a third type of skepticism

#21
Truth is more complex than is epistemological truth, yes. But then again science does not purport to deal with all truth - only incremental prior art and its critical path of development.

Yes, metacriticism is necessary - in science and skepticism that is called now, 1. peer review and 2. stakeholder accountability. As a Buddhist I cannot apply skepticism to Confucianism or monetary policy for instance. That is simply debate of general philosophy and impulse. It is not science.

But social skepticism focuses on 'representing science' and, rather than doing peer review of study results, chooses which subjects are allowed to be studied to begin with - and this constrains that cadre of dark actors to a smaller footprint than you are addressing.

You are talking about philosophical debates, not skepticism. Skepticism is that philosophy which particularly pertains to the exercise of science.
Peer review is expensive in various ways. Who has to pay? We all do. But profit is laid down by policy and policy...well you see the problems? Right to the exercise of science -- which is power manifesting itself through social policy! Granted, lots of reasons to not use science or skepticism -- enter religion.
 
#22
Yes, a set of words for this is very appropriate... have at it!! I love that. When we find that new words are necessary - this is the first hint that one adequately grasps a subject. It is an intelligent critique and critical path development - the key flag of understanding.
I think i mostly set off the wrong flags initially. Its hard to convey positions effeciently unless there is a culture behind it. I know now i ought to name my ideas something else as it runs the risk of being appropriated into the fake news category.
 
#25
The last kind of skepticism has to do with social organization post capitalism. Because like it or not, reincarnation, aliens, after life or not, knowledge is unlimited and its control is the last resource that mankind can use to gain power over others.
Superqualia,
Who are those "others"? I'd like to understand what you are thinking about. Is it about some people gaining power over other people or about mankind gaining power over nonhuman entities? Do you think it is better if somebody controlled that knowledge or would you prefer that nobody controls it?
 
#26
Superqualia,
Who are those "others"? I'd like to understand what you are thinking about. Is it about some people gaining power over other people or about mankind gaining power over nonhuman entities? Do you think it is better if somebody controlled that knowledge or would you prefer that nobody controls it?
The premise behind skeptiko 2.0 is that something does oversee, create and distribute justice. But everyone can see empirically that doesn't happen on earth. No religion understands creation, nor does any philosophy have clear answers.

I don't claim there is no justice, just that we don't understand it. We are awful at it.

We are the others because something else made this world for a purpose that left us out. In new age spirituality, this is our creation. But if a future self made it, or god, or some advanced technocracy -- we are not them.

One NDE'r was asked by the light, "did you get what you wanted?"

But how can you know unless you had some idea of why you are here. Look around.

To answer, i believe in various forms of decentralization. Skeptiko does a great job of doing that by dethroaning priests of science and religion. But that leaves a power vacuum.
 
#27
Thank you, superqualia.

The premise behind skeptiko 2.0 is that something does oversee, create and distribute justice.
Are you, by "Skeptiko 2.0", referring to "The 5 Things You Need to Know About Skeptiko"? I listened into what Alex is explaining but I am not sure whether that is helpful here.

To answer, i believe in various forms of decentralization. Skeptiko does a great job of doing that by dethroaning priests of science and religion. But that leaves a power vacuum.
Are you concerned that the wrong people will try to fill that power vacuum, or are you concerned that whoever created our planet is doing a bad job in controlling us? Is that "third type of skepticism" something you fear or find abhorrent or is it something you desire or hope for?

I am following this thread because I am trying to find out more about the mindset of those individuals who are calling themselves "skeptics", falsely pretending to defend science, but I am somewhat lost. Did you intend to talk about them, too?
 
#28
Thank you, superqualia.



Are you, by "Skeptiko 2.0", referring to "The 5 Things You Need to Know About Skeptiko"? I listened into what Alex is explaining but I am not sure whether that is helpful here.



Are you concerned that the wrong people will try to fill that power vacuum, or are you concerned that whoever created our planet is doing a bad job in controlling us? Is that "third type of skepticism" something you fear or find abhorrent or is it something you desire or hope for?

I am following this thread because I am trying to find out more about the mindset of those individuals who are calling themselves "skeptics", falsely pretending to defend science, but I am somewhat lost. Did you intend to talk about them, too?
My perception is that the early shows were skeptical but now he is a believer. Oversimplied? yes.

No concern over the justice makers / creators etc. I am simply looking for unusually aware people. I am just a guy talking on a forum! :)

Bad skeptics? Like novella and randi?You can't really expect to overthrow a scientific paradigm with stories. Nor with good data. You need to know. To become part of the expected way of things.

If this universe is real, and the pain reminds me it is why do we need to eat living things? Its why i said its a living emulation. Well, one of many reasons. An emulation that feeds on itself! That's not the creation of a perfect being.
 
Last edited:
#29
My perception is that the early shows were skeptical but now he is a believer. Oversimplied? yes.
Now I can see why I am having problems grasping what you are saying. You are familiar with this forum while I am new. So, you know how it changed over time, but I don't.

Maybe this is the reason why I don't understand what you mean by "believer". I know "believers in god", "believers in science", believers in things which can only be discussed in forums for the open-minded, and I know different ways in which people use the term "believer". I know it is often used condescendingly for people who "believe in aliens" or who "believe in the influence of planets on our lives" or who "believe in homeopathy". (As a person who has experienced remote viewing and some other things that officially don't work, I do not use it that way.) And I assume that you do not use it that way either, but how exactly?

I am simply looking for unusually aware people. I am just a guy talking on a forum! :)
:) And you created a forum with an interesting headline.

Bad skeptics? Like novella and randi?You can't really expect to overthrow a scientific paradigm with stories. Nor with good data. You need to know. To become part of the expected way of things.
Which scientific paradigm and which stories are you thinking of? What are these individuals for you? I think that they are following some tactics and that they do not really have something to say.

If this universe is real, and the pain reminds me it is why do we need to eat living things?
Its why i said its a living emulation. Well, one of many reasons. An emulation that feeds on itself! That's not the creation of a perfect being.
Pain and predatory behavior seem to be key ingredients to ruining the experience here on Earth. And maybe to know would be the antidote. Is that what you want to talk about?
 
#30
Now I can see why I am having problems grasping what you are saying. You are familiar with this forum while I am new. So, you know how it changed over time, but I don't.

Maybe this is the reason why I don't understand what you mean by "believer". I know "believers in god", "believers in science", believers in things which can only be discussed in forums for the open-minded, and I know different ways in which people use the term "believer". I know it is often used condescendingly for people who "believe in aliens" or who "believe in the influence of planets on our lives" or who "believe in homeopathy". (As a person who has experienced remote viewing and some other things that officially don't work, I do not use it that way.) And I assume that you do not use it that way either, but how exactly?



:) And you created a forum with an interesting headline.



Which scientific paradigm and which stories are you thinking of? What are these individuals for you? I think that they are following some tactics and that they do not really have something to say.



Pain and predatory behavior seem to be key ingredients to ruining the experience here on Earth. And maybe to know would be the antidote. Is that what you want to talk about?
The materialist skeptics didn't doubt, they believed. Skeptiko believes -- also not doubt.

They have a point of view, a worldview, a point of contention which is held in abeyance. So they all have content. But you mean truth.

What is truth without a purpose? It's the difference between a machine that functions for its master and humankind that claims to understand and implement righteousness.

We have neither capital T truth or purpose. All we have is our home -- ourselves, and that is self-interest, perhaps for lonely eternity. So I mean to critique science, capitalism, democracy, as all are forms of authoritarianism. Not because they are all false but because their are no versions of those 'isms' worth saving. There is no safety if you are infinite. You will never have a perfect centered self but instead will ceaselessly change.

You might think that cannot happen. The world is in quite a mood lately. Science can eat itself. Capitalism can eat itself, and democracy? Well, we never had mob rule thank goodness!
 
#31
The materialist skeptics didn't doubt, they believed. Skeptiko believes -- also not doubt.
I don't know, can't see what it is they believe.

We have neither capital T truth or purpose. All we have is our home -- ourselves, and that is self-interest, perhaps for lonely eternity. So I mean to critique science, capitalism, democracy, as all are forms of authoritarianism. Not because they are all false but because their are no versions of those 'isms' worth saving. There is no safety if you are infinite. You will never have a perfect centered self but instead will ceaselessly change.
That made me think about this question: Do we lose our defense against / get prone to evil the moment we start assuming that this planet has been our ultimate destiny and that we? will end when we die? Is our robustness increased by feeling? - knowing? - assuming? that we are eternal / infinite and just changing our way of being? - form of existence? when our souls leave our bodies? (I put all those question marks there because the meaning of this thought varies strongly depending on the individual's perspective.) Is that what you are thinking about?
 
#32
In reading about skepticism more, I realize that skepticism is a much larger umbrella term than I had realized. The idea that someone could claim to be a skeptic while holding to a particular position was something I thought to be self refuting, as I equated the pyrrhonism school of skepticism as the 'real' thing. How do we differentiate which form of skepticism is genuine, particularly when someones label of being a skeptic comes entailed with various position statements?
Have you ever read W E Bowman's 'Ascent of Rum Doodle"? Aside from it is hilarious, one of his characters, who belongs to the skeptic's society, advises a young skeptic that "the true skeptic always remembers to be skeptical of himself"
 
Last edited:
#33
I don't know, can't see what it is they believe.



That made me think about this question: Do we lose our defense against / get prone to evil the moment we start assuming that this planet has been our ultimate destiny and that we? will end when we die? Is our robustness increased by feeling? - knowing? - assuming? that we are eternal / infinite and just changing our way of being? - form of existence? when our souls leave our bodies? (I put all those question marks there because the meaning of this thought varies strongly depending on the individual's perspective.) Is that what you are thinking about?
How did we get here. What does doubt mean when you believe. One such example needing a sanity check:


Does Alex believe this? I doubt he does. My best guess is that the remote viewers are seeing what Courtney believes. On the other hand, why believe the universe is benevolent when we know by design it isn't?

What is medicine when it tastes like poison?

Dean Radin even once said, 'this is how an advanced civilization would do it' meaning reincarnation into different lives and forgetting our past.

Well, what if I want a single good integrated life? We have to keep trying to grow but other higher powers hold us down because they fear our strength, which means the afterlife is no different than this world. We are in a prison planet, Courtneys' fantasies notwithstanding. Maybe they are real. If we forget, how do we know we consented.

This is a key question to everyone here. How can you consent to what you forgot? What is responsibility without knowledge and foresight?

A key question to ask is how we got here. We can't recall. If there was a before all signs point to being here as being non-consensual in some sense. Love doesn't make it right. Maybe that is the other path but those who cannot be manipulated with love get the courtney treatment.

And contracts, don't get me started on that bullshit. I have enough of that in real life.
 
Last edited:
#34
Hi superqualia and everybody following this thread,

It was surprising for me to re-read my quote put in the context of that Courtney Brown trailer video. I watched it shaking my head. My thought: C.B. himself could be the one caught in the loop.

Superqualia, I hope that I don't unnerve you, it is difficult for me to understand what you need a third kind of skepticism for, assuming

the first kind is a superficial way of thinking, negating everything new and complex which a person is too lazy or unable to deal with mentally because he or she is a scientistic materialist (and whatever else, maybe also malevolent) and

the second kind is a way of thinking and working on ideas and hypotheses to the best of one's knowledge, remaining open to peers or like-minded people. Call it logic, rationality, the original scientific mindset, offering transparency in thinking and exercising intellectual prudence, or maybe someone here has a better way of saying it - trying to avoid intellectual and mental traps .

And avoid the "Death Trap" trap.

While I do not consider myself a great thinker, I am not a skeptic of the first kind, I am not lazy and my mindset is not scientistic.

But that was only the opener, and I don't want to deviate from the questions you are posing.

My best guess is that the remote viewers are seeing what Courtney believes. On the other hand, why believe the universe is benevolent when we know by design it isn't?
If living beings like humans weren't sensitive and vulnerable there would be no point in thinking about or hoping for benevolence.

Currently, I am sitting on a fence post carrying a sign which says: "Is it possible that the conscious universe is in the making and that humans, in the physical shape they have assumed on this planet, are having and executing a task in it? That humans (all humans? part of them?) are, together and individually, working on thinking up a universe that is not harming its most vulnerable creations and bringing that universe into existence?"

Is not pain - be it physical or mental - a very direct and effective feedback mechanism to signal "wrong way here!"? And the desperation which is caused by having pain inflicted on oneself by others, is it not the source of the idea that we are living in "hell", "a malevolent universe", "the age of kali yuga", on "a prison planet"?

Dean Radin even once said, 'this is how an advanced civilization would do it' meaning reincarnation into different lives and forgetting our past.
Like everybody (maybe I am being ignorant here?), remote viewers are tapping in the dark about where we come from and where we go to. But they won't desist from trying to make sense of it all after each new RV session. And that looks different from what people are coming up with who don't do RV but use other means of manipulating their minds or who don't intentionally manipulate their minds or who do not have inner monologues or ... Some remain for themselves, some establish schools of thought (sucking in people who are also looking for an answer to the question what this experience called life could be all about). The trailer, to me, is a display of an attempt to establish a school of thought. Which is, eventually, a trap.

And I find the "forgetting our past" thing not advanced at all. It would amount to turning an interesting game into a boring chore.

Well, what if I want a single good integrated life? We have to keep trying to grow but other higher powers hold us down because they fear our strength, which means the afterlife is no different than this world. We are in a prison planet, Courtneys' fantasies notwithstanding. Maybe they are real. If we forget, how do we know we consented.
When I was younger, about 15 - 20 years old, I was continually experiencing my thinking world as a prison. No liberating thought would come to my mind for years. There was just a big "why?". Why am I performing but not conforming? Why am I not happy?

In the meantime, I have become aware of others asking questions, too which was a big step forward, in my experiencing. At least, I am not in solitary confinement. The difference had been, basically, that I had been brought up brainwashed into thinking that there is no afterlife and that it is a sign of stupidity to think there could be an afterlife. Scientism. Then, I found that the people who had done the brainwashing were good at demanding performance of me but wouldn't deliver themselves. That moment, they lost me. Schism.

This is a key question to everyone here. How can you consent to what you forgot? What is responsibility without knowledge and foresight?
I would say that there is a trick involved. The thought of "consent" (is this a "meme"?) is binding the thinker to the "beforelife", at the same time denying him access. The working mechanism is like in modern "protection of data privacy": You are being assured that your data are "safely stored" while at the same time you are being denied access to these data. (I consider the assertion of data protection and data safety to be a lie. )

My personal answer to the second question is that we are continually working with our latest assumptions on what might be true about the past and future. That is why people are taking evolutionary science (unsurprisingly, much of it is scientism) so seriously and why religion is still an important factor in our lives, whether we are actively practicing religion or are just witnessing it.

I absolutely share your aversion of the idea of "contracts".

The first question is evoking asscociations within me like "looking for omens of the arrival of the heavenly pimp" who is, in irregular intervals, sending his thug squads down to deceive, threaten and mutilate little humans into submission. (This is not to offend anyone, it is solely the fruit of my own grappling with all this.)

Eminem may not the first person to come to mind to quote here but I fondly remember these lines: "It's cool to be the player but it sucks to be the fan."

Who or what is trying to keep others in the role of fans, in order to have more wiggle room as a player? If there is such a force, how good is he/it? I do not think it is invincible. I imagine it is dependent on bionic-like concepts- advantageous principles may be put to use but there are other sources of intelligence around who are putting to use other advantageous principles. And probably in other dimensions, too.

A key question to ask is how we got here. We can't recall. If there was a before all signs point to being here as being non-consensual in some sense. Love doesn't make it right. Maybe that is the other path but those who cannot be manipulated with love get the courtney treatment.
I don't know the answers but I am imagining that part of our development as a species will consist in establishing stronger connections between mental states, realms of existence, getting a better grasp of consciousness (good bye scientismologists or how would one call them? idiot skeptics of the first kind mentioned above), learning to handle our vulnerabilites with regard to an assumed common goal of creating a heaven out of this place that is perceived as hell by some at times.

And contracts, don't get me started on that bullshit. I have enough of that in real life.
I agree. Bullshit. I have been pestered with that, too. This would be the same mechanism as, for example, sex trafficking. Deceiving an inexperienced girl into signing a "contract" that she consents to being "property" while she is full of joy, love, hope, excitement, plans, in other words, unsuspecting. It took me long to understand why some otherwise open-minded people had problems with new agers, but the new age community seems to be a trap in itself.
 
#35
I'd like to add something essential regarding the video.
So, C. B. is convinced of the existence of a "soul recycler system".
This is presupposing a one-to-one relationship between a body and a soul and the soul being dependent on that body.
This sounds like he is proposing that we are playing an "escape game" and that the retrieval of our souls is the prize in this game.
But if a person is convinced that one can capture a soul by capturing a body, what sense does it make to separate body and soul as concepts?
To me, this shows that it makes a difference what a person thinks his or her soul is.
If you think that your soul is weak, you can easily be made to think that you are on a prison planet and you can easily be made to fear death.
If you think that your soul is invincible and that death is one of an indeterminable number of transitions, you can commit acts of defiance.
I will simply keep open the possibility of my soul being invincible. I can't see how anybody would win anything by assuming otherwise.
 
#36
A cursory glance at various new age ideas shows little conscilience if one attempts to be rigorous.

Its not for lack of trying. The task of integrating our numinous experiences with physicalism into an objective point of view isn't allowed or isn't possible.

I don't see knowledge growth within this area, just a ton of contradictions. C.B. has made a few devastatingly wrong predictions. He is being contrarian, which is refreshing, but if its intentional, if his belief led us here...uh oh! No room for truth in this worldview. No hope for answers. Do you see? He is finding what he expects in a world of illusion of his own conjuring! Yet there is No way to know that.


On 3rd type of skepticism: I wasn't serious, but pointing out Alex now was a believer.

What did you mean by scientism demanding performance? The science elite are working towards life extension and human enhancement.
 
#37
A cursory glance at various new age ideas shows little conscilience if one attempts to be rigorous.
That is my impression, too.

Its not for lack of trying. The task of integrating our numinous experiences with physicalism into an objective point of view isn't allowed or isn't possible.
I made a quick detour to https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#SupPhyInt and asked myself, why would I attempt to do that? My working hypothesis: To the extent that a theory is contradictory to the numinous experiences, there may be s. th. wrong with the theory.

I don't see knowledge growth within this area, just a ton of contradictions. C.B. has made a few devastatingly wrong predictions. He is being contrarian, which is refreshing, but if its intentional, if his belief led us here...uh oh! No room for truth in this worldview. No hope for answers. Do you see? He is finding what he expects in a world of illusion of his own conjuring! Yet there is No way to know that.
Yes. Maybe the reason why the Farsight Institute exists is to back up C.B.'s prophecy of doom which is hopefully not self-fulfilling. But as you say, no way to know.

Are we attempting to contribute to a spiritual map of which we know very little? How many dimensions does it have? Who is inhabiting it? What roles do humans play in it? If it has boundaries, where are they? Where are the relevant places on this map? How is building accomplished in that landscape? Inhowfar are fear, imagination and willpower corresponding to the bricks, mortar, infrastructure and construction mishaps in that map?

I feel like many are busily working at the edges of this map, doing things like installing mental safety belts, bridges, methods of exploring the unknown space that we cannot gain access to without our inner experiencing. We are collecting the stories, grading their credibility, evaluating the scouts (In this picture, C.B. would be a scout and our conversation would in part be about judging him not very reliable.), looking out for shady sellers of indulgences and masters of the spiritual universe - never knowing whether we are being conned or being supported.

Some are catapulted into all that by alien encounters or by extended out of body experiences. Others, like me, seem to be slowly grubbing their way through all that, by occasionally doing RV, attempting to remember dreams, doing meditation exercises, reading books written by alleged sages, thinking it all over repeatedly, integrating everyday experiences into it, etc.

But, as I cannot know either, I am proposing a simple consequence: I can only know whether something is true, for now, by getting feedback that is not contradictory to my assumptions. In realms where feedback is unattainable there is no knowing whether something is true. Therefore, in those cases, I will in parallel work on the assumption that I, myself, can (and will attempt to) use imagination and focus to form it. I may get feedback for these attempts later. In parallel, I will, for example, indulge in shirt ironing sessions and patiently wait whether my serial occupations will lead to new insights.

On 3rd type of skepticism: I wasn't serious, but pointing out Alex now was a believer.
Relieving :)

What did you mean by scientism demanding performance? The science elite are working towards life extension and human enhancement.
I was mentioning my upbringing. My family weren't elite. I had been oscillating between a pious and fearful Catholic grandmother and her know-it-all nihilist daughter who told me that there was no god and no heaven, that it was all superstition and that science had finally found out about that, and that my opinion wasn't welcome because my grades were below good or excellent but who found another reason to not listen to me when they were. There had been a long period of time (starting when I was 9 or 10) in which I had attempted to find the genius in her because initially I didn't doubt that the dressing-down she had given me was built on the fact that she was a lot cleverer than I was and that I would have to apply myself very hard to be worthy of talking at her table. Later, I understood that there was no genius, that the dressing-down formed a case for systemic therapy, and that she was simply exhibiting a widespread pattern: She was fancying herself as a member of an imaginary science-backed elite.

My dirty fantasy: Working towards life extension will eventually result in the worst oppressors living the longest. The dictators of this world won't have to resign before they are 120 or so, and "wel'll see" how that will change the dynamics of it all. This is entwined with other propensities like trying to prevent death in normal people by extending life functions of the terminally ill in nursing homes and by fighting an increasing tendency to suicide among young people that I expect to happen in the future while most people are busy with "climate change", closing their eyes to the fact (at least I consider this as a given) that human life has long become a commodity.

On the other hand, I guess, there are far more than just 100 monkeys watching in this theater now, following this play as it unfolds, and some of them will at least try to intervene.
 
#38
But, as I cannot know either, I am proposing a simple consequence: I can only know whether something is true, for now, by getting feedback that is not contradictory to my assumptions. In realms where feedback is unattainable there is no knowing whether something is true. Therefore, in those cases, I will in parallel work on the assumption that I, myself, can (and will attempt to) use imagination and focus to form it. I may get feedback for these attempts later. In parallel, I will, for example, indulge in shirt ironing sessions and patiently wait whether my serial occupations will lead to new insights.
It's hard to falsify without an objective or goal at hand. Seeking confirmation will create a lot of false positives for you. If you believe you are being stalked, every weird noise, every phone call, etc is evidence you are right.
Yes, Its hard to convey humor through text in an intellectual way but it wasn't meant seriously but just commentary on how lost we all are and that's fine if you know you are lost. Some people don't know they are lost.

I was mentioning my upbringing. My family weren't elite. I had been oscillating between a pious and fearful Catholic grandmother and her know-it-all nihilist daughter who told me that there was no god and no heaven, that it was all superstition and that science had finally found out about that, and that my opinion wasn't welcome because my grades were below good or excellent but who found another reason to not listen to me when they were. There had been a long period of time (starting when I was 9 or 10) in which I had attempted to find the genius in her because initially I didn't doubt that the dressing-down she had given me was built on the fact that she was a lot cleverer than I was and that I would have to apply myself very hard to be worthy of talking at her table. Later, I understood that there was no genius, that the dressing-down formed a case for systemic therapy, and that she was simply exhibiting a widespread pattern: She was fancying herself as a member of an imaginary science-backed elite.
That makes sense now. My grades were pretty average too, though I did get into MENSA! And oh wow did that help me, as did my psychology degree. Everyone said: WOW! Hire this guy after graduation.

Truth is, careers are not that different than dating once you meet certain basic requirements. Which is super bizarre given how rational businesses pretend to be.

Your mom (I assume, could be wrong) reminds me of my reverence towards scientific authority as a teen atheist. I eventually learned there are some basic unsolved problems that science pretends to know but cannot know. They then cover it up by pretending philosophy doesn't exist. And there are soooo many other problems too. One example, ignoring the ethics for a moment, is the Stanford prison experiment. Scientists as a community can be quite gullible and naïve too. Science requires a lot of trust in authority to work at all.

Also, I should add there is no community of science. Dawkins, Dennett, and other household names that defend Darwinism / materialism are just silly to me now. For me, my alternative spirituality is just trying to figure out what is going on.

Until we have some explanations (not just data) that contradict basic assumptions, the biological robot idea will live on, and on. They simply won't let go of the paradigm. My guess is we will still call the future science natural and physical. The difference is we will include our subjectivity more and more.
 
Top