society; it carries no socially mandated purpose or predefined obligation to serve a specific function.The true essence of art lies in its ability to fulfill the inherent nature defined by the modernist movement. It is the fundamental principles of liberty, imagination, individuality, discovery, experimentation, rebellion, beauty, truth, and justice that truly define our existence.

As you can observe, the very foundations of art lack both the ambition and the inherent purpose required to uncover or demonstrate any semblance of truth.
Induced spiritual experiences in Spirituality ·
Sandra Morgan2 said:So, we have science and art... In science, they say you can't make a claim without verification... although... just a quick aside... I'm reading bad science right now and seeing that anything goes sometimes.

In the realm of human activity called art, you can speak your heart's desire without any evidence, statistics, math, or lab tests. No one is going to stop and check if you're telling the truth or just dreaming in your book or poem...

A writer's or poet's work becomes great when it vibrates, finds its reflection, and echoes within many people who read it with enthusiasm and delight. That echo means that what the artist thinks, feels, explains, interprets, or creates through imagery, we recognize as a part of ourselves. His world happens inside us and around us; he just knows how to phrase it beautifully with juicy sentences, shaping content that is fundamentally a part of our own experience.

They supposedly say that among the "elite" of those with such conditions, there is only one Moses and only one Muhammad. Dostoevsky. van Gogh. Newton. And so on... Plenty of great artists, mystics, scientists. That's why they call it the "illness of the gifted."

Where exactly in bad science did you read that unverifiable claims can be made within the realm of science?

The entire book focuses on either pseudoscience or fundamental flaws in scientific methodology. Having read it twice myself, I haven't found a single instance where Goldacre identifies an unverifiable claim within established science. He certainly finds plenty of them within pseudoscience, however.

In my view, this stands as one of the essential texts for developing critical thinking skills.

In the sphere of human endeavor known as art, you can speak from the soul as much as you desire without any need for evidence, statistics, mathematics, verification, or laboratory testing; no one would think to check whether you are writing truth or mere fantasy in your book or poem...

😕 Art does not deal in claims. When a poet writes a verse or a painter produces a canvas, they are not presenting assertions regarding the truth of a thesis, but rather narratives—personal impressions. No one asks the Brothers Grimm to prove their fairy tales are real, because the author makes no such assertion. In art, stories are fictional by definition; they do not test a thesis for truth or falsehood.

A claim occurs when I ask you to lend me money based solely on a promise to repay it, without providing proof or collateral. A claim is made when I assert that the Virgin Mary appeared to me and demand your belief without evidence. A claim is made when I say aliens abducted me without proof. A claim is made when a prosecutor asserts I stole something without evidence.

Similarly, claims arise in philosophy and mathematics, yet in those fields, proofs are derived through logic.
Induced spiritual experiences in Spirituality ·
Paul Jones7 said:I mean, I guess you’re looking at intellectual value through this strictly pragmatic, scientific lens—which, honestly, feels like a pretty narrow way to see things. It’s almost like looking through a keyhole, if you will. There’s actually a specific term for that kind of tunnel vision.

Perhaps consider it this way—in what area of human endeavor is it considered honest or meaningful to present a claim that simply cannot be verified?
Induced spiritual experiences in Spirituality ·
Quincy:
Paul Jones7 As stated by:
I don't necessarily need to know the specifics. However, one might wonder how to discern the truth in a more general sense. I wouldn't presume to offer my opinion, nor would I wish to involve myself in such matters.
That was a fair assessment.

Quincy:
If we strictly adhere to the principle that a hypothesis cannot be proposed without absolute empirical proof, one might wonder if the very concept of sharing an opinion becomes obsolete. Must we all become career researchers just to voice a thought? It seems almost as though we are being asked to follow the rigid protocols of a federal investigation just to engage in basic conversation. 🙂

My friend, you are treating this like a spiritual treatise in PDF format; there is certainly no need to write a scientific dissertation here just to share an opinion.
The notion that one should refrain from forming or expressing an opinion is a fallacy; in truth, such intellectual engagement is not merely permitted, but essential to a healthy discourse.

I am not searching this space for rigorous scientific precision or a strict methodological framework, nor am I looking for an analysis of that spirituality PDF; rather, what I am seeking is a fundamental sense of intellectual honesty. It feels as though one is attempting to construct a thesis that is intentionally shielded from verification—a proposition where, as you suggest, being held to any standard of proof simply isn't the objective.

Unverifiable premises may serve as a legitimate foundation for faith or hope, yet they certainly lack the substance required to constitute an intellectually rigorous argument.
Induced spiritual experiences in Spirituality ·
Paul Jones7 said:Look, from where I'm sitting, there seem to be two ways this could play out—in theory, at least

1. It actually tunes the brain to be a better receiver for spiritual experiences
2. Or, it just tricks the brain into feeling a fake sensation

If we happen to hit on number one—whether that’s by accident or on purpose—then everything else really just comes down to how we choose to label it. It's basically a matter of definition, I guess... what we decide counts as a "spiritual experience" in the first place

But honestly, it feels to me like that 'god helmet' thing was leaning much more toward number two than number one

😁 But how would one actually distinguish between the first and the second?

Is that merely a matter of your own subjective judgment? Is there any way to measure this objectively?

In your reasoning, there appears to be a logical fallacy, specifically because you are building an entire thesis upon the unproven assumption that certain experiences exist without a material origin.

If there is some Source X that serves as the origin of spiritual experiences, you claim that X represents the "spirit," whereas I contend that X is simply "matter."

Neither of us possesses absolute proof regarding the true nature of X, yet we can at least agree that matter exists; we cannot definitively say whether anything exists beyond the material realm.

I may be mistaken in my hypothesis, but at least I am constructing it upon a foundation that is undeniably real.

Your hypothesis lacks validity because it rests upon something whose very existence remains entirely unknown.
Induced spiritual experiences in Spirituality ·
Michael Gonzalez77 said:Alright, so if they are fundamentally the same, you can't really categorize them as "real" or "fake." If we're talking about the quality of the experience—well, an experience is an experience. But here's my main point: if the quality doesn't match the kind of experience people claim it is, then we're really just looking at "real" or "false" interpretations of some event. Usually, this happens when someone overanalyzes things or lacks the depth to understand what actually happened. On the flip side, if an experience is interpreted correctly, the insight gained is as close to the truth as you can get. And if that experience is considered "mystical" (spiritual), then it carries the actual, tangible quality of that experience (the result).

I get that you might believe "mystical" experiences don't actually exist, and that they're just human interpretations that science could easily explain away. I don't agree with that view, though. I might be misreading you, but if that is your stance, I'm just offering my own perspective in response.

I’m having a hard time following your logic. Are you suggesting that induced experiences don't exist at all?

If they do exist, what happens if they become indistinguishable from authentic ones?

This really couldn't be any more straightforward than it is.
Induced spiritual experiences in Spirituality ·
Michael Gonzalez77 said:First off, you need to define what you mean by 'real.' Think about it: when you're dreaming, you don't question the "reality of the dream." You’re the creator, the lead actor, and the observer all at once. No one sits there doubting if the dream is legitimate; you just live it through impressions gathered from this "waking reality"—which we treat as real, but honestly, defining what reality even *is* is the core issue here. I'm talking about the distinction between an inherently existing "reality" and our individual perception of it. Our perception is just a messy collection of things we've learned—it's a description of reality, not reality itself. Reality transcends our ability to grasp it, and that goes for any field, whether you're looking through a scientific lens or a philosophical one. Regardless of what anyone believes, we all have a direct, undeniable experience of it. At the end of the day, we're just limited little beings with tiny mental capacities, no matter how much we puff out our chests and act like we know everything.

In essence, truth is defined by whatever the subject perceives as reality. From my perspective, all these experiences carry the same weight, which leads me to believe there is no meaningful distinction between what is "true" and what is "false."

This serves as a litmus test for those who claim they can distinguish an authentic encounter from an induced experience.

If a person finds themselves unable to tell the difference between a genuine spiritual moment and an induced one, we run into a significant dilemma; it implies that such profound experiences could be easily mimicked through something as mundane as physical stimulation of the brain.

Should that be the case, the perceived necessity for a mystical origin behind these phenomena simply evaporates.
Induced spiritual experiences in Spirituality ·
casualtiger2 said:Absolutely. It’s just like knowing whether I'm awake or not.
Sure, you can dream that you're wide awake—but once you actually *are* awake, you notice the distinction. Bottom line: you have to experience being conscious first. If you're just dreaming, you won't know the difference. So, to answer your question—yeah, people can easily be fooled. They might experience some random brain activity—whether from meditation or some high-tech gadgetry—and immediately jump to the conclusion that they've seen God or hit enlightenment.
And people will swear on anything to make it true.

Your perspective has been transparent from the start—you believe that, personally, you would be able to tell the difference.

However, looking at the broader human condition, how can certainty ever be established? The human brain is riddled with biological glitches. When you watch a street magician make an object vanish or seemingly teleport, you recognize it as a sleight-of-hand trick rather than reality. But if you present that same spectacle to someone who operates under the premise that their perceptions are absolute truth, they will inevitably conclude they have witnessed a miracle.

The situation here is quite similar; it serves as my own version of a spiritual Turing test—what happens if the subject cannot evaluate whether their experience was induced or truly authentic (occurring without intervention)?

Imagine subjects sitting in quiet rooms, attempting to reach a state of spiritual experience, and they are already seasoned practitioners. They are told these are meditation chambers where they will later report their experiences. They are never informed that there will be an attempt to induce a specific state.

Each participant would undergo at least one induced experience, while also being permitted to have one genuine, unassisted experience.

Once the participants provide their accounts, we could see whether they successfully distinguish between these two types of experiences, given that they were completely unaware of the induction process.
Induced spiritual experiences in Spirituality ·
Nancy Wilson2 said:They haven't actually proven anything with those results. The idea that spirit is deeply intertwined with matter—well, even a child knows that, and naturally, one influences the other. If they truly intend to prove something, I fear they’ll be forced to account for the full picture, which includes all those messy variables people seem so eager to ignore.

And then there are these experiments involving astronauts... what, are you suggesting that because they were subjected to high speeds and experienced light, it somehow validates the phenomenon? Well, guess what: that light and that experience weren't even remotely similar to what people report during an NDE. It’s like flying on a plane, landing, walking into a lab, having someone poke around in your brain until they induce hallucinations of floating in some void, and then having them claim your entire experience was just a hallucination caused by drinking too much coffee after you woke up. Or take the instances where they managed to make someone relive their entire life in an instant—that isn't EVEN REMOTELY akin to those holographic, three-dimensional experiences where one perceives everything happening and feels what others feel from every perspective simultaneously. No, I'm afraid things aren't nearly as simple as certain people would prefer them to be. I still need to see someone replicate EVERYTHING perfectly simply by stimulating specific parts of the brain. For now, we are still stuck at the level of my airplane analogy.

And urbanwalker72, don't bother responding to this. I really am not in the mood for a debate right now.

👍

"Quote:"
casualtiger2 said:In principle, any reality—virtual or this "actual" one—can trigger all sorts of phenomena, but that isn't the core of spirituality. A true spiritual experience is characterized by a breakthrough of consciousness out of that matrix, whether it's a virtual one or our "real" one.
The heart of spirituality lies in the state of enlightenment—discovering pure consciousness, which is inherent to everyone, and living that truth within matter.
Why consciousness and matter collided (if they even did) is a mystery no one knows, myself included. People usually call it a divine game.
I see it more as an internal necessity of God—to create, and to continue evolving through that creation.

With that in mind, everything just depends on where you are on the ladder of development and what angle you're looking from.
For an enlightened person, it's possible that consciousness is the only reality, while everything else is just an illusion.
For someone else, matter is the only reality, and for those "in the middle," both hold weight.

I totally get why you're hunting for solid proof for these kinds of hypotheses (I am too, honestly), but right now I don't have any, and it's not my priority
(at least, not for the purpose of convincing anyone else).
Personally, I feel like God and the created world are equally real, though the divine side definitely has more to do with us.

@Itto
Regarding whether the Moon exists when nobody is looking at it, I lean toward a "naive-pseudo-philosophical" stance that it does exist. That whole tautology—"if there's no one to notice something, then neither the noticing nor the thing noticed exists"—just doesn't sit right with me. If some distant aliens were peering at that Moon through their telescopes back before humans even existed on Earth, I can't say it only popped into existence once we noticed it, or that it'll vanish just because we aren't around anymore.

casualtiger2, please try to maintain a sense of focus. I am simply asking whether you believe you would be capable of distinguishing between them, or if such a distinction would elude you entirely. That is the only point of importance here.

If we lose our capacity to discern, what purpose does our perception even serve?

"Quote:"
I completely understand your perspective when it comes to demanding rigorous evidence for such hypotheses—truthfully, I seek that same level of proof myself. However, at this stage, I simply don't have those proofs readily available, nor is it my primary goal to go about convincing others.
I personally believe that both God and the created world hold an equal degree of reality, though it is the divine essence that holds a much deeper relevance to our existence.
Let us set aside the pursuit of raw evidence for a moment and instead focus our attention on seeking a sense of logical structure, internal consistency, and fundamental coherence within these ideas.

My only question is this: Is it possible to deceive a man who considers himself spiritually enlightened, leading him to embrace a fraudulent experience that he would eventually swear is the absolute truth?
Induced spiritual experiences in Spirituality ·
Michael Gonzalez77 said:There is only one reality. We all just have our own individual level of conscious existence within it. People get so caught up arguing over different names or labels for it, they end up losing sight of the big picture entirely.

To put it another way, would you be unable to distinguish between an objective truth and an experience that was artificially induced?
Induced spiritual experiences in Spirituality ·
casualtiger2 said:Spiritual experiences can actually be triggered by another being—completely hands-off and from a distance, without any tools involved at all.
(Think of the classic encounter between Vivekananda and Ramakrishna).
The only real use for a blunt, materialistic take on these phenomena is to help unmask the charlatans out there—the ones relying on cheap magic tricks or basic psychological manipulation.

casualtiger2, I am curious about your perspective on how virtual reality might evolve over the next twenty or thirty years. How difficult will it be to tell the difference between a digital simulation and the world we inhabit?

For the sake of this discussion, let us assume that such advanced VR—an "artificial reality"—will eventually exist to the point where it becomes indistinguishable from the physical reality we know.

How would you rank and evaluate these three distinct layers of existence? There is the material realm, your spiritual dimension, and now this third, virtual one; which of these holds true reality, and how should we weigh their importance?

Furthermore, is it possible for a virtual environment to trigger spiritual experiences so profound that an individual could not distinguish them from their "authentic" encounters?
Ground and Pound in Martial Arts & Combat Sports ·
Thomas Wright said:My intention wasn't to ask for advice on how to handle things when the momentum shifts against me, but rather how to react when things swing back in my favor; if you find my perspective flawed, please feel free to report me, though I remain confident in its accuracy.

Didn't you mention just the other day that the talent pool at the recent PFL Top 8 tournament was lacking because all the elite fighters had migrated over to Pride FC?😁
How effective are these workouts? in Hobbies & Leisure ·
Susan Jackson12 said:You know how it goes—if you accidentally touch a weight that isn't pink and weighs more than three pounds, you immediately start bulking up; you go to sleep normally and wake up looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger.🤣]

It is a myth that refuses to fade, remaining just as persistent today as it was years ago...

Whether we are talking about men or women, the fear of accidentally becoming too muscular or gaining excessive strength is quite similar to the fear of suddenly having too much money in your bank account.

The statistical likelihood of such an occurrence is so incredibly slim that the anxiety surrounding it simply isn't justified.😁

I could certainly empathize with someone worrying that they might put in all that grueling work only to see no muscle growth at all—but this reverse concern is something I find impossible to comprehend.
Official complaint regarding... in Feedback & Suggestions ·
There is only one specific topic within the "Natural Science" subforum that I find myself following, and that is this one.
The concept of "space-time," a topic I decided to explore following an invitation from my colleague Sprečo.
His posts were also flagged as trolling, which is exactly why he received a partial ban.
It appears that a ban has been issued.


Every single time Sprečo posts on any forum, people immediately assume he’s just trolling. It seems like wherever there is a corner of the internet to inhabit, he finds a way to clutter it with those repetitive images and pester others with such blatant nonsense.

If you insist on equating yourself with him, you will find that you won't last very long in any discussion forums dedicated to the natural sciences.

It is my firm belief that any discussion regarding the nature of space and time cannot be confined solely to the realm of natural science.
The subject remains unsettled, much like a case that cannot be closed until the true nature of time itself is finally understood.
It really should have been included to some extent.
Perhaps these are merely flights of fancy—a bit of speculation that has clearly gone unappreciated, at least in my particular case.


So, you are suggesting that I would overhaul the entire subforum, effectively transforming the Natural Science section so that it no longer focuses on actual natural science, but instead serves merely as a vessel for whatever topics I personally deem appropriate?

If you feel inclined to explore this subject from a different perspective, perhaps it would be more appropriate to initiate a new discussion thread within a different subforum.

Should that partial ban ever be lifted, which I find quite bothersome, I would certainly feel compelled to lodge a formal complaint regarding the circumstances.
What specific credentials or login information must I provide to gain access to the links within my own previous posts?
And that is all within their own thread; I certainly have no intention of engaging in any debates on that particular subforum.
Everything will remain in this state until the moderators, shadoworca3 and Timothy Jackson2, offer a sincere apology for their actions.
The tone used when addressing both myself and my colleague Sprečo was unnecessarily disparaging.


If they decide to offer you an apology for that partial ban—which, let’s be honest, was more than earned—I might just find the strength to finally close my PDF on natural science.

If individuals are permitted to persist in their blatant trolling despite receiving countless warnings, then this entire forum loses its fundamental purpose.
Clarification regarding PDF Alternatives in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Take a moment to observe an example of truly impartial moderation over on the PDF Alternatives thread regarding the Nibiru theory.

I suggest you examine the final two pages of posts submitted by user tomatix.
Clarification regarding PDF Alternatives in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Keith Gonzalez said:What kind of bias are you talking about? If we were as subjective as you claim, half this forum wouldn't exist, and a significant portion of the discussions here would vanish too. Our goal isn't to drive people away; it's to maintain a civil conversation. If adults can't grasp that distinction, then I truly don't know what else to say. 🤷

It wasn't just your posts that were removed, nor was it every single post regarding astrology. And yes—that constant "friendly banter" between you all IS the reason those posts were deleted.

I am well aware of the whole situation involving Plečko. I could easily go on describing exactly who ended up looking like a fool in that scenario. ☕ But, as I have already stated, that ultimately falls under the jurisdiction of the law.


I feel quite like Joseph K. from The Trial 🤣

I have presented so many concrete, logical questions, yet I have received nothing but responses along the lines of "it simply had to be done." Essentially, the moderator has the authority to act whenever they deem it necessary. It has been a long time since I have encountered such a lack of clear definitions.

It brings to mind a situation where a woman tried to convince my friend that a woman isn't permitted to slaughter a chicken, only a man is. When he asked why, her response was simply, "Because that's how it is," while looking at him as if his question were utterly nonsensical.

In short, to borrow a phrase from my boss: "Sometimes you just feel helpless against sheer stupidity." When someone counters rational argumentation with something so vague and nebulous, you find yourself at a loss for words.

Of course, I am fully aware that moderators are free to act as they please without providing explanations, that they aren't obligated to answer questions, and that an administrator would never dream of intervening in such matters; however, I found the clumsy reasoning used to justify this action to be quite surprising.

I realize there is no requirement to justify or explain these actions—these threads exist merely for formal purposes—but it would have been better to offer no response at all than to provide something like this. 🤷