> On Jul 31, 1:47 pm, "Tom"
comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Of course not. It's a *secret*.
>
> It's not that secret.It's spelled out in the manuscripts. Anyone who
> reads them can find what I'm talking about.
I've read them and I still don't know what simple question you believe you
can use to determine unerringly whether or not someone has had KCHGA. So
your statement is false. Further, since you claim it's already public
knowledge, your refusal to disclose it here makes no sense at all.
>>> It's in the texts. Pretty simple.
>>
>> It's in your interpretation of the texts. Of course, unless you are
>> claiming infallibility, your interpretation of the texts are
>> questionable.
>> And it you *are* claiming infallibility, then you should be able and
>> willing
>> to demonstrate it. Empty claims are worthless.
>
> If you read that adding vinegar to baking soda gets you a bubbly
> reaction, and you add the vinegar to the baking soda and you interpret
> it as a fizzy reaction, that doesn't change the fact that when you
> combined the acid and the base you got a reaction.
The text you are referring to does not spell things out so concretely. The
terms "vinegar", and "baking soda" have very definite and undisputed
meanings that are empirically obtainable and whose reaction can be observed
independently. The subject of the texts you mention are nowhere near as
definite as to what their terms mean and cannot be verified by independent
observers at all.
>>>> And how
>>>> would you guarantee that someone isn't lying about it or
>>>> misunderstanding
>>>> what you're asking or interpreting the experience differently than you
>>>> do?
>>
>>> If, then, else.
>>
>> Try writing in full sentences. You'll get your point across a lot
>> better.
>> That's assuming that you *want* to get your point across. Maybe you
>> don't.
>> Maybe you prefer to try to weave a web of mystery around yourself.
>
> I followed a logical formula with an example. Remember?
Nope. You wrote "If then, else." which doesn't make any sense.
>>> If they've experienced K&CHGA (which is a specific
>>> thing, not a pseudo-mystical state of consciousness), then they would
>>> know what I was asking, else they're lying.
>>
>> Have you defined exactly what that "specific thing" is?
>
> It's right out of the books, man. I didn't need to define it.
It's not defined in the books. If you think it is, quote the definition and
the book you got it from.
>> How, specifically,
>> does it differ from a "pseudo-mystical state of consciousness".
>
> How does a memory of an event differ from an actual event?
Again, you didn't answer the question but simply evaded it by posing
another. Don't you have a straight answer to give?
>> It seems to
>> me that any state of consciousness could be described as
>> "pseudo-mystical"
>> if one so wished. The label would be impossible to either confirm or
>> deny
>> unless you had an operational, and thereby falsifiable, definition that
>> wasn't a *secret*.
>
> It's operational, in that it is the result of an operation, but I
> don't think it's falsifiable in the materialistic sense.
>> Give me a specific example of any state of subjective consciousness that
>> can
>> be determined without any guesswork and show how no guesswork is
>> involved.
>> In turn, I'll point out to you the unidentified guesswork used in your
>> example.
>
> What's a subjective state of consciousness?
All states of consciousness are subjective. If this term confuses you, we
can eliminate the term as unnecessary and restate the challenge. Give me a
specific example of any state of consciousness that can be determined
without any guesswork and show how no guesswork is involved.
>>> If someone hems and haws and sidesteps and comes up with a lot of
>>> flowery ways of possibly interpreting their own experiences as if they
>>> were the same thing as the HGA, I am convinced they don't know what
>>> they're talking about.
>>
>> All you'll be doing that way is confirming that they don't subscribe to
>> your
>> particular interpretation of their experience.
>
> No, I'll be verifying they didn't get the result specifically
> described in the text, and specifically experienced by myself and
> others.
The interpretation of the text that you and your friends agreed upon post
hoc.
>> Which is an empty claim. You have no evidence for it but your say-so.
>
> Not empty, unfalsifiable.
Unfalsifiable claims are also unverifiable claims. Which makes them empty
claims, since there is no way to determine if they are true or false.
