>>42692851
Belief is what you do when you don't have knowledge.

Knowledge only comes from direct personal experience and observation.
It can't be transferred by telling as someone else to have a belief.
They will only be able to know that which they have direct experience with.

Belief is "that which has been as accepted as true".
Belief if a temporary crutch, at best it is only partially correct, more typically it is incomplete and or entirely in error and wrong. By definition it is not knowledge or even based on what is actually known.
In essence it is the result of the decision to quit searching for the truth and to simply make something up instead.

Belief is the cornerstone of all ignorance.
It is unfortunate that those who have beliefs presume themselves to be able to evaluate the truth. They have no real relationship to truth.

>>42693106
amen thats exactly why we fear god

the plan has emerged
starve the demiurge by rooting out the big 3

>>42693106

Based as fuck

I would add nevertheless that knowledge and facts allow you to reach the truth however the real question is to know wether you access a relative or absolute truth. There is a massive difference between the two

>>42693476
Couldn't a relative truth be an absolute truth to that certain individual?

>>42693481

Indeed but then it just creates a paradox. If you would take dozen of people they would just have their own absolute truth without even realizing how they have been affected by their natural tools like language for example.

You saddly never can reach the absolute truth. However to approach it, you must wear off all the bias possible to make yourself converging toward the truth you're looking for

>>42692851
Belief comes from the Anglo root lishe to wish

>>42693476
Yeah I wrote that.

I'm literally experienced beyond the normal human concept of sensory perception.. it's a lot to explain.
For the most part I have no audience.. no persistent presence in the internet. I just occasionally post here anonymously.

There is an objective truth.. but reality is far more complex than the ordinary human concept of it.

Belief however, is not knowledge. At best it is related to pro forma forecasting of potential hypothetical structures but the proof is in perception. Our perception is not delivering reality to our cognitive imagery processing. It requires a lot more experience than most people realize is possible or available.
Out of body consciousness is only a beginning..
Long story though..
Far more than fits in a thread

The truth is stranger than fiction

>>42695500


How do you manage to access the absolute truth thanks to perception ? Book recommandation ?

>>42695526
https://youtu.be/frzmcszbimg

All I can offer is my own experience..
I have seen many things.
I have knowledge that has no recipient.

You can learn from the cultural divide between beings.. but it runs much deeper than the average human will ever seek to find.

I will post more information.. links to books and videos etc.. but context is relevant.

My experience is largely in the realms of cognitive perception. It's not a trivial thing to eliminate from your cognitive imagery the influence of your own beliefs.. it takes time and encounters with what actually does exist.

I posted in the comments.
As you might expect my comment ought to stand out

I gave the creature a descriptive name.. 5dimensional polytendrilite..

I have experience with things such as this.. and many more much closer to our own phases of energetic field presence

I waited years for the public physics to catch up.. and they are very recently looking a the Higgs as a complex structure and not as simple fixed value.. so they are starting to.. but they have theory and I had direct experience. I was not seeking theory for hypothetical discussion.. I was seeking explanation for my own direct personal observations.

>>42695526
Much of my experience is from entirely tangible material reality.. up to and beyond the parameters of our existence in the linear context of the Higgs field.. turns out that consciousness itself is a bosonic field.. and it is pliable in the quantum fields in the manner of laminar flow with symmetrical relationship to the properties of material fluid laminar flow.

I have a lot of experience that requires lengthy explanation

Mk ultra program was a part of my early life
The beings from the stars got to me first though.. so my first fully conscious interaction with them was when I was 3 almost 4..

I sought knowledge through experience and gradually found what I was seeking

More than fits in a thread

Belief is to be avoided..
My testimony only has value to those who are able to verify my observations.
I can describe many things.
Until you have perception of your own my testimony is no different than fiction.

I can point where to look.. and describe what can be found.. but the opportunity to encounter the various beings i have perception of or interactions with can only be experienced by those who have the encounters themselves.. and in matters of cognitive perception much experience comes before it is possible to be oriented coherently to the context and environments.

Reality, correctly perceived, is far stranger than fiction

The tao te ching is a good book for starting from nothing.. with nothing.. which is all you really need. ..except perhaps peace and solitude to enable the opportunity to develop adequate cognitive imagery management abilities

>>42693106
>Knowledge only comes from direct personal experience and observation.
In my worldview, divine knowledge has structure independent of material reality, and our senses can only access an imperfect projection of that divine knowledge. With that, what you’re calling knowledge is actually just a privileged belief. You’re believing the fruit of your search is true because you’ve seen it. In my view, it is prudent to avoid boasting with humility.

I realize this is pedantic, but it’s epistemologically important. We call it the scientific theory for a reason.

I don’t mean to offend, and it’s possible I’ve misinterpreted. I would love to hear more from you.

>>42695709
You can't offend..
You can't even conceive of what I am describing

You see only your own concept of the phenomenon of cognitive perception.. you are not grasping the substance of the concept ..much less the necessary experience itself

You have taken a position contrary to your strawman conceptualization.. but the reality is beyond your grasp

Words are irrelevant
This is not resolved through words

Perception does not require belief
Perception does not automatically grant understanding and comprehension

>>42695759
Well, we communicate through words.

>>42695771
Within the neurological structures of the brain the concept of a word has a tangible substantial composition.

You can literally "remote view" such a concept.. but it is hardly necessary after watching the beings from the stars fish around within your conscious awareness seeking the conceptual structures that it will use to replace your memory with an artificial cognitive imagery construction built of the concepts found within your mind.. turns out the brain has a finite number of word functions posited on the glial cells on the surface of the brain.

The words are not perception.. in the realms of direct cognitive imagery communication these types of neurological structures are primitive by comparison.

There is much more to perception than you will easily communicate through words. No matter how well it is grasped, the recipient hears only what is already known by their own direct observations.. as you cited your own worldview.

In the case of actual learning perception that worldview is destroyed by direct observation. It requires determination to pursue knowledge that destroys what you had thought to be true.

Being able to endure discovery that destroys your preconceived notions is fundamental to discovering actual perception

You don't imagine sight when you open your eyes.. but you have to orient yourself to optical illusion, distance, angle, proportion.. sight alone is not the end of the process.

This is even more true when dealing with perceptual observations of persistent engagement with anomalous presence and obvious tangible beings both physical and immaterial alike

Even seeing into other realms you carry the configuration of your expectations of existent form.. and even the underpinnings of your concept of your own presence can be the foundation of an illusion brought into existence by the expectation itself.

There is much to unlearn in the process of gaining untainted observation

>>42695862
It is necessary to gain observation of the functions of your own perception itself.. essentially turning your consciousness towards viewing the remote viewing observation of the process within your brain to see how the process actually functions.

When you are correctly oriented to the functions of your visual processing you will be tangibly aware that the imagery from each eye is not only projecting in rear of the brain on the opposite side hemisphere.. it is also inverted.

The human perceptions fall short of perceiving reality.. essentially they have to be studied in order to dismiss their input..

There is much more to perceive

>>42692851
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbe3CQamF8k&list=RDhbe3CQamF8k&start_radio=1&pp=ygUUYW5nZWwgbWFzc2l2ZSBhdHRhY2ugBwE%3D

>>42695862
>>42695893
Your belief that words are irrelevant really comes through in your writing. My original post was about epistemology, not subjective esoteric experiences. I’m happy for you, though. Or sorry that happened.

>>42695972
Knowledge exists beyond linguistics

Apparent perception is subject to revision

>>42695709
If you are the only one in the room that has optical vision it is not a bragg to simply assert that "I see".

Where there are multiple people who are able to see then there is usually general agreement over that which is seen.

Where a wrong opinion can be invalidated by observation, it is merited to do so.

If everyone were taught how to see through cognitive imagery perceptions the concept of religion would be very nearly eliminated.

>>42692851
You believe I'm a gnostic.
I happen not to be.
You're wrong.
I'm not.

>>42697109
Whether or not you believe I have beliefs,
I am indifferent to belief and disbelief alike.
By definition belief is not authentic knowledge. Belief is counterfeit knowledge; literally "that which has been accepted as true".

File: 1776259707950790.png (236 KB, 402x396)

236 KB PNG

>>42692851
Automatically encrypted vibrational waves that travels to the other side and back, but only they have the means to crack the encryption code but we do not... they can hear everything we say loud and clear but we can't make any sense of they say back. It's truly a paranormal mystery to us...

>>42696303
Yes, that is my point that you are restating.

>>42697084
>Where there are multiple people who are able to see then there is usually general agreement over that which is seen.
That’s belief in agreement.

>Where a wrong opinion can be invalidated by observation, it is merited to do so.
That’s belief in your capacity to observe.

>If everyone were taught how to see through cognitive imagery perceptions the concept of religion would be very nearly eliminated.
Not possible for humans. Angels traverse the tree of knowledge. From their view, it’s a continuous pattern. From our view, it’s discrete categories warranting names, and we quarrel over categorization — a “thorn in the flesh” Paul might say.

This is my worldview anyway. There’s God as the ground of being, a knowledge structure that’s like a tree of all possible configurations, a spirit that actualizes possibilities (including our mind in an observable universe).

[Note: I’m using religious words and metaphors, but my worldview is non-theistic. I don’t personify god or angels.]

...

>>42697733
Revision.. to view again..
At some point the number of samples of observation creates insights that extend beyond the superficial.. at some point the depths of substance emerges and clarity beyond illusion is available.. not through the surface depths available to optical observation

It is possible to know more than is visually available
It is possible to comprehend what actually does exist.. not through observation.. but through establishment of tangible insight into what exists beyond the physical material and extends into dimensional aspects of variance in space and time.

In my worldview there exists no difference between fermions and bosons.. and there exists no such thing as a particle.

Particles appear to exist in the convergent intersections between fields

Bosons and fermions are the same thing in different spinor value relationship to one another..

The closer to resonance between two fields and the closer the two appear as bosonic from the perspective of the other.

At perfect spinnor resonance the two appear to be the Higgs from the perspective of the other.

Consciousness is a complex bosonic field value closely related to the Higgs

>>42693361
oh

>>42692851
my faith in christianity keeps me from suicide.

>>42701862
That’s a lot of theoretical physics language, perfectly illustrating my point:
>From [angelic] view, it’s a continuous pattern. From our view, it’s discrete categories warranting names, and we quarrel over categorization — a “thorn in the flesh” Paul might say.

There is no bottom in nominalistic science.

>>42704764
For me it wasn't theory. I sought the terminology that described my observations.
Perception is possible.
There is little point to giving the blind authority over the sighted. The presumption of those who lack Perception is that no one has anything that they themselves don't.
It's simply an inadequate assessment.
Simply having sight is beyond their worldview.

The "all so tiring" meme is applicable

>>42701862
https://www.writingtoiq.com/

>>42704839
>I sought the terminology that described my observations.
Yeah, that’s nominalism. In my worldview that is incomplete perception. There exists truth beyond words and human observation. I don’t deny that naming things you observe is useful, but I would call it a belief in something that isn’t true.

There is no way to resolve this disagreement between us. I respect your position, but I disagree.

>>42704843
Your assessment serves as long as there is no way to grant sight to the blind.

They theorists have achieved their current state of development through tangible verification.

Reductio ad absurdum.
Reduction to absurdity is not an actual tenable position. It indicates an abdication of responsibility to coherency.

>>42704843
>>42704846

The theorists.. the physicists.. have used tangible verification; i.e. proverbial sight.. up to the point that they are confounded by the presence and function of the observer.. because they do not yet comprehend what consciousness itself is.

I am literally beyond their limits in this.. and yet they are unable to verify and ascertain the truth.. while you are literally guessing.

But then what exactly is a guess in context of dormant subconscious cognitive perception? Still the dilemma remains; consciousness itself remains unidentified and inexplicable and unrefferenced in contextual orientation.

You are dedicated to your chosen plateau.
At some point the stagnation will become apparent.

>>42704846
>>42704858
My position isn’t absurdity or too limiting, if that’s what you’re trying to say. I believe there is structure and intelligibility, it just isn’t directly observable.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism

Our disagreement can’t be resolved, only argued about endlessly (as philosophers have already done for us).

>>42704933
And there it is.
The blind confessing that they see only blindness.. and yet somehow they presume themselves to be in position of authority to dismiss the report of the sighted.
They decide for themselves alone.

>>42704965
Your ego is noted.

>>42705027
Those who have perception can not renounce their observations.
Those who operate on foundation of intellectual concept are free to renounce imaginary delineations.. no tangible thing hangs in the balance.. other than ego.

..the ego that you now project upon me.
Pristine example of straw man..
..real only in your imagination.

You have shifted the focus away from the substance of the argument.. presumably no longer willing to examine it directly

>>42704933
>"it just isn’t directly observable"

Telling you that it actually is observable, albeit not directly observed through human optical sight, is not related to ego.
You are making an arbitrary declaration that is only true from your own personal experience and perspective.

Imagining you are seeing all that can be seen by other beings is more closely related to ego.

>>42707260
>>42709396
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ego

>>42707260
Is there a true form of something, and if so, is there a way to perceive it with the material senses

>>42709446
nta, but many believe it is possible that reality is informational, spiritual, or immaterial. The person you are replying to seemingly rejects that possibility and makes a solipsistic argument that he can see the absolute truth rather than simply believe in it within his inherently limited mind.

For more on structural realism, which proposes there is an intelligible structure to reality that isn’t directly observable, see >>42704933

>>42709483
I'm not looking for a framework to contemplate, I'm looking for a lived reality

>>42709489
Well then you’re not seeking the truth about an ultimate reality. My position is philosophical because the concrete can’t be known, only believed.

To be clear: I’m not asserting I’m right. I’m just saying the debate is necessary and also can never be resolved. We’re stuck with human cognition as the only epistemological truth, and solipsism (or “knowledge of a lived reality”) is enough for most people.

>>42709504
>Well then you’re not seeking the truth about an ultimate reality
I am.

>>42709517
Well then you have to learn about all possibilities, not just what one “seer” asserts on 4chan.

This is a possibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
(Note: I am not claiming this is true, to be clear.)

That possibility precludes other anon from being right. He can boast all he wants about his ability to see things, but that doesn’t give him any special insight if that possibility were actuality. To prove himself right, he’d need to prove that possibility as wrong.

I seek truth, so I learn about all possibilities, and I don’t assert with certainty that any one of them is true. There’s no way to know.

That is why I appealed to philosophy of science earlier and mentioned structural realism. It is a generic explanation of why the matter remains unresolved. It says science works because WHATEVER ultimate reality looks like has intelligible structure.

>inb4 other anon calls me blind again for keeping my eyes open

Believe whatever you want. I know I’m pedantic and autistic. I’m not claiming special knowledge, unlike other anon.

>>42709543
What's your goal here, on this board specifically, and also in this thread?

>>42709547
Discussing topics I find interesting. I have autism, so larpers often clash with me. I’m open to the paranormal and have an extensive knowledge of theology, so I’m not some science absolutist if that’s what you’re getting at.

I actually feel it is very important to say we do not know ultimate reality because that is integral to my conceptualization of god and spirituality. I simply try to argue from science and philosophy rather than faith, because faith is personal. I’ll discuss faith, but I don’t bring it into debates about the limits of “observable” reality.

In my opinion, it is heretical to say that you know god. And I define spiritual as the immaterial, beyond direct observation yet still intelligible. Paul described his visions in the “third heaven” as being beyond words, and I also agree strongly with that. I believe the “thorn in the flesh” is this very debate we are having to have due to the ambiguity of words and resultant misunderstandings. These are my opinions, and this is not me trying to argue any particular scientific or philosophical position. This section is disconnected from the earlier debate.

>>42709595
I don't think the immaterial is beyond direct observation, I reckon that is the point of contention between the two of us right now.
I've tried seeking deciphering the truth from snippets of revelation in ancient texts, but I'm too lazy to form a complete picture off of that alone.

>>42709610
Well I separate observation and experience. I have spiritual experiences, and I can only talk about them in imperfect metaphors.

This is the Paul verse I referenced, which is about what we are discussing in my opinion: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20corinthians%2012

I study mysticism, too. I am developing a complete picture, but it is still a work in progress. It is based on a lot of Paul’s writing as well as my interpretation of Genesis. So far, it covers cosmogony, angels, demons, dreams, consciousness, creation, death, and apocalypse. It mirrors elements of Kabbalah but in information systems language that is hopefully less esoteric.

You can perceive more than the collective of average humans are currently conspiring to agree upon as complete assessment.
There is much more to discover within the realms of perception, you can literally perceive more of reality in manners that extend beyond the tangible linear context.

When you have discovered that your own presence extends into these subspace realms you will find that we are not alone within them.

It's not a claim of perception of absolute truth.. but there is much more that can be observed than is being acknowledged.

Those who have developed the ability to perceive into this aspect of their own existence can tangibly perceive in unison that they are experiencing a shared observation of this non physical tangible realm.

Look at the universe.
What is currently being called dark matter and dark energy are a percentage of each distant presence we observe. My assertion is that this pertains to the near bodies.. planets and even our own physical bodies.

Our existence extends into tangible quantum fields that we are not yet measuring or acknowledging.

Perception is not illusion.
Optical light observations are subject to many illusions. The concept is beyond optical.

Pointing back at a book claiming that someone else did some perception and someone else did some comprehending.. so you don't have to, can't, aren't allowed to.. is an absurdity.
Dogmatic rhetoric is not knowledge.

Religion is for those who can't think for themselves.
If you were to successfully research the origins you would turn away from following and seek to discover without a blinding crutch as a false guide.

>>42693361
NOOOOOO

>>42709641
Paul is quite literally an agent of one of the most evil empires to ever exist. Ironic that you claim to be autistic with interest in the esoteric, you should probably study church history and the Gnostics first, along with the Persian empire and their influence in monotheistic pre second temple judea. Im telling you that you need to lurk more newfag, any Nicene Christian cosmology falls apart like wet tissue paper under scrutiny. Gnostics are the entry point to any genuine mystical tradition.