RESPONDENT No. 30: In the light of what is going on: What is your idea of conducting a sensible dialogue? Please feel free to send your thoughts.

Because the issues involved are intricate.

RESPONDENT No. 59: I have been passively taking advantage of your inputs to this mailing list, thank you for writing, and I see it fit to now finally share a bit.

When it comes to talking/ thinking about several things that don’t emotionally threaten ‘me’ I am able to conduct (or generate) a sensible dialogue. But when interests – hidden agendas – are at stake, I become so very cunning; and being sensible, as in proceeding from good sense or judgment, is the last thing on my mind… which is all the better for ‘me’ and also the reason why I keep pulling myself back into the ‘real world’. I know that I am being cunning when I want or expect things to unfold in a certain manner that benefits ‘me’ in any way; and most of the time, if not all, excludes others.

Your idea of a sensible dialogue is essentially the same as mine, which from time to time is much more than just an idea, but if I haven’t been able to be sensible enough with myself – lacking the capacity and the desire to be so when ‘I’ am challenged- I know that it is less likely to happen with another.

I have caught myself justifying and excusing some of my silly behaviours lately – even after more than a year of doing what I can with actualism. During this time I have fortunately dismantled many layers of the identity only to come upon thinner and subtler ones. So I have yet to be completely honest with myself, and other people, but I do appreciate when others have similar grounding and can tell me straightforwardly what is actually going on inside their skull; this ensures my best attempt towards a sensible dialogue. However, I also appreciate other dialogues that are non too sensible as they tend to bring out the worst in me.

Being sensible has turned out to be a very dangerous enterprise for ‘me’, and contrary to what I believed when I first started practicing actualism – that because I am young it would be easier to arrive at a Virtual or Actual Freedom – I have struggled seemingly more than others because of an apparent lack of experience in the ‘real world’ and just a shocking dose of the cynicism in it. Before I came upon actualism I was like a mess swept under the carpet, next few months after that the carpet had been lifted and I was just a mess, now I have a handle on the broom.

On another note, I had my first – without a doubt – PCE last week; but I became so overwhelmed by the experience that it turned into an ASC seconds after… I hesitate to give a practical description, since it lasted but a few short moments and was quickly replaced by something terribly impractical, although I can say it was a life-changing event. I also no longer have to rely on the memory of long time passed PCEs – which also became clearer.

RESPONDENT No. 56: It can be very, very daunting trying to make sense of what is going on when experts argue! Let’s wait 300 years and see what happens :-)

RESPONDENT No. 27: I understand that you are stating just how difficult it can be for a layperson to make an informed judgement on controversial matters, but then I’m not quite sure why you are opting to argue that the majority of scientists are correct about the big-bang – you are apparently not content to wait at all. Rather, you have taken an proactive stance – attempting to prove Richard either wrong or gullible.

The best I can tell is that you are making an educated guess or estimation on who is correct based upon what is normally well-placed confidence in the ‘majority’ of scientists.

RESPONDENT No. 56: I opt for the majority because of the sheer number of intelligent and inquiring minds working in tandem. The diversity of outlook and individual cognitive styles creates a good environment for a theory to be thoroughly tested and critiqued. I was being a bit loose when talking about waiting. Since all theories are provisional you would have to wait forever for a question to be settled with certainty. Certainty can never be guaranteed. The best we can do is create good theory that explains and predicts observational evidence.

RESPONDENT No. 27: If certainty can never be guaranteed – then why are you so confidently arguing that Richard is wrong about the big-bang? As I understand it, you are not just arguing that there are mountains of evidence against an infinite/eternal universe (collected by intelligent and inquiring minds working in tandem) – but that they prove that Richard is wrong.

RESPONDENT No. 56: By the way, why do you place scare quotes around ‘majority’?

RESPONDENT No. 27: The reason I put the scare quotes around ‘majority’ is because I was alluding to the fallacy of using the ‘majority’ opinion as evidence for it being the ‘right’ one. Being the ‘majority’ may give you cause to take a claim seriously, but it cannot be counted as evidence for the claim.

RESPONDENT No. 56: Richard takes on the task of being scientific critic but proceeds from positions based on misunderstanding. In addition to that he will not allow himself to be corrected. If he were able to he may be able to come from a stronger position later on. I have no problem with scientific criticism (one of the best is ‘The End of Science’ by John Horgan) but I do have a problem when it’s done badly and/or in bad faith.

RESPONDENT No. 27: Would you mind ‘for the record’ stating exactly (clearly and precisely) what positions Richard has taken based upon misunderstanding? Also pointing out where ‘he will not allow himself to be corrected?’ There are only two issues I recall right now:

1. Your disagreement with Richard over whether there is such a thing as ‘objectively falling’ or whether Relativity’s take on this is correct.
2. Your claims that Richard is wrong about the infinite and eternal nature of the universe because the majority of scientists think otherwise.

Add to that your statement that certainty is unreachable, and I wonder just why you continue to argue against someone who says they are certain about the nature of the universe from a PCE?

I certainly don’t see where you have actually demonstrated your claims – which means that your additional claim that Richard will not allow himself to be corrected is without warrant. To add to this, I have personally seen a few instances where Richard has allowed himself to be corrected – as he readily admits to being capable of making errors.

You have also issued your ‘3K challenge’ – but to issue a challenge that has yet to be answered is far from demonstrating your own case. To come back with (paraphrased) ‘You won’t address the 3K challenge because you cannot’ – is simply posturing and taunting – no substance.

*

RESPONDENT No. 27: Ok – to boil it down ... I can only guess that for Richard – the immediate experience of the infinitude of the universe is so convincing that counter-proposals like Prof Wright’s for the early formation of super clusters (when space was supposedly more condensed) don’t even merit a second look – since he starts with the evidence of the PCE. So, that extra datum of experience gives the confidence to endorse the statement that ‘the existence of super clusters make the big-bang look silly.’ [my paraphrase] From where you and I sit (not in a PCE) his confidence in going against the ‘majority of scientists’ can look silly – but it is entirely possible that we merely lack the data the PCE gives for the infinity / eternity of the universe.

RESPONDENT No. 56: Yes I can accept that the PCE may indeed give us some extra-scientific mode of knowledge, however, I would expect the various modes of knowledge to converge. It appears that PCE evidence diverges (according to Richard but, very interestingly, NOT according to No. 60). Basically it all really boils down to where you place your faith because certainty will elude us until ‘all is revealed’.

RESPONDENT No. 27: How about the possibility of not ‘placing faith’ at all?

*

RESPONDENT No. 27: Anyway, my point is basically this – there is no point in trying to argue one way or the other (on this list) based upon evidence that doesn’t take the PCE into account – since what is actually in question is what the PCE supposedly reveals.

RESPONDENT No. 56: There is no point in arguing one way or the other. The universe will be what it is and we will always have questions about it. Maybe a PCE will put all questions aside but I think it’s important to know that Richard comes to conclusions that are very different to mainstream science and that Richard’s scientific expertise is lacking.

RESPONDENT No. 27: Yes, his statements are very different from mainstream science. He is a layperson, but he is not ignorant of science at all and how it works. He never claimed to be a scientist – and doesn’t need to so far as I can tell – to state his case.

*

RESPONDENT No. 27: So, I suppose it boils down to whether one wants to experience whatever the evidence of the PCE is for oneself. As I see it, your only viable moves at this point are:

1. Dismiss the PCE and agree with the majority of scientists, but know that you won’t convince Richard or those willing to take into account the PCE.
2. Suspend judgement and pursue the PCE yourself.
3. Suspend judgement and forget about actualism.

For now anyway, I’ll take #2.

RESPONDENT No. 56: I take note of No. 60’s option (4): Experience one or more PCEs and still be unconvinced that experiencing the absence of conceptual/ emotional/ psychic boundaries is equivalent to directly experiencing the infinite extent and duration of the actual universe.

RESPONDENT No. 27: In light of the fact that No. 60 has only had a few run-ins with what may turn out later to not have been PCEs at all, and that Richard says has lived the PCE for the past some 12 years or so – it’s surprising to me that in this case anyway, you are taking the neophyte’s word for it over the expert. I’m not suggesting you take Richard’s word for it – only pointing out that you may be missing something by ‘accepting’ someone’s judgment which may be fallible. If you were to go with the ‘majority’ in this case – Richard, Peter, and Vineeto would win hands down 3 to 1 – or if you want to count up their years of experience with PCEs 20 to 1 or so. Only answer to this I can see personally is to throw out trust and faith – period. 30.1.2004

Actualism Homepage