Testing by Experiment

Unorganised, disorganised, heterodox or individual beliefs, ideas and praxis sharing.

Post Reply
User avatar
Amor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:57 pm

Testing by Experiment

Post by Amor »

I was educated/trained in various belief systems. Some of those belief systems were not to be tested.

I recall the priests, when asked a too difficult theological question would say: It is a Mystery.

In retrospect that was a standard answer meaning: you and I, being unworthy, cannot hope to understand.

Later in life I was shown in meditation some of the techniques a human might use in practising spiritual science.

One of the simplest techiques is looking for implications.

Long ago I was in a community that prided itself on its spiritual connection to nature. I was called to the house of an elderly lady who was into space brothers. (She had a nice photo of a Haunebu 3 - not realizing it was German) She complained that her nylon nightie kept creeping up as she slept. I found that the house wiring was connected with phase and neutral reversed and the house being on a rather dry sand, it was not well earthed. (She only used non-electronic appliances)

I thought that the symbolism of reversed wires was important, possibly indicating that her energy connections were different. I asked in my meditation and they said: she does not belong to the community.

So I said: That's interesting. Prove it.

And they said: you will observe that she has no garden against her house.

And that was true, and of perhaps 100 dwellings in the community, hers was the only place without gardens against the walls.

Thus here is the first technique: What are the testable implications of the proposition/belief?

User avatar
Cerber
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 2:24 pm
Location: Kingdom of Britannia

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Cerber »

Thank you for this very interesting story. But before we got to the "proving" part, you ask me to "believe" a very many things.
You ask me to believe you were educated/trained in various belief systems.
You ask me to believe that such story actually happened to you.
You ask me to believe that her nylon nightie kept creeping up as she slept is connected to main electric wirings, which connected to her not having garden which connect to her not belonging to community. Which was the actual reason her nylon nightie kept creeping up as she slept?
..and few more things, but that's not the point. My point is, for an outsider like me, every step of the way that story require belief, faith, and the end results you got in there, are not reproducible by me, if I don't have your set of beliefs. To me, for something to be called a "proof" it must repeatable by anyone without any prerequisite beliefs, without any leaps of faith.
For example, my experiments show (to me) that wards placed on other people by some third party are inherently ineffective. Or that angelic entities can be banished almost as easily as any other kinds of entities from our personal space. And many other things. But there is not a single thing out of my countless experiments that can be "proven" to anyone who don't already have certain "compatible beliefs", so at the end of the day, everything is kinda hypothetical, and mostly just "for personal use", the way I see it.
I mean, the way I see it, in metaphysical topics "proof" is way too strong of a word.
Image

User avatar
Amor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:57 pm

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Amor »

>every step of the way that story require belief, faith

So you have identified a core skill: How to measure if a statement is true in its context.

A simple test of this is using voice:

Form a statement of which the truth is known. Say that statement out loud and feel its effect.

Now say an opposite statement out loud and notice that it has a different effect.

It is important that the true statement be exact. For example if the statement is "I ate breakfast this morning" but my breakfast was a shake drink, then the test will not work well as the word "ate" is incorrect.

This is simple test but reasonably accurate when properly formulated.

User avatar
Cerber
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 2:24 pm
Location: Kingdom of Britannia

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Cerber »

Amor wrote: Sun Dec 13, 2020 8:28 pm >every step of the way that story require belief, faith

So you have identified a core skill: How to measure if a statement is true in its context.

A simple test of this is using voice:

Form a statement of which the truth is known. Say that statement out loud and feel its effect.

Now say an opposite statement out loud and notice that it has a different effect.

It is important that the true statement be exact. For example if the statement is "I ate breakfast this morning" but my breakfast was a shake drink, then the test will not work well as the word "ate" is incorrect.

This is simple test but reasonably accurate when properly formulated.
What if I feel nothing after saying something out loud?
What if what I'm feeling is what I want/hope/desire to feel and not really an actual indication of truthfulness of the statement, in cases where we don't know the truth in advance?
What if I have a question, answer to which I do not know, so I bring 10 people in the room (who don't know the answer in advance), and ask them to say my question out loud, and then to give me the answer depending how they feel. And what if 5 of them feel like answer is A but the other 5 say it's B? How do we objectively determine whose feelings and which feelings we are supposed to trust?
Or does it work only on questions we already know the answers to?


I just checked the definition of "objectively". Apparently it's "in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions." Which in it's self creates paradox. It seems like objectivity is like the opposite of this approach.
Image

User avatar
Amor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:57 pm

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Amor »

>What if I feel nothing after saying something out loud?

Perhaps some humans need a little practice to feel the weight of Reality. Apprenticeships used to be the standard for acquiring skills.

>What if what I'm feeling is what I want/hope/desire to feel

Quite right. The spiritual scientist needs to be able to control and progressively purify feelings and thoughts so as to make neutral observations. Double blind experiments are sometimes used by material scientists to deal with unconscious interference.

>What if I have a question, answer to which I do not know, so I bring 10 people

If you yourself cannot operate the technique it is unlikely that you will be able to identify people that can.

> does it work only on questions we already know the answers to?

With any technique it is important to calibrate the process. Thus before I try an important statement, I will try known true and untrue statements.

>I just checked the definition of "objectively". Apparently it's "in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions."

The operator needs to be skilled and detached.


Mental reaction is common in humans. It takes time and motivation to learn to respond rather than react.

User avatar
Cerber
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 2:24 pm
Location: Kingdom of Britannia

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Cerber »

But this method seems fundamentally not very scientific.
Scientific method definition is:
The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous scepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.
Image

I don't see any way to objectively perform "measurement-based testing" on my own feelings, nor on other people's feelings. If I'm the only observer able to determine which of my feelings are correct and which aren't (or which truths are truer based on my personal feelings) and if I'm the only one able determine based on my own feelings who else has the "right feelings" (if the other person has the right skill set, the right level of awareness etc), it's seems to be fundamentally biased, in collective settings, I'd be the central point, the source, of collective bias.
Image

User avatar
Amor
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:57 pm

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Amor »

>rigorous scepticism about what is observed

This is known to be a problem for materialistic science - hence the use of double-blind experiments, although rarely in physics as yet.

As you will recall from quantum mechanics, the event does not condense as a wave or particle until it is observed.

In this theory, Reality does not appear until after an observer has interacted. Considering the number of sub-atomic particles in the universe there must be some observers with high bandwidth viewing.

>I don't see any way to objectively perform "measurement-based testing" on my own feelings, nor on other people's feelings

I recall a dowser that came to my land to consider a capped well. Without taking off the cover he accurately told both the height and salinity of the water - to two significant figures. He did that by observing the twitches in one of his fingers.

We may distinguish physical-etheric feelings/sensations from emotional and mental sensations. The dowser was using physical sensations - as the communication method preferred by the entity operating his sacral chakra. (I was about to write "method chosen by the entity" but the word "chosen" did not feel right. Try it yourself)

As you will recall from the Tree of Life the human is isomorphic to the manifested Source of All. There are many dimensions of isomorphism, all of which may be used to develop the inner senses used for spiritual science. It mostly takes a lot of work, underpinned by intent and right relationship (internal and external).

User avatar
Cerber
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 2:24 pm
Location: Kingdom of Britannia

Re: Testing by Experiment

Post by Cerber »

Amor wrote: Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:14 am >rigorous scepticism about what is observed

This is known to be a problem for materialistic science - hence the use of double-blind experiments, although rarely in physics as yet.

As you will recall from quantum mechanics, the event does not condense as a wave or particle until it is observed.

In this theory, Reality does not appear until after an observer has interacted. Considering the number of sub-atomic particles in the universe there must be some observers with high bandwidth viewing.
Well quantum mechanics theory does not really state "event does not condense as a wave or particle until it is observed", that part is just something that over the years becomes almost like gag of some sort. Theory only states that here are limits to how accurately the value of a physical quantity can be predicted prior to its measurement, given a complete set of initial conditions because of the uncertainty principle. Which kinda sounds the same or similar but it's not. Quantum theory does not define clearly what actually qualify as a "measurement". It only implies, and to extent even proves that reality and it's properties are probabilistic, not very deterministic, and that "uncertainty" is very probabilistic only on subatomic level, it does not scale up very well. If those effects scale up, I'm pretty sure our physical reality would be too unstable for us to even exist, in physical forms we are riding now. It's great it is there in subatomic level, so we can enjoy vitamin D, but it scale up to celestial level, and oxygen atoms in our planet's atmosphere would randomly turn to chlorine just because they felt like doing that, or because someone looked at the the wrong way - that would not fly very well, for the entire known existence, not just our oxygen loving species.
>I don't see any way to objectively perform "measurement-based testing" on my own feelings, nor on other people's feelings

I recall a dowser that came to my land to consider a capped well. Without taking off the cover he accurately told both the height and salinity of the water - to two significant figures. He did that by observing the twitches in one of his fingers.

We may distinguish physical-etheric feelings/sensations from emotional and mental sensations. The dowser was using physical sensations - as the communication method preferred by the entity operating his sacral chakra. (I was about to write "method chosen by the entity" but the word "chosen" did not feel right. Try it yourself)
Well that example it's kind of measurable, if some specific person claim he can guess something with high accuracy we can simply give set number of guesses to make in various environments and settings, and make a spreadsheet to calculate probability of their accuracy, if it's more than 50% (plus some accounted margin of error), it would be scientific to asset that based on certain controlled measurements there is a measurable, provable phenomena.
As you will recall from the Tree of Life the human is isomorphic to the manifested Source of All. There are many dimensions of isomorphism, all of which may be used to develop the inner senses used for spiritual science. It mostly takes a lot of work, underpinned by intent and right relationship (internal and external).
I don't use "Tree of Life" in my personal gnosis.
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Individual Spirituality”