Alan Watts: This Is IT: Become What You Are

[A Stoned Buddha]

I don't know man. Are we not the universe? Did humanity come from a different place than the rest of the universe? If not, does that not mean that the universe is also made of why's, and that the universe also makes it's own "meaning"? In the exact same way that the apple tree apples, the universe peoples. It's turtles all the way down, man.
[/quote]
We are a part of the universe.
Some things are uniquely human.
Does the planet Jupiter like the taste of stawberries?
Whether strawberries taste good is a human concept and beyond that a personal concept. (and also of birds, bugs etc)
As a general rule we can say "Human's like strawberries" as supporting evidence I'd point to the fresh fruit (no pun intended) section.
Do birds and bugs ponder the meaning of life?
Maybe. I doubt it.

What brings meaning to our life ('ie' makes us feel good about ourselves) is likewise an invention of our species.
And in the sense that we come from the universe it is "connected" to the entire universe.
Certainly discovering clearly what is "inside" us leads to understandings of what is "outside".
It's probably fascinating to study. I'm sure we'd find a lot of things like a recent article I read that showed that receiving awards publicly leads to a longer life span. And the worst scenario is to be nominated for awards and lose BTW. I'm sure that one could make the case that the importance of honor in the "tribe" has been a very useful concept to the species because the criteria for assigning honor generally benefits the tribe overall. As in "great hunter" , "great warrior", "great doctor" whatever. So the tribes that had a strong affinity for this did better than the tribes that didn't and their genes likewise did better in the grand lottery of existence.
So here we are. The universe has chosen. And the choice has become a part of who and what we are.
[/quote]
Again and again, I marvel at what a difference in perspectives make. Because really, I find myself not disagreeing with any of what you said. I just see it from a different angle. Does Jupiter taste like strawberries? I wouldn't think so, but I still can't say for certain either way. Do strawberries taste good only to humans? Well again, I just don't know. But the birds that eat them out of my garden don't eat just anything. They seem very particular to my strawberries instead of my grass. I'm thinking there may be a blurry difference between the world outside our heads and the one inside where we stage the play "Me". Much of what you've said rings a lot of truth to the inner drama mind. But, I feel less certain about the outer "mind." Yes, in many ways, ideas like awards and accomplishments are figments of the human imagination for sole purpose of giving us rank or meaning within ourselves and to others. This "meaning" is a complete construct of human minds and there are countless others. But is the "meaning" of warmth and light from the sun a figment of my imagination? What about other plants and animals that exhibit the same behavior I do? Are they my imagination too? Life is a strong force of nature and the mystery is interesting. A quote from Watts (though I believe he may have been quoting someone else) to wrap this up. "The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced." Later on.

[Hominid]

Whatever floats your boat I guess! Just because it can't be proven/disproven by science, doesn't make it any less real. You *may* be dismissing things that science will eventually discover; remember, science is constantly unveiling truth and to be so negatively dismissive of something you haven't experienced or understand doesn't make it any less real.

I didn't mean to sound demeaning. I used an extreme example to illustrate the point which I believe is valid.
If I was in my kitchen and for some reason I decided to "use the force" and make a pencil move across the table and it did, I'd have a "HOLY SHIT" moment. And I would suspect that I was onto something.
If I couldn't do it again it would quickly be a lot less "HOLY SHIT". And if I could not find any reliable evidence of others who could move it then I would simply have to assume that I did not in fact move the pencil and it moved for some other reason.
Experience does mean something but only when it's supported by some type of corroborating evidence.

Okay, thanks for that.

Yes, corroborating evidence is vital to confirm the truth of a claim. But not having it doesn't discredit a past experience, in the same way a memory of having lunch a week ago doesn't have confirming corroborating evidence.

I'm not sure where the telekinesis thing came from; I'm not purporting that me (or anyone) can move things with their mind. That's for Star Wars fans. I'm thinking more of the telepathy/distance viewing phenomena where lots of people have seemingly been able to "see" images of things in another room, or in another country. I agree the evidence is inconsistent, but it happens often enough to pique lots of interest.

Additionally, science is always learning new things - each step up we take, the horizon expands. Who knows what we'll discover next!

[BikerDude]

Does Jupiter taste like strawberries? I wouldn't think so, but I still can't say for certain either way.

Yeah you can. Again it's a matter of starting on a firm foundation. Based on everything that we know Jupiter does not have a sense of taste. And I am 99.9999 to near infinity percent confident that that is the case.
The suggestion falls in the category of absurd. And the fact that the absolutely absurd cannot be "proven" untrue to a 100% probablilty but only a 99.99 to infinity -.0000infinity1 does not mean that we are duty bound to give it a place at the table of serious discussion. We can say that it is absurd.

Do strawberries taste good only to humans? Well again, I just don't know.

I'd say no they also taste good to birds. And if I wasn't sure I could scatter some on the lawn and watch them eat them. And if they did I could say with a strong probability that they do.

Certain things fall in the catagory of "Absurd" and others fall in the category of probable and there is a shifting scale.
But the point is that there are REASONS why things appear where they do on that scale.
You just can't suggest with a straight face that Jupiter has a sense of taste and intends to devour the earth to get our strawberries. If you rub yourself down with Jam and run through the streets naked yelling about it we can with certainty put you into the lollipop factory.

And if a person did then I'd welcome anyone to call that person nuts. I suppose a gentler term could be used but if we started finding that the madness was spreading and there were cults of "strawberry jam end of the worlder's" I'd urge people to publicly impune them as lunatics that deserve to be treated with universal derision. When Jupiter showed up to claim it's stawberries then I guess I'd learn my lesson. But I'd move forward confident that I would not end up eating crow on this.

[Hominid]

Check out "Is The Universe Alive?'

THROUGH THE WORMHOLE : As scientists peer across the galaxy, a new revelation emerges: The universe is shockingly organic. Are the secrets to the life and death of the universe hidden not in physics, but biology? Could it be that the universe is alive?

It's alive, it's alive! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LKtiR3Y3SE

An interesting postulate... that the universe is a living biological entity.  Interesting video. A lota strands for the old duder's head...

[BikerDude]

Biker Dude is right about a lot of this, if not all, IMDO. Any time someone invokes subatomic physics to explain "unexplainable" phenomena on the macro level you can be pretty sure it's wrong. To go in the other direction (macrophysics to human experience) one might as well say that the relativistic nature of human cultures is due to the theory of relativity.

The observer effect, the uncertainty principle, quantum entanglement - these have all been used to aggrandize the importance of human psychology in relation to physics but always requires a massive leap and some sort of X-factor to connect them. And that X factor is so enormously large that it's no less deus ex machina than deus himself. For instance, there's this idea that human creativity begins on the subatomic level and sort of "percolates" up. This is a nice idea, linking our egos to the fabric of the universe. But it's just an idea. Same with the idea that we can influence subatomic actions with our minds - it's a total misreading of what the observer effect is all about. And reams and reams of lousy books from the Tao of Physics to the Dancing Wu Li Masters have run roughshod over the fucking rules of discourse in order to sell their books.

Thanks for that ForumDude.
I find it amazing how this has taken over the discussions from people like "Deep Pack" et al.
The interesting thing is how consistently the style is.
Without exception they make the leap without even attempting to build at least a couple stairs.
They lead up to it with poetic claims that leave the listener eager to believe and then once properly fluffed they plunge headlong over the falls. They then spend the rest of the time piling on scientific sounding arguments.
The consistency of the approach makes it difficult to treat any of them as less than con artists.

[Zen Dog]

Check out "Is The Universe Alive?'

THROUGH THE WORMHOLE : As scientists peer across the galaxy, a new revelation emerges: The universe is shockingly organic. Are the secrets to the life and death of the universe hidden not in physics, but biology? Could it be that the universe is alive?

It's alive, it's alive! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LKtiR3Y3SE

Well I hope He's a dude.

[Hominid]

Check out "Is The Universe Alive?'

THROUGH THE WORMHOLE : As scientists peer across the galaxy, a new revelation emerges: The universe is shockingly organic. Are the secrets to the life and death of the universe hidden not in physics, but biology? Could it be that the universe is alive?

It's alive, it's alive! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LKtiR3Y3SE

Well I hope He's a dude.

...takin' er easy for all us sinners...

[A Stoned Buddha]

Does Jupiter taste like strawberries? I wouldn't think so, but I still can't say for certain either way.

Yeah you can. Again it's a matter of starting on a firm foundation. Based on everything that we know Jupiter does not have a sense of taste. And I am 99.9999 to near infinity percent confident that that is the case.
The suggestion falls in the category of absurd. And the fact that the absolutely absurd cannot be "proven" untrue to a 100% probablilty but only a 99.99 to infinity -.0000infinity1 does not mean that we are duty bound to give it a place at the table of serious discussion. We can say that it is absurd.

Do strawberries taste good only to humans? Well again, I just don't know.

I'd say no they also taste good to birds. And if I wasn't sure I could scatter some on the lawn and watch them eat them. And if they did I could say with a strong probability that they do.

Certain things fall in the catagory of "Absurd" and others fall in the category of probable and there is a shifting scale.
But the point is that there are REASONS why things appear where they do on that scale.
You just can't suggest with a straight face that Jupiter has a sense of taste and intends to devour the earth to get our strawberries. If you rub yourself down with Jam and run through the streets naked yelling about it we can with certainty put you into the lollipop factory.

And if a person did then I'd welcome anyone to call that person nuts. I suppose a gentler term could be used but if we started finding that the madness was spreading and there were cults of "strawberry jam end of the worlder's" I'd urge people to publicly impune them as lunatics that deserve to be treated with universal derision. When Jupiter showed up to claim it's stawberries then I guess I'd learn my lesson. But I'd move forward confident that I would not end up eating crow on this.

All true. Nothing here I would argue against. I did read it earlier as "Does Jupiter taste like strawberries?" instead of "Does Jupiter like strawberries?" and since as far as we know planets lack a central nervous system, "like" or "dislike" are irrelevant questions in regards to planets. I guess what it boils down to is, I just see a problem with people making definitive statements about which there is no definite knowledge. It may be almost certain or really, really close, but in the end it's still not a completely closed case. Where you draw the line in the sand of "this is absurd" and "this is probable" is your own perception. Which of course, has been formed through many past generations, across many different people and culminated in the experience that you call "Me". I agree, there is seemingly much in common in the perception we share and it certainly helps streamline human interaction, but I feel it's intellectually dishonest to call it absolute fact. Answers have always changed, even when the questions remained the same. The foundation you consider "firm," is ultimately so, because you insist that it is.

[BikerDude]

Does Jupiter taste like strawberries? I wouldn't think so, but I still can't say for certain either way.

Yeah you can. Again it's a matter of starting on a firm foundation. Based on everything that we know Jupiter does not have a sense of taste. And I am 99.9999 to near infinity percent confident that that is the case.
The suggestion falls in the category of absurd. And the fact that the absolutely absurd cannot be "proven" untrue to a 100% probablilty but only a 99.99 to infinity -.0000infinity1 does not mean that we are duty bound to give it a place at the table of serious discussion. We can say that it is absurd.

Do strawberries taste good only to humans? Well again, I just don't know.

I'd say no they also taste good to birds. And if I wasn't sure I could scatter some on the lawn and watch them eat them. And if they did I could say with a strong probability that they do.

Certain things fall in the catagory of "Absurd" and others fall in the category of probable and there is a shifting scale.
But the point is that there are REASONS why things appear where they do on that scale.
You just can't suggest with a straight face that Jupiter has a sense of taste and intends to devour the earth to get our strawberries. If you rub yourself down with Jam and run through the streets naked yelling about it we can with certainty put you into the lollipop factory.

And if a person did then I'd welcome anyone to call that person nuts. I suppose a gentler term could be used but if we started finding that the madness was spreading and there were cults of "strawberry jam end of the worlder's" I'd urge people to publicly impune them as lunatics that deserve to be treated with universal derision. When Jupiter showed up to claim it's stawberries then I guess I'd learn my lesson. But I'd move forward confident that I would not end up eating crow on this.

All true. Nothing here I would argue against. I did read it earlier as "Does Jupiter taste like strawberries?" instead of "Does Jupiter like strawberries?" and since as far as we know planets lack a central nervous system, "like" or "dislike" are irrelevant questions in regards to planets. I guess what it boils down to is, I just see a problem with people making definitive statements about which there is no definite knowledge. It may be almost certain or really, really close, but in the end it's still not a completely closed case. Where you draw the line in the sand of "this is absurd" and "this is probable" is your own perception. Which of course, has been formed through many past generations, across many different people and culminated in the experience that you call "Me". I agree, there is seemingly much in common in the perception we share and it certainly helps streamline human interaction, but I feel it's intellectually dishonest to call it absolute fact. Answers have always changed, even when the questions remained the same. The foundation you consider "firm," is ultimately so, because you insist that it is.

The only place that "firm is what you insist on is in discourse where we ALLOW insisting to be enough.
That is precisely what I have been complaining about. It is not enough to say that mental telepathy is real without supporting information. Yes a person can hinge their argument entirely upon experiential and anecdotal evidence while admitting that there is no reliable (and yes reliable is a real thing that comes from following good scientific principles) evidence. But that argument would not be a good one and as such it would be open to a tsunami of valid criticism. Absurd and probable are not simply opinion as long as people don't make them so. This is the value of science.
To entertain the absurd without supporting info is just silly and to defend it is just being unreasonable and difficult.

[A Stoned Buddha]

Does Jupiter taste like strawberries? I wouldn't think so, but I still can't say for certain either way.

Yeah you can. Again it's a matter of starting on a firm foundation. Based on everything that we know Jupiter does not have a sense of taste. And I am 99.9999 to near infinity percent confident that that is the case.
The suggestion falls in the category of absurd. And the fact that the absolutely absurd cannot be "proven" untrue to a 100% probablilty but only a 99.99 to infinity -.0000infinity1 does not mean that we are duty bound to give it a place at the table of serious discussion. We can say that it is absurd.

Do strawberries taste good only to humans? Well again, I just don't know.

I'd say no they also taste good to birds. And if I wasn't sure I could scatter some on the lawn and watch them eat them. And if they did I could say with a strong probability that they do.

Certain things fall in the catagory of "Absurd" and others fall in the category of probable and there is a shifting scale.
But the point is that there are REASONS why things appear where they do on that scale.
You just can't suggest with a straight face that Jupiter has a sense of taste and intends to devour the earth to get our strawberries. If you rub yourself down with Jam and run through the streets naked yelling about it we can with certainty put you into the lollipop factory.

And if a person did then I'd welcome anyone to call that person nuts. I suppose a gentler term could be used but if we started finding that the madness was spreading and there were cults of "strawberry jam end of the worlder's" I'd urge people to publicly impune them as lunatics that deserve to be treated with universal derision. When Jupiter showed up to claim it's stawberries then I guess I'd learn my lesson. But I'd move forward confident that I would not end up eating crow on this.

All true. Nothing here I would argue against. I did read it earlier as "Does Jupiter taste like strawberries?" instead of "Does Jupiter like strawberries?" and since as far as we know planets lack a central nervous system, "like" or "dislike" are irrelevant questions in regards to planets. I guess what it boils down to is, I just see a problem with people making definitive statements about which there is no definite knowledge. It may be almost certain or really, really close, but in the end it's still not a completely closed case. Where you draw the line in the sand of "this is absurd" and "this is probable" is your own perception. Which of course, has been formed through many past generations, across many different people and culminated in the experience that you call "Me". I agree, there is seemingly much in common in the perception we share and it certainly helps streamline human interaction, but I feel it's intellectually dishonest to call it absolute fact. Answers have always changed, even when the questions remained the same. The foundation you consider "firm," is ultimately so, because you insist that it is.

The only place that "firm is what you insist on is in discourse where we ALLOW insisting to be enough.
That is precisely what I have been complaining about. It is not enough to say that mental telepathy is real without supporting information. Yes a person can hinge their argument entirely upon experiential and anecdotal evidence while admitting that there is no reliable (and yes reliable is a real thing that comes from following good scientific principles) evidence. But that argument would not be a good one and as such it would be open to a tsunami of valid criticism. Absurd and probable are not simply opinion as long as people don't make them so. This is the value of science.
To entertain the absurd without supporting info is just silly and to defend it is just being unreasonable and difficult.

To be sure. Now, I'm not advocating for these seemingly bizarre statements on telepathy or whatever. I am content to sit with my "show me the fucking money Lebowski" attitude and I am ever the skeptic. But, to me it seems, you are holding no value in the absurd. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me it seems to be the picture you're painting here. Yes, I 100% completely agree it is not enough to say shit is real without supporting evidence. On the other hand, I don't believe that absence of proof is proof of absence. Would my little brain come up a flying machine? No, but someone else did and then proved it. Antibiotics? Nope, but someone else did and then proved it. 300 years ago, their ideas would have been considered absurd and they possibly could have been accused of witchcraft and burned by "reasonable" people, but now we celebrate those ideas. I guess, I'm not being clear on the point I was trying to make, which is this. The human story is not yet finished unfolding and I think it's one thing to see something we consider silly, chuckle about it and move on, but I think it is another thing to shut someone down and tell them they are being stupid and slam the door shut on their light. But, oh well, round and round we go. Good chatting with you dude. Take it easy, man.

[BikerDude]

Does Jupiter taste like strawberries? I wouldn't think so, but I still can't say for certain either way.

Yeah you can. Again it's a matter of starting on a firm foundation. Based on everything that we know Jupiter does not have a sense of taste. And I am 99.9999 to near infinity percent confident that that is the case.
The suggestion falls in the category of absurd. And the fact that the absolutely absurd cannot be "proven" untrue to a 100% probablilty but only a 99.99 to infinity -.0000infinity1 does not mean that we are duty bound to give it a place at the table of serious discussion. We can say that it is absurd.

Do strawberries taste good only to humans? Well again, I just don't know.

I'd say no they also taste good to birds. And if I wasn't sure I could scatter some on the lawn and watch them eat them. And if they did I could say with a strong probability that they do.

Certain things fall in the catagory of "Absurd" and others fall in the category of probable and there is a shifting scale.
But the point is that there are REASONS why things appear where they do on that scale.
You just can't suggest with a straight face that Jupiter has a sense of taste and intends to devour the earth to get our strawberries. If you rub yourself down with Jam and run through the streets naked yelling about it we can with certainty put you into the lollipop factory.

And if a person did then I'd welcome anyone to call that person nuts. I suppose a gentler term could be used but if we started finding that the madness was spreading and there were cults of "strawberry jam end of the worlder's" I'd urge people to publicly impune them as lunatics that deserve to be treated with universal derision. When Jupiter showed up to claim it's stawberries then I guess I'd learn my lesson. But I'd move forward confident that I would not end up eating crow on this.

All true. Nothing here I would argue against. I did read it earlier as "Does Jupiter taste like strawberries?" instead of "Does Jupiter like strawberries?" and since as far as we know planets lack a central nervous system, "like" or "dislike" are irrelevant questions in regards to planets. I guess what it boils down to is, I just see a problem with people making definitive statements about which there is no definite knowledge. It may be almost certain or really, really close, but in the end it's still not a completely closed case. Where you draw the line in the sand of "this is absurd" and "this is probable" is your own perception. Which of course, has been formed through many past generations, across many different people and culminated in the experience that you call "Me". I agree, there is seemingly much in common in the perception we share and it certainly helps streamline human interaction, but I feel it's intellectually dishonest to call it absolute fact. Answers have always changed, even when the questions remained the same. The foundation you consider "firm," is ultimately so, because you insist that it is.

The only place that "firm is what you insist on is in discourse where we ALLOW insisting to be enough.
That is precisely what I have been complaining about. It is not enough to say that mental telepathy is real without supporting information. Yes a person can hinge their argument entirely upon experiential and anecdotal evidence while admitting that there is no reliable (and yes reliable is a real thing that comes from following good scientific principles) evidence. But that argument would not be a good one and as such it would be open to a tsunami of valid criticism. Absurd and probable are not simply opinion as long as people don't make them so. This is the value of science.
To entertain the absurd without supporting info is just silly and to defend it is just being unreasonable and difficult.

To be sure. Now, I'm not advocating for these seemingly bizarre statements on telepathy or whatever. I am content to sit with my "show me the fucking money Lebowski" attitude and I am ever the skeptic. But, to me it seems, you are holding no value in the absurd. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me it seems to be the picture you're painting here. Yes, I 100% completely agree it is not enough to say shit is real without supporting evidence. On the other hand, I don't believe that absence of proof is proof of absence. Would my little brain come up a flying machine? No, but someone else did and then proved it. Antibiotics? Nope, but someone else did and then proved it. 300 years ago, their ideas would have been considered absurd and they possibly could have been accused of witchcraft and burned by "reasonable" people, but now we celebrate those ideas. I guess, I'm not being clear on the point I was trying to make, which is this. The human story is not yet finished unfolding and I think it's one thing to see something we consider silly, chuckle about it and move on, but I think it is another thing to shut someone down and tell them they are being stupid and slam the door shut on their light. But, oh well, round and round we go. Good chatting with you dude. Take it easy, man.

I don't care. I can work on a proof of infinity here.

But the concept of a flying machine is a amalgamation of completely rational ideas.
We can look at birds and see that they can fly. We can wonder if a contraption could be created that would likewise fly.
The idea of a flying machine is not in any way irrational or absurd. Once you know about microbes it's not irrational to suppose that there may be something that kills them. Not absurd.
However for instance the idea of "cognitive intention" (I'm gonna call it prayer from now on)
It is surrounded by evidence to the contrary. I guarantee that most people here if honest would admit that they do not get everything that they pray for. So immediately the experiential evidence as well as anecdotal evidence is cloudy at best. (and that's being generous). And in fact we have many studies that have found in fact consistently that it has no effect. So taking all that into account, as a rational person I'd have to place the concept of the effect of prayer as being highly unlikely, very nearly absurd. (well ok fully absurd to the n'th degree for me)  THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS OPINION. It is reason.
There is a real difference. This is how we live in a world where certain ideas have merit and others don't.
I makes any meaningful discussion and progress possible.
The degree of likelyhood is open to opinion but if people are really honest it won't vary by a whole lot.
Additional information can change things. For instance if someone insists "All my prayers come true". If I had developed a reasonably high regard for someone's reliability and intellect that might give me half a second of pause.

But I haven't even tackled the brass tacks basic question of "What precisely are we talking about?" I assume that we mean that our wishes are somehow transferred to a god. This is never explained exactly. So now I'm required to believe that my thoughts are somehow bla bla you can see where this is going to go.

In the end when it comes to any meaningful dialog about things like this it becomes abundently evident  that it always comes down to the same thing. SOMEONE WANTING TO BELIEVE AND DENYING WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT BELIEF. Crawling around the internet latching onto whatever crackpot nonsense they can enlist.
I would always do whatever is in my power to crucify that. With extreme prejudice.
Belief in prayer is not a harmless thing that may or may not provide comfort to some.
It is akin to burning ants with a magnifying glass (that IS opinion).  And beyond that it's pathetic.
I don't care if that makes me sound mean.
The idea that an ill defined (IMHO make believe God) has a plan for us, and when bad things happen they have a reason. It is a sick and torturous agenda that makes misfortune all the more horrible and offers as a salve self delusion. It at best damns people to be the walking dead.
That is opinion.
Don't like it? Fuck off.
Death to mind pollution!
We are legion.!We are coming for your deities!

[A Stoned Buddha]

Does Jupiter taste like strawberries? I wouldn't think so, but I still can't say for certain either way.

Yeah you can. Again it's a matter of starting on a firm foundation. Based on everything that we know Jupiter does not have a sense of taste. And I am 99.9999 to near infinity percent confident that that is the case.
The suggestion falls in the category of absurd. And the fact that the absolutely absurd cannot be "proven" untrue to a 100% probablilty but only a 99.99 to infinity -.0000infinity1 does not mean that we are duty bound to give it a place at the table of serious discussion. We can say that it is absurd.

Do strawberries taste good only to humans? Well again, I just don't know.

I'd say no they also taste good to birds. And if I wasn't sure I could scatter some on the lawn and watch them eat them. And if they did I could say with a strong probability that they do.

Certain things fall in the catagory of "Absurd" and others fall in the category of probable and there is a shifting scale.
But the point is that there are REASONS why things appear where they do on that scale.
You just can't suggest with a straight face that Jupiter has a sense of taste and intends to devour the earth to get our strawberries. If you rub yourself down with Jam and run through the streets naked yelling about it we can with certainty put you into the lollipop factory.

And if a person did then I'd welcome anyone to call that person nuts. I suppose a gentler term could be used but if we started finding that the madness was spreading and there were cults of "strawberry jam end of the worlder's" I'd urge people to publicly impune them as lunatics that deserve to be treated with universal derision. When Jupiter showed up to claim it's stawberries then I guess I'd learn my lesson. But I'd move forward confident that I would not end up eating crow on this.

All true. Nothing here I would argue against. I did read it earlier as "Does Jupiter taste like strawberries?" instead of "Does Jupiter like strawberries?" and since as far as we know planets lack a central nervous system, "like" or "dislike" are irrelevant questions in regards to planets. I guess what it boils down to is, I just see a problem with people making definitive statements about which there is no definite knowledge. It may be almost certain or really, really close, but in the end it's still not a completely closed case. Where you draw the line in the sand of "this is absurd" and "this is probable" is your own perception. Which of course, has been formed through many past generations, across many different people and culminated in the experience that you call "Me". I agree, there is seemingly much in common in the perception we share and it certainly helps streamline human interaction, but I feel it's intellectually dishonest to call it absolute fact. Answers have always changed, even when the questions remained the same. The foundation you consider "firm," is ultimately so, because you insist that it is.

The only place that "firm is what you insist on is in discourse where we ALLOW insisting to be enough.
That is precisely what I have been complaining about. It is not enough to say that mental telepathy is real without supporting information. Yes a person can hinge their argument entirely upon experiential and anecdotal evidence while admitting that there is no reliable (and yes reliable is a real thing that comes from following good scientific principles) evidence. But that argument would not be a good one and as such it would be open to a tsunami of valid criticism. Absurd and probable are not simply opinion as long as people don't make them so. This is the value of science.
To entertain the absurd without supporting info is just silly and to defend it is just being unreasonable and difficult.

To be sure. Now, I'm not advocating for these seemingly bizarre statements on telepathy or whatever. I am content to sit with my "show me the fucking money Lebowski" attitude and I am ever the skeptic. But, to me it seems, you are holding no value in the absurd. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me it seems to be the picture you're painting here. Yes, I 100% completely agree it is not enough to say shit is real without supporting evidence. On the other hand, I don't believe that absence of proof is proof of absence. Would my little brain come up a flying machine? No, but someone else did and then proved it. Antibiotics? Nope, but someone else did and then proved it. 300 years ago, their ideas would have been considered absurd and they possibly could have been accused of witchcraft and burned by "reasonable" people, but now we celebrate those ideas. I guess, I'm not being clear on the point I was trying to make, which is this. The human story is not yet finished unfolding and I think it's one thing to see something we consider silly, chuckle about it and move on, but I think it is another thing to shut someone down and tell them they are being stupid and slam the door shut on their light. But, oh well, round and round we go. Good chatting with you dude. Take it easy, man.

I don't care. I can work on a proof of infinity here.

But the concept of a flying machine is a amalgamation of completely rational ideas.
We can look at birds and see that they can fly. We can wonder if a contraption could be created that would likewise fly.
The idea of a flying machine is not in any way irrational or absurd. Once you know about microbes it's not irrational to suppose that there may be something that kills them. Not absurd.
However for instance the idea of "cognitive intention" (I'm gonna call it prayer from now on)
It is surrounded by evidence to the contrary. I guarantee that most people here if honest would admit that they do not get everything that they pray for. So immediately the experiential evidence as well as anecdotal evidence is cloudy at best. (and that's being generous). And in fact we have many studies that have found in fact consistently that it has no effect. So taking all that into account, as a rational person I'd have to place the concept of the effect of prayer as being highly unlikely, very nearly absurd. (well ok fully absurd to the n'th degree for me)  THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS OPINION. It is reason.
There is a real difference. This is how we live in a world where certain ideas have merit and others don't.
I makes any meaningful discussion and progress possible.
The degree of likelyhood is open to opinion but if people are really honest it won't vary by a whole lot.
Additional information can change things. For instance if someone insists "All my prayers come true". If I had developed a reasonably high regard for someone's reliability and intellect that might give me half a second of pause.

But I haven't even tackled the brass tacks basic question of "What precisely are we talking about?" I assume that we mean that our wishes are somehow transferred to a god. This is never explained exactly. So now I'm required to believe that my thoughts are somehow bla bla you can see where this is going to go.

In the end when it comes to any meaningful dialog about things like this it becomes abundently evident  that it always comes down to the same thing. SOMEONE WANTING TO BELIEVE AND DENYING WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT BELIEF. Crawling around the internet latching onto whatever crackpot nonsense they can enlist.
I would always do whatever is in my power to crucify that. With extreme prejudice.
Belief in prayer is not a harmless thing that may or may not provide comfort to some.
It is akin to burning ants with a magnifying glass (that IS opinion).  And beyond that it's pathetic.
I don't care if that makes me sound mean.
The idea that an ill defined (IMHO make believe God) has a plan for us, and when bad things happen they have a reason. It is a sick and torturous agenda that makes misfortune all the more horrible and offers as a salve self delusion. It at best damns people to be the walking dead.
That is opinion.
Don't like it? Fuck off.
Death to mind pollution!
We are legion.!We are coming for your deities!

Yeah. That sounds really exhausting. I'm not a believer in the big sky daddy either, I just humbly believe in giving others some space and compassion. You are certainly entitled to your aggression though, if that is what you feel you need. T'would be a boring rock we're on if we all felt the same way.

[Hominid]

Don't like it? Fuck off

Put away the piece man, they're callin' the cops!

[milnie]

Your all aware of ocums razor (apologies for the spelling) and I subscribe to that philosophy. But abstract thought opens up doors to new realities. We went from the first powered flight to landing on the moon in 60 years dudes. Let the dreamers dream

[forumdude]

I think one of the problems is that we don't have the vocabulary to talk about abstract concepts like emergent phenomena and mystical experiences and the like so we too often end up resorting to the parlance of science and rhetoric that applies to the realm of objects and things you can point to or touch or record. This ends up causing a lot of miscommunication and people stepping over the line when it comes to applying the appropriate jargon. And even the stuff that is agreed upon I sometimes find a bit off putting. Every mystical tradition seems to support the idea of non-dualism, for instance, the idea that "all is one." I have no idea what that sentence means. It seems like the ultimate cop out. Of course we're all interconnected, but in complex ways and not in a mushy lovey dovey sense. We're also interconnected in parasitic and opportunistic ways. I don't think mysticism should be all about positive vibes and personal power, but more about taking the good with the bad and expanding our frame of reference.

What the fuck am I blathering about? I need more coffee.