Thinkabit- Of course you're comments are basically Descartes "I think therefore I am."

But perhaps there are things that exist that you can't prove either way- Thinkabit seems to acknowledge this.

Perhaps there is a deeper form of truth- there is a comment from somewhere "artists use lies to teach the truth, politicians use lies to cover it up".

Some artists are politicians.

Conscious awareness is an interesting example of something everyone believes is true but can't prove.

Sometimes all you can rely on is tradition- it's better than nothing.

Things that aren't true can still have value- and is perhaps a form of truth.

Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris had an interesting discussion on a similar topic over five sessions.

Quantum Theory and the boundaries of physical reality are somewhat uncertain- scuse the pun- see TED talk on Cellular Automa- the universe is a cellular phenomena. But I enjoy that at least we have an island of understanding- but every direction seems to lead to mystery.

Rationalists and empiracists view the world differently to existentialists- but you can get rational and empirical existentialists I suppose

If you are looking for ghosts or spirits in the physical Universe or hearing messages from the dead, you will never see or hear them. They do not exist in the physical, but there is evidence of the unknowable being revealed.

Attention JOSEPHUS,

This article below may be of interest to you. Just on Google news today.

It shows that in ancient times days could have been as short as 18 hours.

Hence, creatures with a long lifespan then could have been seen as indeed having lived much longer than today, even if by nothing else but by the years then being shorter.

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEGXd-EzqvfX1bZO9M9-Pj7cqFQgEKg0IACoGCAowrqkBMKBFMMGBAg?hl=en-AU&gl=AU&ceid=AU%3Aen

CANEM, I agree with these comments of yours:

'Thinkabit- Of course you're comments are basically Descartes "I think therefore I am."

But perhaps there are things that exist that you can't prove either way- Thinkabit seems to acknowledge this.

Perhaps there is a deeper form of truth- there is a comment from somewhere "artists use lies to teach the truth, politicians use lies to cover it up".

Some artists are politicians.

Conscious awareness is an interesting example of something everyone believes is true but can't prove.'

I would also like to add that the introspective scientists, the ancient and current rishes, have been proving for thousands of years what conscious awareness is.

For example, they enshrined the 4 levels of consciousness in the
symbol: OM.

Any advanced Yogi can verify their findings through awakening these levels.

But those who can't go beyond the last of these levels, the most superficial, the awaken state of rational level, are unable to verify the others and they mistakenly assume that the deeper states cannot be verified.

JOSEPHUS, I agree with you about this above comments of yours:

'If you are looking for ghosts or spirits in the physical Universe or hearing messages from the dead, you will never see or hear them. They do not exist in the physical, but there is evidence of the unknowable being revealed.'

Yes, and the existence of the spirit testifies for a deeper and even more real substratum reality than the surface transient physical reality.

New, integral science, now sees spiritual reality as the matrix source of physical reality that emerges from and dies back to it.

See the two important books on this which I gave the references for in my last comment above to 'thinkabit'.

CANEM, I agree with most of these comments of yours:

'Thinkabit- Of course you're comments are basically Descartes "I think therefore I am."

But perhaps there are things that exist that you can't prove either way- Thinkabit seems to acknowledge this.

Perhaps there is a deeper form of truth- there is a comment from somewhere "artists use lies to teach the truth, politicians use lies to cover it up".

Some artists are politicians.

Conscious awareness is an interesting example of something everyone believes is true but can't prove.'

Except, I would also like to add Canem, that the introspective scientists, the ancient and current rishes, have been proving for thousands of years what consciousness is, even though current conventional physicalist, material science, cannot define it or create life, not even a blade of grass.

For example, the ancient seers enshrined the 4 levels of consciousness in the symbol: OM.

Any advanced Yogi can verify their findings through awakening these levels.

But those who can't go beyond the last of these levels experientially, the most superficial, the awaken state of rational level, are unable to verify the others.

They then may mistakenly assume that the deeper states cannot be verified.

JOSEPHUS, I agree with you about this above comments of yours:

'If you are looking for ghosts or spirits in the physical Universe or hearing messages from the dead, you will never see or hear them. They do not exist in the physical, but there is evidence of the unknowable being revealed.'

Yes, and the existence of the spirit testifies for a deeper and even more real substratum of (spiritual) reality than the surface transient physical reality.

Much of it can be communicated through authentic revelations.

New, integral science, sees spiritual reality as the matrix source of physical reality that emerges from and dies back to it.

See the two important books on this for which I gave the references in my last comment above to 'thinkabit'.

Canem Malum: "But perhaps there are things that exist that you can't prove either way- Thinkabit seems to acknowledge this."

But every time I've heard someone make a claim related to such things it has so far always turned out to be ill defined, or logically contradictory, or vacuous (by vacuous I mean that it entails no observable consequence on the real world)

For me, if something can't interact with the real world (ie: it doesn't cause observable change in something so it can't be measured) then it is not of the real world, it has no real existence.

The ONLY thing that so far I know of that at least on first glance appears to raise questions here is consciousness (and by consciousness I mean the stream of thoughts I assume people have- and I can only assume here because I personally can't detect them in others, the only awareness I can truly say that I'm aware of is my own). But on closer examination and deeper reflection even this turns out to be a false lead, because I've no real tangible hard evidence that my stream of thoughts can cause my body to move and do stuff. I struggle to even begin to conceive how I can demonstrate/prove that it is my consciousness that causes my body to do stuff. Indeed, recent investigations into this with brains scans hints that it is the opposite case- people have already "decided" to do stuff before they themselves become aware of their own decision so.

So for me consciousness is a non-real thing (ie: something that can't interact with the real world) that is the emergent phenomena of a very real brain. It's the real world that creates consciousness and not the other way around as some claim. In other words, consciousness doesn't cause any observable change in the real world but instead is caused by it.

-- continued below --