PsiPog.net

View topic - The Pineal Gland

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Modern Sciences » The Pineal Gland

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

The Pineal Gland

Author

Message

Posted on Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:05 am

Theorist

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 315

shh....dun laugh..... wikipedia.....

but then i asked my sch teacher for confirmation on credibility

Posted on Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:53 pm

Niushirra

Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 299

I heard somewhere that lizards use it to see things above them. And they do. It's a primitive eye that sees light or no light. That's all it is. When lizards got more advanced it caved back in our brain and became useless. It's a fucking nothing.

Posted on Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:21 pm

Theorist

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 315

can u deny that spritual organs exist? how bout chakras?

Posted on Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:57 pm

Roy

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 416

Theorist wrote:

can u deny that spritual organs exist? how bout chakras?

The burden of proof is on those who claim they exist, such as stunning intellects like yourself. Sure, skeptics can deny they exist. That's very easy. Look, I'll do it right now.

I deny the existence of spiritual organs and chakras.

Very simple, indeed. However, it is fallacious to conclude, just because their existence hasn't been proven, that they do not exist, and surely no scientist/researcher will say that they're 100% sure that they don't. This is not because they believe chakras may exist, but because they're smart enough to understand that absolute certainties are far and few between.

The proof required here is that which shows that they do, in fact, exist, and without such proof, it's safe to assume that they don't.

Posted on Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:14 pm

Theorist

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 315

so u are trying to sae that this is neither black or white?

or rather....u are confirming that this settles into the grey regions?

Posted on Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:40 pm

Tankdown

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 688

Theorist wrote:

so u are trying to sae that this is neither black or white?

or rather....u are confirming that this settles into the grey regions?

I say its could be all the above

Posted on Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:50 pm

Roy

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 416

Theorist wrote:

so u are trying to sae that this is neither black or white?

or rather....u are confirming that this settles into the grey regions?

I am saying exactly what I just said. I'll paraphrase for clarity.

1) The burden of proof is on those who believe spiritual organs exist. It is their task to prove they exist. Skeptics do not have the task of proving that they don't.

2) Virtually no scientist will say that they're 100% certain spiritual organs don't exist because it would be fallacious to do so. If something has not yet been proven to exist, it is an error to conclude, with absolute certainty, that it doesn't. However, these scientists will still assume with 99.9% certainty that spiritual organs do not exist because there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Trying to frame this as a black/white/gray thing is oversimplifying it.

Posted on Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:53 pm

Tankdown

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 688

Roy wrote:

Trying to frame this as a black/white/gray thing is oversimplifying it.

Sadly to say I think some people need that exactly....

Posted on Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:47 am

Theorist

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 315

so it IS grey then......there is no yes or no......

this thread shuld therefore be locked.....since there would be no conclusion..... not 100% sure u sae, as long as its not 100% sure, its not sure. meaning, its grey

Posted on Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:57 pm

Roy

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 416

Theorist wrote:

Once again, it's not that simple. You cannot frame this in a black/white/gray thing simply because there is no proof. I'm sure to you this would be all white because you believe in them, without objective proof. To a scientist, this would be all black because they don't believe in them without objective proof. Anyone else who really doesn't care would probably be in the gray area.

Does this get us closer to figuring out whether spiritual organs exist or not? Nope. Does this framework do anything useful besides spin my conclusion as weak justification for your belief? Nope.

Posted on Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:33 pm

sgtpsion

Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 425

*sigh* Not this again.... I'll just say what I said in another thread (Roy'll know which one I mean...)

sgtpsion wrote:

*sigh*

Everyone, relax. As has been said before, the concept of Chakras is belief. Nothing more, nothing less.

However, there is pretty much universal consensus regarding the location of the so-called "energy centres". This makes it easier to describe certain visualizations. Which is easier to say (and type):

"move that psi-ball up to your third eye" or
"move that psi-ball up to your forehead, approximately an inch above the point between the eyebrows"?

I'd say the former. Just about everyone knows the location of the "chakras". So, IMO, the only semi-scientific use of the chakras is as location terms. Kind of like a psionic shorthand.

But the main purpose of this post is to say "Calm the crap down!"

Also, I agree with Theorist that this thread should be locked down. It's just going to explode into another flame-war, and it also has a lot of religious talk.

Posted on Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:15 pm

Tankdown

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 688

Unless we can all act mature enough, its always fun to discuss things.

Posted on Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:05 pm

Niushirra

Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 299

The pineal gland has a function which totally blows your fucked up spiritual organ hypothesis out of the water. Any other spiritual organs could exist but why haven't we found them yet? Scientifically speaking.

Posted on Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:56 pm

sgtpsion

Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 425

First, what's this function you're talking about? Just for curiosity's sake.

Second, you seem to be assuming that the so-called "spiritual organs" are physical parts of the corporeal body. Chances are, if you believe in chakras, energy centres, spiritual organs, call them what you will, then you also believe in bodies other than the physical flesh-and-blood one. These bodies would, in theory, have very different organs than our physical ones have. Some of these spiritual organs might overlap some physical ones, and that's what we're trying to determine.

Don't dismiss the possibility of some things too soon.

Scientifically speaking, we probably haven't found spiritual organs and other such things because no big-name, well-accredited scientists are willing to place their lucrative careers on the line for this research. And out of those who have, they're probably keeping their research secret until they have utterly irrefutable evidence that convinces the world beyond a shadow of a doubt that these things exist. If there's any doubt left after all the evidence is put forward, it's very likely that these scientists would lose their credibility, just by the controversiality of the topic at hand.

I like your skepticism, Niushirra. You bring up some very good points. But we all need to keep both sides in mind. If someone intensely argues that they exist, I try to argue that they don't. If someone intensely argues that they don't, I'll try to argue that they do.

Posted on Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:41 pm

Tankdown

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 688

interesting....I think that they don't, but they do exist in some other form. Smile

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Modern Sciences » The Pineal Gland

You must agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to view this website. Click here to contact the webmaster.