I haven't spent a lot of time in my life pondering the deeper meaning of woo-woo, but the word has come up on this blog recently, so I might as well dive into the murky woo-woo waters. Let's begin with a Google AI definition.
Today regular commenter Appreciative Reader, who isn't a fan of woo-woo (to put it mildly), left this response to a mention of "true woo" by another commenter.
"true woo"
No such thing, Umami. Such of "it" as is true, isn't woo at all, and needs no dodgy defense employing dodgy means by dodgy woo-peddlers. And such of "it" as is true, is ultimately validated by science (witness the core of Buddhism vis-a-vis the core of Christianity).
Sorry, that was going to town beating down a stray throw-away comment, but I believe that's an important point, one completely apposite to what this place is about, and you I believe are one of the few people remaining with whom discussing this won't be a complete waste of one's time.
Science isn't necessarily about materialism. It is about empiricism and rationality. It is just that materialism is what it has yielded so far: so it is reasonable, so far, to subscribe to materialism. There is no reason why real ghosts (whence the actual woo-woo music that gives us that cool descriptor), should they really exist, should not be fully amenable to study via the methods of empiricism and rationality, aka science.
Woo is woo, all fake. It is what charlatans peddle, and gullible fools fall for.
I think Appreciative Reader makes a strong case here. One of my favorite putdowns of unfounded supernatural assertions is that they lack demonstrable evidence.
Sometimes I wonder whether that word "demonstrable" is needed. Wouldn't "evidence" be enough? No, is the conclusion I keep returning to. The reason is that there's plenty of evidence in favor of God, angels, heaven, miracles, and such. But that evidence is always hidden away within the minds of people who believe in supernatural entities and events.
Books abound about the supernatural. Web sites abound about the supernatural. Personal experiential accounts abound about the supernatural. Problem is, there's no demonstrable evidence about the supernatural, evidence that can be assessed, inspected, and critiqued by other people.
So it's entirely appropriate to call all claims about supernatural stuff to be woo-woo.
Though believers in God and realms of reality beyond the physical may dislike that term, I encourage them to substitute "lacking demonstrable evidence" or "unproven scientifically" for "woo-woo" in their own minds if the word bothers them.
As Appreciative Reader correctly pointed out, science isn't inherently materialistic. Rather, it is inherently based on demonstrable evidence.
If some supernatural phenomenon was accompanied by demonstrable evidence (for example, God proclaiming "let there be two moons," and suddenly there is another copy of the moon orbiting earth with predictable tidal effects), it would fall within the domain of science.
Meaning, science would need to expand its boundaries to embrace the now-proven supernatural phenomenon — which wouldn't be woo-woo, but a new fact about reality.
Now, I understand the reasonable argument that asking for physical evidence of a supernatural entity is like a fish living in the ocean depths asking for evidence be presented to it of dry land. It just isn't possible. I've made that argument myself in my religious-believing days.
It's a decent argument, for it might be the case that some people are able to experience a supernatural side of reality that most people are closed off from. They could have a vision of God, or whatever, and tell others about that vision, yet be unable to present any demonstrable evidence of the vision.
Dreams are like this. We can have a memorable dream, describe it to a friend, and have to trust that they believe we're accurately describing our nighttime experience. Similarly, there could be supernatural phenomena experienced by some people that have to be taken on faith by others.
Which would put the phenomena in the category of woo-woo, because there is no way to distinguish between a private experience of an actual objective reality, and a private experience of a fantasized subjective reality.
Once woo-woo is transformed into fact through the alchemy of demonstrable evidence, it stops being woo-woo and starts being a scientific truth. This is why all woo-woo is based on faith. If woo-woo is based on demonstrable evidence, it no longer is woo-woo.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hehe 😄
It’s fascinating to me to see how easily a litany of mistruths & projection wrapped up in storm of incoherent, irrational & circular thinking can be believed by folks who sincerely believe they are either pursuing the truth or being rational in any way!
I guess the writing’s on the wall when the real emotional truth of the discussion is hidden behind the self-protecting lie “Though believers in God and realms of reality beyond the physical may dislike that term, I encourage them to substitute “lacking demonstrable evidence” or “unproven scientifically” for “woo-woo” in their own minds if the word bothers them.”, when responding to someone who so very obviously took great JOY & DELIGHT in the term!! The projection is off the charts!! 🤭
Dogmatic religious like belief, like Brian’s version of atheism, scientism and reductive materialism, is a real intelligence, integrity and coherency destroyer, it leads one into these really quite juvenile spaces of confused, incoherent, un-factual & circular thinking he demonstrates here.
Every single one of the, let’s be honest, profoundly simple, basic and one-dimensional (read, high school level) arguments Brian makes here I have over the past 20 years here systematically, comprehensively and unequivocally dismantled. The retorts to that have either been a) Silence (Brian’s go to when faced with arguments he simply has no answer for), or b) wildly circular, irrational, incoherent, dogmatic & ideological thinking (AR’s go to when the limits of his rationality is clearly delineated).
So let’s have a very quick synopsis of that vast body of arguments and evidence I’ve already brushed this juvenile nonsense away with!:
1) “One of my favorite putdowns of unfounded supernatural assertions is that they lack demonstrable evidence. ”
One of your “favorite putdowns” is just plain wrong, then.
Here’s an overwhelming body of evidence for a whole range of phenomena that the materialist dogmatists label “woo”. This is but a fraction of the total body of evidence:
https://www.deanradin.com/recommended-references
Brian’s argument for the past 25 odd years has essentially been “if I stick my head in the sand and can’t see it, it doesn’t exist. And I’m not removing my head from the sand, I’ll like the suffocating atmosphere down here”!
I mean this literally, I have posted links to DOZENS of bodies of overwhelming evidence over 2 decades here. Brian has not engaged with any of them, ONCE.
AR tried to, but rapidly descended into the ultra bizarre and surreal……he refused to engage with that overwhelming body of evidence, and dismissed it all out of hand without even looking at it simply because I refused to sit down and hold his hand and read and write 6 million words whilst he went through it. Ie., because I didn’t do the work for/with him, the evidence didn’t exist. Absolutely bat shit crazy stuff, perhaps only matched by his pathetic “you made up a shaman and ayahuasca experience in the rainforest” episode (which spiralled ever further into absurdity when I offered up a mass of evidence to the contrary 🙂
I’ve paid my dues, I’ve sacrificed my life to this game, and I’ve spent thousands of hours researching all these phenomena,
I’m not here to hold children’s hands whilst they go pee. I’ve showed you where toilet is, you’re a big boy now AR, go pee yourself if you have a genuine interest.
Ahh, there’s that word again; genuine. Perhaps the most important word.
Never mind AR, never mind.
2) There is literally, factually and objectively speaking precisely ZERO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that either consciousness or love exist.
ZERO (despite all their incoherent faith based devotion to promissory materialism: https://www.geocities.ws/sepety/self_12.htm)
Brian and his acolytes would have you believe, therefore, that love and consciousness are woo. Okay, you take your test tubes, I’ll take my consciousness and love.
Caveat Emptor.
3) “Meaning, science would need to expand its boundaries to embrace the now-proven supernatural phenomenon — which wouldn’t be woo-woo, but a new fact about reality. ”
Brian and cohorts live in a strange world where, until and unless science has “proven” something without remainder, it must be labelled “woo” and dismissed as worthless, but presumably in the moment it is “proven” it becomes a “reality” and worthy of our consideration.
These are the same folks who think they are dealing with reality as opposed to imprisoned in a smoke & mirrors world of concepts completely divorced and detached from both being and reality.
4) It’s a bit beneath me at this point to repeat the obvious for the six millionth time, but science and the scientific method is an intellectual and conceptual tool to help make sense of the world. It is not reality itself and it is obviously dualistic and conceptual. Reality, consciousness, being, god and other assorted woo may well be (read, are) beyond such duality, both conceptual and ontological. By definition, they are beyond science, rationality, concepts, language, the subject-object dichotomy.
The trajectory of science and scientific philosophy from Kant to it’s culmination in Popper and Kuhn has already powerfully demonstrated these inherent limitations of the scientific method.
Brian and cohorts simply haven’t managed to grasp the full scope of scientific history and philosophy, and think that repeating this very, very, VERY simple, basic, one-dimensional, easily understood (and subjectively banal and implicitly nihilistic) idea that consciousness is “just” an accidental product of matter and the brain specifically ACTUALLY explains anything or is ANY way proven or not simply an object of religious-like dogmatic belief, when it so very obviously is.
5) “This is why all woo-woo is based on faith. If woo-woo is based on demonstrable evidence, it no longer is woo-woo.”
Here’s OBJECTIVE FACTS:
Demonstrable evidence for “woo”:
https://www.deanradin.com/recommended-references
Demonstrable evidence that the brain generates consciousness:
(DEAFENING SILENCE)
Yes, despite these facts being as plain as day, they will continue to avoid facing the copious evidence for woo, and, if they are even half alert, have full unquestioning FAITH that science will one day…..one day…. explain consciousness. Or, if as is more likely and evidenced by all their posts for decades, they are completely delusional, they believe science has already done so!!
Delulu I tell you, delulu!
I have posted links to a wide variety of bodies of evidence for “woo” here over the decades, but this really is a great link and cannot be overestimated. So here it is again:
https://www.deanradin.com/recommended-references
On this blog and in the comments section you will here lots of really quite ignorant and factually untrue critiques of “woo”. I have personally read or researched a great many of the studies, articles, books etc on there, and I can assure you they comprehensively demolish the self-imposed lies of the reductive materialists on this forum.
Once ACTUALLY educated on the subject, you will have to laugh when you hear folks repeatedly parrot insular, unexamined and untrue claims like “but oh, Kevin Nelson has explained NDEs with a materialist model”, or “there is no demonstrable evidence for “paranormal” phenomena”, or “brain generates consciousness” etc etc.
To be sure, it is a LOT of reading, perhaps years worth.
But once armed with knowledge and facts, these confused, incoherent, unscientific dogmas and ideologies are easily seen and seen-through for the flim-flam shams they are 🙂
“There is……objectively…..ZERO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that…..consciousness….exist.”
I understand people’s intellects and attention can be challenged, so here’s the sum up sentence to try and understand.
There is no OBJECTIVE (IE. scientific) evidence that consciousness exists.
Clue; because consciousness isn’t an object.
WAKE UP!
“As I mentioned in another post, saying “plays a part” is entirely different to saying “yes” to an “explanation”. It is the difference between saying newtonian laws “explain” the football world cup (soccer to you heathens who think football is a sport played with your hands :), and saying newtonian laws “play a part” in it. In a way, I consider that the flaw with materialism, certainly as it is now. It seeks to explain things with mechanistic, linear, materialist explanations which simply REFUSE to fit within those parameters. YES, how a football is kicked, with what speed, at what angle etc is extremely important to the entire game of football – *essentially so*. However, does it EXPLAIN it? At what LEVEL of meaning can you find a wholistic explanation for football? The cultural, the biological, the economic, the social, the emotional, or the materialistic – what DRIVES it? Which LEVEL of organisation drives the whole thing into a coherent phenomena that culminates in a “World Cup”? You certainly won’t find predictive models in materialism, or the laws of newton for it. It just PLAYS A PART, even if it is an essential inseparable part, but it’s not the WHY of football….. I think the above observation maybe a little more profound than it first appears!”
I recalled writing this on the RSS forum more than 10 years ago….I haven’t reread it now but assume whatever I wrote still holds…. I remember being impressed at my own analogy 😁
Ghosts write books. Hence, sheet music.
@ Manjit
Now and then protagonists of something walk the streets, address the public. When they do, the antagonists will be drawn out their houses like mots to a flame.
Then there is the rest, the silent majority, that pass by for a myriad of personal reasons and reacting to the public out pour of thoughts and emotions with a myriad of individual reactions.
For all there is something at stake that is NOT discussed, something personal, having its deep roots in each and every uniquely conditioned past.
Know they self ..
Everything in nature has roots …ROOTS …in the past etc …fertile seeds …will not come alive in stones and books
I read that woo-woo has only been around since 1992; A.R.’s various comments were my first en-counter with the term. When discussing issues such as self, mind, consciousness, free will etc., rather than look at the issue(s) in the light of what is natural and open to disciplined study, I see the term woo-woo as being valid where someone introduces bizarre concepts that are generally based on personal beliefs, superstition and wishful thinking.
A prime example of woo-woo: – Since the classic idea of God has receded into the background somewhat, inevitably there will always be other concepts and beliefs that seem to avoid facing the truth that we and the universe are purely explainable through natural processes – and the mystery of consciousness seems to be one of the straws that people cling to.
The term ‘materialist’ doesn’t take into account the mental processes – although they do emanate from the brains’ neural networking. Better to use the term naturalist which includes the mental as well as the physical (material) processes.
The neurological basis of the conscious experience is quite well established; finding out how the brain, with its network of neurons, chemicals and electrical impulses does this, may take a while.
But really, do we need science to tell us that consciousness is a property of the brain? Surely, we can see for ourselves that being conscious is a normal and natural process of how biological organisms translate what the bodily senses convey to the brain as information, resulting in appropriate action.
Perhaps (as I commented in a previous post), a certain prejudice arises in our minds when we alter the sense of the noun conscious and add the adjective ‘ness’ to it giving the impression that consciousness is a discrete separate entity. But, in spite of such influences, I do think that we ourselves can observe our own mental processes of mind, thought, memory and the conscious experience.
At the moment, and reading neuro scientists like Swaab and Nelson (and many other scientists who have made similar discoveries) who, over several decades of work, have researched numerous cases of how the brain (and body connections) accounts for much of the phenomena that we find mysterious. So, it is reasonable to take their findings seriously rather than to allocate the conscious experience to agents other that the observable natural functioning of the biological organism.
Many belief structures have dissolved over the years under the march of scientific knowledge and for some, the erosion of human prominence or the shrinking prospect of some intervening supernatural element to give support and meaning to our lives is an unwelcome prospect.
Life as it is; birth existence and death, is not acceptable for many of us. There is a quite natural tendency to desire or invent something ‘more’.
The danger always is, to fill this gap there is the inevitable uprising of pseudo-scientific explanations for, as yet, unresolved questions as with the how and why of consciousness, along with issues such as quantum physics, dark matter and dark energy – possibly all candidates for substitutes for deities and meaning
Dear Ron. That is a very thoughtful and well written response!
Now, despite that, take a moment and see why it’s absolutely nothing other than a variation of:
“Yes, despite these facts being as plain as day, they will continue to avoid facing the copious evidence for woo, and, if they are even half alert, have full unquestioning FAITH that science will one day…..one day…. explain consciousness. Or, if as is more likely and evidenced by all their posts for decades, they are completely delusional, they believe science has already done so!!
Delulu I tell you, delulu!”
You may think that a) science has, or is near enough to, “explaining” consciousness, and b) that the mystery of consciousness isn’t even that great and doesn’t even really need explaining, and that it’s desperate to “cling” to at as some last bastion of “woo”, when in fact it was and always has been the the very focal point of all varieties of mystery school…..but reality really doesn’t agree with your take, however dogmatically you wish it were so.
Neuroscience hasn’t progressed one jot in explaining consciousness since Wilder Penfield and John Eccles.
I suggest you go back and reread them, because they exceeded your philosophical understanding decades and decades ago.
If someone can please point me to a theory of how consciousness is produced which has come even REMOTELY close to being scientifically proven (IE. Isn’t woo according to Brian’s definition), I would be much obliged.
I’m not asking for wishful and hopeful thinking, that perhaps this or that model maybe true. I’m asking about a theory that is even in the very first stages of being proven or demonstrated beyond PURE speculation. Neither am I asking for a theory about how the CONTENTS of consciousness can be modified (a basic logical error found very often amongst materialists who don’t really understand the full scope and history of the arguments re consciousness, and even very basic distinctions like this).
I’m asking for a full, working theory.
Anything?
Anyone?
I’ll save you the time and effort, you can’t because their isn’t. You’ll call Nobel prize winning physicist Roger Penrose “woo” because he works on his theory of quantum processes in consciousness (which, btw, as I stated here many years ago, I believe will almost certainly and obviously play some part in any decent if even just partially useful materialist explanation of consciousness, and as is now becoming more and more accepted as mainstream), or any of the other very many and very eminent scientists and philosophers of sciences who also agree reductive materialism doesn’t and cannot explain consciousness, can be readily dismissed as “woo”, but when some scientist…..ANY one will do, like the potato gurus of beas, anyone or anything will do if it parrots back your own biases back to you, right (speaking of which, I’ve read pretty much every neuroscience book Brian and others have mentioned here for decades (until 8 or so years at least, I realised life is way too short for that dry and banal shit that actually usually explains nothing and does nothing other than offer one the illusion of understanding) more often than not way before they have. I wonder how many of the dozens of books or sources I’ve pointed out for the counterpoint have been read? Yes, I think we all know what intellectual dishonesty and dogmatic ideology is and how it works, and echo chambers are essential!).
Until then, I guess you’ll just keep polishing that promissory materialist turd and pretending it’s a glistening scientific theory for any of the important questions in life which ALL, INEVITABLY, END UP IN MYSTERY (Consciousness, matter, the origin of life and the universe etc, IE everything that matters and where you would expect there to be no reductive materialist explanation if woo is true, despite some folks attempts to say these are the last recourse of the woo inclined, they are in fact and always have been the primary focal points).
Finally, Ron suggests to us, bizarrely imo when the “hard problem of consciousness” is so very well known in scientific circles, that consciousness isn’t really that mysterious and, actually “Surely, we can see for ourselves that being conscious is a normal and natural process of how biological organisms translate what the bodily senses convey to the brain as information, resulting in appropriate action.”
Okay, perhaps the mystery of consciousness is more obvious to Ron E than the entire scientific and philosophical community…. I mean, I seriously doubt it…. this is a guy who has repeatedly told us Kevin Nelson has provided peer reviewed explanations for NDES and they are now explained…. I have to say, an absolutely ridiculous assertion factually speaking, and obviously simply making a claim, however ridiculous, is enough evidence for Ron if it accords to his biases….. but perhaps it is obvious to him.
But I would counter, isn’t it even more obvious that the human intellect and human concepts are highly unlikely to be able to contain the real and true nature of reality, and that the real nature of reality won’t be as damn banal, mindless, meaningless, accidental, implicitly nihilistic, one dimensional and naively simplistic and reductionist?
I’ll let you decide which of the 2 above options is more likely and which relates to the thoroughly simplistic ideologues of folks like Brian and Ron.
🤔
Hey, I have a demonstrable scientific theory!
First stated here I believe:
“To FORCE your consciousness into an “altered state of consciousness”………….CHALLENGE – 5-7 grams will provide an experience that will remind you of the magic and mystery of the universe”.
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2018/07/existence-is-entirely-futile-a-brave-essay-on-the-human-condition?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e2022ad3598697200c#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e2022ad3598697200c
And I feel beautifully PROVEN here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V-5t0ZPY7E&pp=ygUIa29jaCBkbXQ%3D
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2015/03/christof-kochs-brain-talk-both-inspires-and-deflates?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e202c8d3cca9bc200c#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e202c8d3cca9bc200c
“”Ayahuasca”, “Ontological shock”, “If I claim to be a student of consciousness……then for sure I want to experience it”, “I was comfortable with this thing the brain produces consciousness…….but then I had this experience….. like mind at large…..like Aldous Huxley….”, “Surfing this panoply of galaxies”, “I somehow tapped into “I’m the universe””, “So I was totally complexed. Completely complexed for several days…”, “It shows the brain is capable of having extraordinary experiences…… maybe this experience is the blackswan which proves there is something wrong with this view [the brain produces consciousness]”, “And then I read this book from Bernardo Kastrup and I was really intrigued by it…..so I’m now in this kind of in between metaphysical state…”
So the challenge is simple, take a “heroic” dose of psilocybe mushrooms, then come back and talk.
Let’s be clear…..I am 100% certain…..100%…… ALL the folks on this forum who spout nonsense about reductive materialism and believe their intellects and concepts have wrapped themselves around reality would crumble within moments when faced with the ontological shock and awe of what I am referring to.
In an instant….AN INSTANT, they will come face to face with and recognise the puny limitations of their intellect. How absurd that they once believed the lies and stories the little cage or prison of mind and concepts they’ve been running around in and falsely imagining to be the totality of reality itself……they will laugh at their own stunningly misplaced ignorance and arrogance!
If I was there in a ceremony with them, they would for absolute CERTAIN be begging for my forgiveness for ever doubting me. Fully prostrate on the floor.
I have no shred of a doubt about this.
Ayahuasca would absolutely rip them another one. I simply cannot underestimate the depth and breadth the impact of one of these kinds of experiences would have on them. Reality shattering, life changing, they would more likely be stunned into a spontaneous vow of silence lasting weeks or months than coming back here and posting reductive, nihilist shit about the experience.
Again…..With absolute certainty!
This is all empty word games being played from the safety of their own closed off realities. Closing all the windows and doors, covering up all the gaps and hiding under the bedsheets, they type brave posts about how sunlight doesn’t exist and why they don’t need sun-cream!
The scientific challenge has been made, but these no-selfs have too much fear to play that game. Who has the fear, I cannot be sure, but fear there no doubt is.
So it is really, really nice to see genuine seekers who are if not ahead of the curve at least playing catch up – especially when those seekers are considered High Priests of Materialism, one that Brian himself has gone to receive Darshan from, no less!
Koch reaction to his Ayahuasca is absolutely priceless. It is also predictable to those who know. You ain’t “rationalising” that shit, and you ain’t mistaking periods of relative peace and calm with the full potential and scope of consciousness and human experience, ever again. You will laugh at yourself for ever having done so.
Koch is a genius and very well respected neuroscientist who once held the reductive materialist philosophy as true. C’mon folks, he’s way beyond the scope of the understanding and knowledge of the materialists on this blog, hands down. A totally different level, of course. But watch the video to understand how an authentically smart person with INTELLECTUAL HONESTY AND INTEGRITY had his views rocked to the very core with just one powerful psychedelic experience.
It is, imo, tragic to see folks mistake the shadows and mirages of their mental constructs for the full and majestic beauty of Reality itself. Their ego thinks these discussions are a petty game of egoic one upmanship, but they are playing for rocks and pebbles when I’m discussing diamonds freely available to all.
In regards all this talk of “self being an illusion”.
Yes, yes. Been there, done that…..my longest username over at RSS forum was manjit_D_ILLUSION, because, well, self is an illusion.
But what an illusion ey?!
It is totally mind boggling – or brain bamboozling if you prefer – that these folks will go on and on and on about how self is an illusion, but then have concern about their eulogies and how they will be remembered once dead!
Who is remembering who, again?
Damn, this conversation sounds like it’s occurring in an old folk’s home, which it practically is tbf 🙂
It’s really this simple – THIS simple so pay attention – yes, “self” is an illusion. But you DO realise it is the very same illusion you are taking to be REAL right now, right?
So what is there to say, for example, that the so-called “illusion” of “self” doesn’t persist post mortem? It’s an illusion, sure, but it’s a pretty convincing one for Brian, for example and if you ask me, if he’s worried about his eulogy or whatever. I mean, who the hell gives a shit. Literally, WHO?
Lots of folks spouting on about illusions who would shit their pants at, for example, taking a heroic dose of Ayahuasca or Psilocybe mushrooms.
C’mon folks, quit playing games, kidding your own selves. These words games are about as useful as the proverbial chocolate kettle-pot. Sound nice, look nice, but completely fucking useless on every practical and reality based level!
“Though believers in God and realms of reality beyond the physical may dislike that term, I encourage them to substitute “lacking demonstrable evidence” or “unproven scientifically” for “woo-woo” in their own minds if the word bothers them.”
Sure. Also, maybe, more specifically that other term you’ve used yourself, multiple times: “supernatural”. Captures the full essence of what phenomena and references the term “woo” points at.
And “supernatural”, too, is no more than synonym for ‘non-existent’, for any reasonably minded person. Because if it did exist, it would leave evidence; and following that evidence would lead us to it, in which case it would no longer be “supernatural”; and pending such time as the evidence shows to us that it exists, it is reasonable not to believe it exists.
Except one thing: I think the term “woo” introduces an additional nuance, the nuance that it does not make sense to believe that unevidenced supernatural stuff exists. It directly makes that point, right there. I suppose the only other word I can think of, that also captures that nuance, would be the word ‘superstition’ — except, again, I suppose, “woo” has a wider applicability, and “superstition” would be probably be subset of woo.
Haha, yes, it was fun to mentally suss out what the term “woo” actually means, exactly.
…And, as far as some people “disliking” the term, well sure, the word “woo” is entirely a tongue-in-cheek construct, a term used in order to ridicule. But still, IMO it’s today very much a valid term, I think, in as much as it captures a certain nuance that no other word does (with the possible exception of, to an extent, “superstition”).
So that what those that might dislike that term, might actually dislike, is the unmasking of their charlatanry (or, if they’re the mark not the charlatan, then their gullibility and halfwittery). Not so much the etymological root of the term, that involves onomatopoeic lulz.
———-
“Now, I understand the reasonable argument that asking for physical evidence of a supernatural entity is like a fish living in the ocean depths asking for evidence be presented to it of dry land. It just isn’t possible. I’ve made that argument myself in my religious-believing days.”
Yup. Often trotted out, that argument. And the perfect answer to that is Carl Sagan’s garage dragon. (Or its progeny, my own garage unicorn, Shadowfax, whose august presence I first revealed to the world in my series of discussions on the scientific worldview with Spence.)
…And this cuts both ways. Certainly only a gullible fool would acquiesce to being gaslighted into going along with someone else’s claim of such. But even if one were, oneself, to end up experiencing something extraordinary — as most of us would have, to more or less degree, when meditating — then it is reasonable to merely record that experience itself, and not imagine directly that it points to something that is objectively real, not until objective proof of it were forthcoming.
Someone deluged with spiritual experiences so intense that it leaves them convinced of the reality of what they’re seeing, if they’re reasonable, and if they are able to resist the temptation of hubris: then the first step might be a really thorough psychiatric examination, to rule out schizophrenia, or some other perfectly mundane neural disorder. Should that step be successfully passed, then it is reasonable to simply go with “I’ve experienced such and such”, and, if one likes, to attempt to investigate it through the methods of science.
The “ontology” that Manjit, for instance, keeps banging on interminably, that leads to a belief in a supernatural reality basis one’s experiences — even assuming, for the sake of argument, that those alleged experiences have not been concocted out of whole cloth, even then — is epistemologically completely unsound, and betrays complete ignorance of the basics of critical thinking. It is no more than halfwittery, as I have pointed out more than once.
———-
“If woo-woo is based on demonstrable evidence, it no longer is woo-woo.”
Yepp, sums it up perfectly! 👍
“even assuming, for the sake of argument, that those alleged experiences have not been concocted out of whole cloth, even then”
Hehe.
Keep hiding under those bedsheets AR, you keyboard Warrior you! You’re a mighty victor, on paper!
Priceless moments of comedy on this blog this morning, thank you folks 😄
Every minute, every moment, every thought and experience, we live and have our being in the natural world the physical or material world. No one lives in a non-natural world even though we may like to believe that mind, thoughts, the self (soul) and the conscious experience exist separate from the natural world, that is the opening for the various ‘woo-woo’ beliefs and thinking.
No-one has never experienced a life outside of the natural world other than one concocted by thought or brain related phenomenon. Whether such experiences are the result of substances or electrical/chemical brain activity, such effects are also still quite natural.
Because the origins of the mental processes have not been agreed upon, non-physical beliefs are rife. Mainly because we do like to believe that there is more to life than the natural world we inhabit; our egos insist we are special and we will fight to maintain this assumed specialness. With us humans, the evolved ability to form abstract thoughts paves the way for non-natural or supernatural answers to arise.
Depending on our particular backgrounds and upbringing, we all gravitate toward certain inclinations of thought. These bring us into conflict with the world about us with all its joys and pains. It can be fun and interesting to inquire and debate certain issues – just as long that we are aware that often it is not the issues that are at stake, but our egos, the idea that we are separate ‘self’s.
“No-one has never experienced a life outside of the natural world”
Bravo Ron!
Next step, get to grips with the fact and reality you have absolutely no idea what the totality of “nature” is.
Not a single clue. Not even close.
Hiding under the bedsheets, folks mock mountains!
Paper Warriors, never lost a battle in their lives!
Never having clambered out from the comfort of their safety blankets, they talk about nature….it is dark and very lonely, apparently.
Meanwhile, on the mountain, a celebration is occuring!
Welcome to you Nobodies from us the Mighty Warriors of Anti Woo. Our motto is “we fling words with fierce ferocity”!
We are here because we have heard rumours of 2 or 3 lost tribe members on this blog. We come to rescue them from the scourge of Woo riddled schizophrenics and other such deviants, led by possibly the most perverse and mentally diseased living being to ever not exist, manjit!
But do not fear, we are fearless warriors who have never lost a battle!
I mean, how could we, we have no self?
There is no mystery to consciousness and the universe, there is no spirit or spirituality, god or the divine.
And there is no self, and therefore there is no fear because there is no self to feel it.
And that massive pile of brown stuff in your underpants when someone offers you a heroic dose of Ayahuasca or Psilocybin isn’t poo 💩, it’s anti woo cream!
You fearless warriors who’ve never lost a battle, welcome to the team!
See you under the bedsheets!
Oh shit, I forgot the fake username 🫣
I guess the gig is up? I’ve been caught red handed. I feel so ashamed. Or at least I would do if I had a self to feel it 😞
Woo is me, woo is me….
“But woo unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woo unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woo unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.”
Greetings unto you brave Heroes, Victors and Champions from us here at the Multiverse Shadowboxing Federation, where everyone is Victorious, All the Time!
We are here because we have heard there are 2 or 3 Mighty Shadowboxing Warriors here who have never lost a fight in the mighty ring of underneath their bedsheets, never took a punch and who daily give a good hiding to various assorted merchants of woo, from giants all the way down to scrawny little runts like that woo intoxicated woo flinger manjit! They cannot cope with the power of your mighty shadow word swords!
We do not need to see you fight, we know you can’t lose!
You are now officially the undisputed, undefeated Pinda Heavyweight Champions of all time, all of you! And anyone else who wants in, too.
Congratulations! Your prize is a shadow trophy. Please come to collect from the top of a mountain, under the blazing sun.
Manjit. You seem very confused on the subject of the mental processes (mind, self etc.) and seem oblivious to the reality of the natural world that you live in and experience moment to moment. Okay, so reality is processed by the brain’s interaction with it’s environment, but that is our reality. What appears before us every moment is this – unless you cover it with concepts!
Manjit. “And there is no self and therefore there is no fear because there is no self to feel it.”
Do you really believe that feeling fear has anything to do with a constructed self? Read up on how emotions are constructed. Try How Emotions are Made by Fieldman Barrett – might help you bit!
“Okay, so reality is processed by the brain’s interaction with it’s environment, but that is our reality………unless you cover it with concepts!
Hehe! Priceless!
No idea. Absolutely no idea!
But a devastating knock out blow nonetheless, Champ 😉
I get the feeling both your “reality” and your “concepts”, as obviously, transparently and by definition as confused and mixed up as you have them, are far more easily susceptible to radical alteration, in the blink of an eye.
Your “reality” there under your bedsheets will very possibly be radically different to your “reality ” when near or post death, for example.
I mean, you folks absolutely shit yourselves at the thought of 1g of psilocybe mushrooms, you think you’re still gonna be Heroic Legends during and potentially after the death and dying process, for example, Champ? 😚
So out of your depth, on so many levels, and it’s incredible the astonishing level of arrogance and hubris it must take to still think you understand all reality and being, whilst hiding under your bedsheets!
The only honest, decent and reality based perspective you, I or ANY of us can have is, “WHO THE FUCK KNOWS”.
Your problem is, you think under the bedsheets is all there is to know, Champ.
“Do you really believe that feeling fear has anything to do with a constructed self? Read up on how emotions are constructed. Try How Emotions are Made by Fieldman Barrett – might help you bit!”
Enough of your pop psychology books you swallow wholesale like the mindless automatons you conceptualise us to be, please!
So are we now a “constructed self”?
Ah, I see.
Very powerful words.
I thought the words of power were the self is an illusion. Now I understand it isn’t an illusion but instead a construct.
And the construction can feel fear.
Good to know, good to know.
You must have trained under some master shadowboxers! Well, read their books at least.
Never never lost a battle, have you!
“The term “woo-woo” is used as an adjective and a noun to describe beliefs or practices that are considered unconventional, pseudoscientific, or based on irrational superstition. ”
” It is often used to dismiss or mock beliefs outside mainstream science or accepted norms, particularly in the areas of spirituality, mysticism, and alternative medicine.”
Woo woo is what people say who don’t understand how science works.
The true scientist investigates, and tests, first and last, foremost and all the time, their own limited thinking. It’s a lifestyle.
They do not argue with those who think differently. They try to understand the truth buried in what they hear, without labeling or insulting. They don’t make their entire philosophy insulting others who think, experience, understand and communicate things differently.
Not only is that unattractive, it is obviously false to claim any part of this creation is wrong or bad, including people with wildly different realities, merely for existing. Their persistent existence and their persistent truth is its proof, whether they or anyone else in understands, that there is a there there. But beware of claiming someone else misunderstands when the mystery of life includes our own ignorance and misunderstanding.
Everyone has their Woo Woo. Learn to own it.
Warriors against Woo: there is no evidence for woo!
Woo Intoxicated Deviant: yes there is: https://www.deanradin.com/recommended-references
WaW: I’m not reading that, so you’re wrong.
Another victory for WaW!
WID: hmmm.
The brain generates consciousness, there no mystery at all!
WID: can you point me to any non theoretical, falsifiable or proven model for precisely how the brain generates consciousness?
Even a half decent one?
WaW: no!
And I don’t need to, I am an undefeated Warrior against Woo, and you are a Woo Deviant – I win by default, and every single time you woo-lly brained fool!
WID: hmmm.
WaW: there is no self, and even if it is it’s merely a construct! How it’s constructed, nobody knows, but I read it in a completely speculative, completely unproven theoretical pop psychology book for the masses so it must be true!
This constructed self absolutely shits itself, but that’s only to be expected from a construct!
WID: Let’s hope another “self construct” doesn’t unexpectedly arise once the physical body-mind reducing filter is no longer “alive”, seeing as you have absolutely no idea how the body-brain gives arise to it…….you give me the impression you would probably shit yourself into a stupor from the surprise if it did!
WaW: you simple minded, woo riddled buffoon….. can’t you see how well I parrot words and concepts, I have nothing to fear! I am the undisputed Champion of Shit Talking!
WID: hmmm.
“Once woo-woo is transformed into fact through the alchemy of demonstrable evidence, it stops being woo-woo and starts being a scientific truth. This is why all woo-woo is based on faith. If woo-woo is based on demonstrable evidence, it no longer is woo-woo.”
Yes that happens every day for those who live in a scientific way. Faith becomes action, practice, testing. And acceptance of the results becomes learning and adaptation. And more adaptation and practice yeilds more new evidence.
Demonstration happens every day for those who live in a scientific way, putting aside old thinking to refine their practice of open minded observation of the world and themselves, the very instrument through which they gather their evidence and experience and understand the world.
If you want to see more and more clearly, clean up your telescope and add the lenses and extensions you already have in the mysterious box of gifts that is your birthright.
Even discover and remove that dark lens cover you have been wearing for too long.
“An invisible bird flies over,
but casts a quick shadow.
What is the body? That shadow of a shadow
of your love, that somehow contains
the entire universe
A man sleeps heavily,
though something blazes in him like the sun,
like a magnificent fringe sewn up under the hem.
He turs under the covers..
Any image is a lie:
A clear red stone tastes sweet.
You kiss a beautiful mouth, and a key
turns in the lock of your fear.
A spoken sentence sharpens to a fine edge.
A mother dove looks for her nest,
asking where, ku? Where, ku?
Where the lion lies down.
Where any man or woman goes to cry.
Where the sick go when they hope to get well.
Where a wind lifts that helps with winnowing
and, the same moment, sends a ship on its way.
Where anyone says Only God Is Real.
Ya Hu! Where beyond where.
A bright weaver’s shuttle flashes back and forth,
east-west, Where are we? Ma ku? Maku
as it weaves with the asking.
The friend comes into my body
looking for the center, unable
to find it, draws a blade,
strikes anywhere
There is a light seed grain inside,
You fill it with yourself, or it dies.
I’m caught in this curling energy! Your hair!
whoever’s calm and sensible is insane!
Do you think I know what I’m doing?
That for one breath of half-breath I belong to myself?
As much as a pen knows what it’s writing,
or the ball can guess where it’s going next.”
~ Woomi
The cult of rssb , and Gurinder singh dhilllon – a wooooo wooooo. The cult is based on ideas and ideals that are impossible and are only for it’s own greedy benefit. Requirements of 2.5 hrs meditation daily to worship kaal; repeating satanic names 247 to stay sedated ; having a perfect living master as a guide ( in this case Gurinder a donkey dog and clown) ; surrendering everything to the lord , whereas Gurinder the vulture wants everything ); seva , slavery..etc so RSSB a WOO WOO.