DISCLAIMER: I’m not going to read any comments. That is all. It is your choice to read this.
HighExistence, ever since it started posting about drugs, the war on drugs, the benefit of drugs, etc, has drawn a large crowd of radical thinkers. Radical thinking, by its very nature, is progressive thinking. For although not every radical thinker is useful, since they are all testing the waters, eventually a small few of them change a paradigm. So we need radical thinkers.
However, there is a problem that comes about with radical thinking – and it is related to the sensation of knowing things others don’t know. It is the sensation of being part of something that is ‘better’ than where everyone else is, based on what you know. For instance, people feel better if they have studied a lot of History, and just entered a history class. They feel better if they have done a lot of art and entered an art class.
Here, however, we have a phenomenon that is actually very, very old – the sensation of being smarter and better than the conventional thinkers, because they know a lot of radical thinkers, and have studied a lot of ‘fringe science’ – the stuff that never makes the headlines, and always seems to be held back by conspiracies.
There are many reasons to be a radical thinker, and there are many traps in which you’d be wary to become one.
One of them is the absorption in the ego (the idea that you are better than any conventional person, for you know a lot about Tesla, Egyptian Energy Sources, The Illuminati, etc).
Another is fear, most conspiracy theories are direct consequences of a realization you don’t REALLY have control over your life – someone else does.
Another is a blurry line between fact and fiction. Once absorbed in the realm of fringe science – it seems many people can’t distinguish what is genuinely impossible and what is genuinely possible.
The absolute largest, worst, and saddening fact of all fringe science believers (Those who believe in free energy, Boiling water with your voice, one harmonic making you happy, another making you upset, radio-waves controlling you, Tesla and the Egyptians knowing basically everything there is to know, etc) is that none of them can actually explain the phenomena they believe in.
None of them can succinctly explain, in detail, how it is that these things actually work.
And if they do, do you know how they will try? By the very thing they attempt to bash and discredit; Conventional science.
Since this post is in response to “440 v 432 Hz” lets use it as an example:
How would anyone know what frequency is actually being played? Conventional Science.
How would you actually measure if people feel better or worse on these vibrations, with an attempt to avoid placebo? Conventional science.
How can the man avoid the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, by boiling water with his voice?
If you do the math, you will find the energy required to boil a cup of water. Now do the math with the available energy in someone’s breath.
Although conventional science prohibits this man’s invention from working, he is going to use it to explain the phenomenon (and fail).
I don’t expect anyone who believes in fringe science to read this and actually think about it. You’re above that, because I’m a conventional “science” person who is full of himself. I’m dull and lifeless, unable to grasp things that are outside of the bounds of science. I know nothing when it really comes down to it.
But perhaps I can save someone from going down that shitty path.
If you want to be a radical thinker, do the following.
1. If you’re interested in something, at least know enough to understand it.
Why does it occur? Can you explain it? Can conventional science explain it or debunk it? If it can’t do either, GOOD! Dig deeper!
2. Are all your fringe-science findings being held back by a conspiracy? Usually, in these cases, the easier answer is correct ; it just doesn’t exist/isn’t possible.
3. Do your beliefs instill fear in your, or others? Might be time to analyze!
4. Do you find you have a dislike for conventional science? Can you explain exactly why that is?
@ijesuschrist, I know you’re gonna read this even if you don’t respond. Nice post.
I agree with most of it. I’m not gonna get into the details of what I don’t agree with. Waste of time.
However, I support conventional science, when used appropriately. It is a mere tool for observing phenomena objectively. The problem gets into when people use it as a replacement for their own critical thinking/observational skills. It is treated as a dogma and a religion by many people in our culture, rather than just one of an infinite number of filters to see the world. That’s what I have a problem with, people giving up control over their own minds to an external source of abstract information. It’s necessary to be able to switch between filters, instead of mistaking your one lens as the absolute reality, which I think is what you were getting at.
All of these different beliefs have a lot of relative truths to them. I used to be very judgmental of people with merely “mainstream” beliefs, but now I am less so. Because I realize that their point of view is RELATIVELY true. And any other point of view can be at best just as relatively true. But no viewpoint can encapsulate the full truth. That’s where pure observation and awareness come in (which is true science), untainted by belief.
People can treat “alternative” science in the same exact way, so it’s no better.
Good post. Some of your points remind me of the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. If you haven’t already, it’s a good read.
One of the only things I really know, is that I don’t know and can’t know everything. So I tend to believe that anything is possible in a sense, just outside my understanding and comprehension. It does lead me to some pretty out there topics :) That and my fascination with everything. I guess it could be said that I’m a little gullible because I never dismiss any possibility. I just don’t want to constrict myself to any one body of information or perception, and regard it as fact, when everything is relative.
Yeah take that uneducated swines. Get your shit together, we are ‘enlightened’ for fucks sake.
Completely agree, Jon. I used to be the exact opposite. I used to be a huge conspiracy theorist, but that was largely due to the fact that I was smoking weed every day and doing nothing with my life and believed that I’m better off not trying because the system was “rigged” against me.
I am sure yes… science has a very, very hard time dealing with consciousness and after decades of studying the mind we still have no idea where something as simple as a thought actually occurs.
@gimmesomesalt – that sounds like a very physical explanation of consciousness, what about the effect that our consciousness has on the behaviour of external particles, this, from what I can gather is utterly unexplained. in the quantum realm consciousness reeks havoc!
Also, morality can’t be explained by science, some people attempt to explain why we feel something is right or wrong, cultural influences etc.. However science cannot ever definitively say whether something is right or wrong/ good or bad. This is something that exists outside of scientific/mathematical logic.
I love science guys!! But I think the idea that it explains, or even can explain everything is extremely ignorant and detrimental to science itself. If science teaches us anything it as that we know nothing for certain, it seems to me that modern science, in its pursuit of all things physical, seems to have forgotten that.
@samueljohngibbs, I am inclined to agree with you on that. I wasn’t saying that how conventional science explains consciousness is necessarily correct, you just said science can’t explain consciousness. Semantics..I know.
The problem is, like you said, that interpretations of quantum mechanics suggest that there is a non-local basis for consciousness, beyond matter but not separate from matter. But quantum physics is still not entirely understood by physicists themselves, let alone laypeople.
I won’t get into morality, it’s too hard of a question to tackle. But I think science is our best fit model of Universal Law, it is a language of symbols and patterns which best describes the objective universe. It has succeeded in giving us accurate information about the perceived world, and fundamentally altered the course of humanity as a whole and shapes the world we inhabit.
But science is never complete, there is always more to learn. I always keep that in the back of my head. Yes, we can never truly KNOW, we can better describe and create things, but we’ll never have all of the answers.
what is your explanation of consciousness then?
‘the effect that our consciousness has on the behaviour of external particles’ example? i personaly never saw such thing.
‘morality can’t be explained by science’ maybe it can but you dont understand that explanation http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html
‘the idea that it explains, or even can explain everything is extremely ignorant and detrimental’ it will always have better then yours xd
@bono95zg – I couldn’t explain conciousness.
Example – particles behave differently when they are being watched. google “double slit experiment” – here is the link to it via the high existence website ; https://www.highexistence.com/this-will-mindfuck-you-the-double-slit-experiment/
Cool video, TED is great! It doesn’t show science as being able to define what is right and wrong though. I don’t think science has ever made a claim to be able to do that.
Finally your last paragraph… “it will always have better than yours”… what? I don’t follow you?
if you cant explain it dont talk about it like you know more then other people.
camera doesnt have conciousness.
science maybe cant say what is right or wrong but it can explain why people think so.
but maybe science is being able to define whats right or wrong. http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
and science will always have better explanation of world/existence/life then you will ever have with your spirituality/religion/whatever.
Whether or not someone can explain something doesn’t mean it’s 100% correct. UnlESS 2+2=4
I always failed science because I got high instead of studying definitions…
All I know is science cannot disprove anything since anything is possible.
Yes, you can make peanut butter become Nutella.
The issue with conventional science is that it is a measurement for unconventional things. Every rational theory was at some point irrational. Now conventional science should always be a measuring stick for all things unconventional, but that doesn’t mean it’s bound by it. All the great truths this universe has to offer are not conventional ones or we would already have grasped them. It’s a slippery slope for sure, teetering in the edge of reality and reason, but I feel like that is where I’m the most drawn to. It’s of no interest to me exploring where many people have before.