283 posts shown.
bluemason3 said:You’ve got the timeline of this debate right.
1) lonestag15 was talking about scientific proof.
2) I countered him on that specific point.
3) neonmarlin39 then countered me.
4) And now you've jumped in to defend Crowley.
bluemason3 said:Good grief, it’s the exact same situation as that thread with Pat, the woman, D... something.
Alternative: It’s been scientifically proven.
Skeptic: But X doesn't even meet the basic requirements of scientific methodology. Since science is defined by its methodology, X simply can't be considered science.
Alternative: honestly, who even cares about science?
🤷
Electron keeps hiding behind science, yet you counter him by bringing up Jung. Then, you have the nerve to claim that we aren't being "scientific" enough—as if that somehow means science doesn't matter anymore. 🤔
Your arguments are all over the place. It’s pure chaos. 🤷
bluemason3 said:Electron used science to back his points, and he was called out for it. You just jumped into the middle of that argument and now you're strawmanning him.😛
bluemason3 said:The Materialist paradigm isn't really relevant here, and let's be honest, Jung definitely isn't "scientific" by modern standards.
Take Djokovic, for example. He’s a man of faith, so his worldview isn't Materialist, yet everything he does in medicine follows strict scientific protocols.
What Jung was doing wasn't based on exact scientific methodology; it was more about speculative theoretical musing. It sits much closer to philosophy and theology than to hard science.
neonmarlin39 said:That’s fair, I guess, but you can't really play both sides of the fence—you can't claim science and hard data back to back when talking about this stuff.
At the end of the day, we're physical, mental, and spiritual beings all rolled into one. It's not like these are three separate silos that don't touch. Plus, the physical and mental side—which includes things like hormones—is definitely right in the wheelhouse of actual science.
lonestag15 said:They officially teach this stuff in schools—like that whole Bhorov atomic model nonsense...
Off the record—so what does "off the record" even actually mean? I mean... seriously...
Whether it’s officially recognized or not, it doesn't really matter—since this kind of research doesn't fit into any neat little box, there isn't some grand committee sitting around deciding what makes the cut for the textbooks and what gets tossed in the bin... All you really have to go on are studies from highly qualified experts—people actually putting their reputations on the line like that. So, yeah, you won't see a psychiatrist using the term "kundalini syndrome" in a clinical setting, even if they recognize the symptoms when they see them...
So many people have actually put in the work and done some solid research out there...
In the electrical engineering field, they're constantly running all sorts of research into boundary areas...
So, if you actually caught my previous posts—which I doubt—here’s the deal: I’ve got an electrical engineering degree, so let’s talk shop. The whole concept of piezoelectricity is pretty straightforward once you strip away the fluff. One of the core components of kundalini is basically just current... see, by stretching the spine and inducing vibration, you're cranking up the brain's electrical activity because you're generating extra electricity through the spinal column. In layman's terms—or just plain physics—a piezoelectric material is anything that produces an extra electrical charge when it's under physical stress or tension... like the spine or the bones...
Maybe I could cite some specific study here—honestly, my memory is a bit shot on what exactly I've read—but I just did a quick double-check online to be sure...
PhD "Physiology of kundalini Yoga, 2001."
So, we’re looking at power spectrum analysis for EEGs now—basically trying to make sense of all that brainwave noise... It's essentially just breaking down those messy electrical signals into their frequency components to see which rhythms are actually doing the heavy lifting. You’ve got your deltas, your alphas, your betas—all that good stuff—and you're basically just checking how much "power" is sitting in each band. It's a bit like looking at an equalizer on a high-end stereo system, only instead of bass and treble, you're dealing with the raw data of human consciousness... pretty wild when you think about it.
Bhushan Sharma
The only way to actually get any accurate measurements from Dr. Ljubise Stojanovica is through his books—since his website vanished into thin air about ten years ago... boo... now there's just nothing left to go on...
So, I guess that makes me the resident pseudo-scientist then...
I started out looking into piezoelectricity and how it actually ramps up electrical activity in the brain... I’m really starting to wrap my head around this whole field of study... It’s one of those tangible phenomena you see in Eastern practices—mostly because of all that spinal vibration and stretching stuff. This is exactly what the guy was measuring with his EEG...
As for those biological symptoms that might pop up—well, you probably already have a clue... I’m not out here peddling Kundalini lifting courses or anything, especially since I've been hanging around this thread for five days straight just repeating myself, haha
If you want to see what I've actually said, just scroll back a bit... you'll end up agreeing with everything (and eventually, you'll decide for yourself whether the symptoms came from the practice or not)
Some people get drawn to this kind of stuff because they're dealing with early-stage psychosis—but if that predisposition is already there... the real question is whether Kundalini acts as the trigger or not. Personally, I think it does (just like the gurus who actually study this believe), while psychiatrists will just keep patching things up however they can...
So, are you actually questioning whether the reality of rising Kundalini even exists?
neonmarlin39 said:It’s pretty straightforward. When you see a scientific paper published in a legit peer-reviewed journal, it means it’s passed some basic level of scrutiny—or at least started the process. You can't just scribble something down, call it "science," and claim it's proven. I mean, sure, you see people try that move every now and then, but they usually get figured out pretty fast when nobody takes them seriously.
neonmarlin39 said:Seriously, what are you even talking about? Where are you getting this from? It’s just your typical post where you throw out random conclusions without any actual evidence, totally disconnected from reality. Honestly, you're the one claiming the world isn't real, or that it's both real and unreal at the same time—just pick a side already! Either way, nothing seems truly real to you. Even at your best, you're just stuck in this dogmatic loop about how things "must" work. You clearly don't get basic concepts like the difference between an objective bottle of wine and your own mental idea of one. You seem to think a bottle of wine only becomes what it is once it hits your mind as an idea, but that's just not how it works. A bottle of wine exists objectively regardless of whether you perceive it or have some subjective concept of it floating around in your head.
You still think I’m the one who doesn't get what mental concepts actually are? Seriously? 🤣
neonmarlin39 said:Seriously, what are you even talking about? Where are you getting this from? It’s just your typical post where you throw out random conclusions without any actual evidence, totally disconnected from reality. Honestly, you're the one claiming the world isn't real, or that it's both real and unreal at the same time—just pick a side already! Either way, nothing seems truly real to you. Even at your best, you're just stuck in this dogmatic loop about how things "must" work. You clearly don't get basic concepts like the difference between an objective bottle of wine and your own mental idea of one. You seem to think a bottle of wine only becomes what it is once it hits your mind as an idea, but that's just not how it works. A bottle of wine exists objectively regardless of whether you perceive it or have some subjective concept of it floating around in your head.
You still think I’m the one who doesn't get what mental concepts actually are? Seriously? 🤣
neonmarlin39 said:I’m telling you, the arguments for that kind of thing just aren't there. It doesn't hold water.
Every system's got its own set of dogmas they cling to. Honestly, I'm not even surprised. It's just how things work.
Forget all that metaphysics stuff for a second. Let’s just start with basic physics.
Man, you're just delusional. Even the people over there told you that you're tripping, acting like you're some kind of God trying to explain everything from that viewpoint, but it's honestly just not working. You’re just a human being. Your mind and your body are products of this universe and exist within it—you're relative. There's zero point in trying to speak from the perspective of the Absolute. Maybe certain figures like Buddha had some sort of insight into the Absolute, but that's about it.
Don't make me go through the hassle of copying my post for a third time. This time, just do me a favor and actually bold the main arguments. And seriously, highlight those core questions I asked you—the ones that basically tear your whole theory apart.
lonestag15 said:It was the exact same deal with that whole "kundalini yoga" thing and the "kundalini symptom" nonsense...
...everyone's just confused about what they're actually talking about, so there's really no point in getting worked up over it...
lonestag15 said:Look, I already said I wasn't the one who actually coined that term or started that specific center... anyway, it’s not really about nitpicking over the vocabulary—it's about the actual understanding of what's going on here (and we both know exactly what I mean)...
I told you I’d hit you up once I finally got a hold of him...
Your posts have this way of throwing people off balance—just a little bit, but it’s definitely happening... And I'm saying that as an outsider just watching your back-and-forth exchange with that guy earlier. If you actually want to have a constructive conversation, you might want to take the criticism to heart...
Look, I could sit here and type for a hundred days straight and I still wouldn't be able to prove to you that these symptoms are actually happening—mostly because you just keep trying to link everything back to UFOs (again)... Seriously. Fine, I’m dropping the subjective arguments if that's what it takes, but let me remind you one more time: this kind of approach is perfectly scientific and respected... plenty of major research studies are conducted using the exact same logic of sampling, percentages, and conclusions...
Yeah, so this is what you call "projection" when I’m the one doing the psychoanalyzing—according to you. After you went ahead and wrote that a character is mentally unstable just because they take psychedelics? That is some top-tier projection and hypocrisy right there. It isn't even close to being "quasi"—you can see it from a mile away... And then you have the nerve to tell me to go study the forum rules when you don't even follow them yourself. I analyze because I need to know exactly who I'm dealing with on the other side—I'm not out here playing pretend...
So I told you straight up—biology isn't really my lane—but you just go ahead and chop my post down to that one little phrase, quote it back at me, and then decide to comment on... that? Seriously...
What can you tell? Is it obvious that biology isn't exactly my specialty?...
I told you straight up I wasn't going to write anything on that front—mostly so you wouldn't have any excuse to tear my arguments apart or butcher the post... so what was that you just did, slicing it all up again?
So, come on then—what kind of work do you actually do...?
Look, I wrote that from a purely technical standpoint—you know, looking at it through an electrical engineering lens—because that’s my lane and I actually get how the circuitry works. As for the rest of it... yeah, I get the biological and psychological side of things too, but I decided to keep my mouth shut. I didn't feel like giving you any ammunition just so you could go hunting for a needle in a haystack if I tripped up even slightly...
I mean, sure, maybe not—but honestly, staying open to different perspectives and actual evidence is always a better move... I laid out my theory and even pointed to existing research, like EEG studies—you know, the stuff Dr. Miller does measuring brain wave shifts in long-term meditators. The whole point of those readings is that the change in brain waves is real. Once you drop down into those lower, subconscious frequencies, you’re basically at the mercy of your own subconscious... and if that thing isn't in order, it'll tear a practitioner apart in a heartbeat...
Lack of arguments?
Lack of evidence?
Lack of any actual deep discussion?
I’m providing the arguments, the evidence, AND the deep dive right here...
But I guess for "certain people," this is all just playing games... if you've got something to say, just say it straight to me...
What does "by every standard they're just believers" actually mean? (You basically accused every believer of something without even explaining what...)
How exactly are you "spiritual" while they aren't?
And again, "many of them"—more dancing around the point... if you've got something, tell me directly. I prefer that over this polite skipping around like it's a game of chess. We aren't politicians...
Well, you're having a "decent debate" right now...
Nothing like that on my end—I don't subscribe to dogmas, everything is up for questioning... and we aren't even talking about dogmas yet.
And regarding this whole thing about getting emotional when being attacked (which I've mentioned in another thread)—do you know what it means to love your own views while respecting others?
Look, I have plenty of criticisms regarding believers too (hypocrisy is number one, obviously)... but I don't go out of my way to attack people with that specific mission. Criticizing someone's lack of religiosity just insults the person. Dogma is a choice, and you can't argue with taste. Believing in dogmas is literally a matter of choice—you see the logical gaps... and from there, you choose whether to believe or not... you always have the option to just walk away from someone like that.
neonmarlin39 said:What "dead" comments? Man, go back and read his post, then check out his other stuff whenever a debate starts up—this isn't even close to the first time he's done this. I dare you to find one single post of mine where I actually insulted someone or dodged a solid argument. Seriously, just look at his history. You'd be better off staying quiet and not chiming in when you don't have anything smart to contribute, especially since your post is straight-up trolling. It breaks all the forum rules and has zero to do with the actual topic; it's just some losers trying to play amateur psychoanalyst on everyone else...
Is it really "mocking" if I tell someone who's clearly unstable that psychedelics aren't a good idea for them?
Trust me, I'm reading and I totally get the context. I have no clue what you're talking about. Can you give me even one single example with actual evidence where I missed the point? Let's see it.
🤣
Look, it’s not my fault some people resort to cheap insults the second they run out of actual points. Looks like you're one of those people.
lonestag15 said:So you did it again—exactly the same way you did last time... I mention I’ve been working on raising my Kundalini, and you drop a smiley face like you're mocking me... then you play the innocent act like you have no clue what you're doing
Podbadas is just being petty for no reason... just little, constant jabs... honestly, you're like a termite gnawing away at the person you're talking to
I see exactly what you're doing in this argument and why the guy lost his cool... and then, after poking him like that, you go right back to being snarky, telling him to "quit the psychedelics" because he's mentally unstable. You're out here handing out diagnoses when you literally wrote, "only losers bother with quasi-psychoanalyzing other people in a thread"
neonmarlin39 said:🤣
Seriously, how old are you? Did you ever actually finish kindergarten, or maybe even elementary school? It’s hilarious how you talk about "spirituality" and "mind control" when your actual ability to argue or hold a conversation is basically zero. That's just who you are. And what "chance" are you giving me? Like, really? Especially after those little meltdowns you had in our last few chats. Last time, you spent like four pages straight posting absolute nonsense, acting like some big-shot shrink trying to psychoanalyze everyone else just to dodge the actual point of the discussion. And you're doing the exact same thing right now. You actually convinced yourself that you were doing me a favor by "giving me a chance"? 😁 That's just ridiculous.
lonestag15 said:It’s pretty much the same deal in Hinduism—this idea that you take the whole, undivided reality and split it into three parts to make sense of things: the subject (the person doing the thinking), the object, and the actual experience of that object... turns out that's how everything starts.
Predrag Kezele — 7 chakras, 7 states of consciousness
If I’m allowed to interpret that "concept" as more of an actual event... I feel like I’ve already heard that whole "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody's there to hear it, does it make a sound?" thing way too many times...
It’s honestly ridiculous to me—I mean, that whole situation doesn't even need an observer just for the sound of wood hitting wood to be a constant thing...
I've heard this question tossed around a million times already—honestly, I just don't get the logic behind it...
David Vaughn75 said:Concepts and preconceptions are just mental categories—they don't exist out there in the physical cosmos without a mind to house them.
If there isn't anyone around to actually experience a concept coming to life, then the concept itself doesn't even exist.
neonmarlin39 said:You can get to that conclusion pretty easily using simple logic, looking at things through an objective scientific lens, using philosophical methods, or even through spiritual insights (take the case of Buddha, for example) 😁
But, like you said, you're the one claiming to have reached a "final" conclusion, even though you're basically just parroting someone else's dogma... And honestly, whether these are your own conclusions or someone else's doesn't even matter much, since other people have already tried to explain this exact thing here. Plus, if you truly believe everything is an illusion, then you and everything you're saying is just an illusion too. In a way, you're totally undermining your own point because you're claiming nothing is real—which means what you're saying isn't real either (if you're pushing that whole Maya/Advaita Vedanta/Shankara interpretation I've noticed you go for). Why would anyone listen to the illusory ramblings of some illusory figure who, by your own logic, doesn't even exist? Or do you only see the contradiction when you're arguing that the universe isn't real? And why on earth would Brahman bother creating some pointless illusion like the universe where everything is fake? Where does Maya even come from in your version? You haven't even touched on the heavy hitters here. You're mixing up basic philosophical concepts like relativity, the Absolute, reality, actuality, and illusion—you can see that in your thread about the universe being an illusion. And you say "cosmos," not the universe, which sounds like those Slavinski terms or wherever you got them from.
Also, in previous debates, people have pointed out specific teachings and systems that tear down these philosophical dogmas about the universe not being real, using solid philosophical frameworks, but you just ignored it all and stuck to your guns. People even suggested books to read if you actually wanted to dive deeper and see what's what. Now, science is a totally different beast. It’s one thing to believe whatever you want—hey, you're entitled to your beliefs—but it's a completely different story when you want to argue a point or analyze something using clear sources, philosophy, scientific evidence, or whatever else. Your thread is, to put it mildly, just rambling, and it falls flat under several major philosophical critiques found in both Eastern and Western traditions. Philosophy hasn't just popped up overnight, and neither has philosophical critique. Right now, most of what you're saying is based on pure belief and your own narrow interpretation, while you're ignoring plenty of other critiques and systems that might explain things way better than the books you're reading or the ones you've already decided to believe in.