What you guys are stuck at

[zurew]

Something just causing seems wrong ,but the "just will yourself" also seems wrong to me.

The "no gurantee" resonates with me, thats why I would probably use phrases like participation or voluntary necessity (ie being a seeker , like you need to want it, but its not sufficient to just want it) rather than just "will yourself there" or "something caused you to get enlightened completely outside your efforts and will" ).

 

But regardless, the way to do this in a more rigorous way is to take a sample of enlightened people that we agree on for the sake of the argument and then collect variables and then run  studies on them.

The obvious issue is that the sample size will be small and even there we wont agree on all the people and the number of hypotheses that can be created is also incredibly large and there is no way to check who got enlightened.

Edited yesterday at 12:51 AM by zurew

[llumin]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

the way to do this in a more rigorous way is to take a sample of enlightened people that we agree on for the sake of the argument and then collect variables and then run  studies on them.

The obvious issue is that the sample size will be small and even there we wont agree on all the people and the number of hypotheses that can be created is also incredibly large and there is no way to check who got enlightened.

This wouldn't even get an A in an Intro to Research Methods course, it definitely won't find truth. Even the brainwave scans of monks in meditation fail to properly replicate, and that's about the most concrete physical proof you can have for this sort of thing. 

[VeganAwake]

On 10/26/2025 at 11:13 AM, Princess Arabia said:

It is trying to find itself through any means possible. It tries the neti neti approach and self-inquiry. Little does it realize it is also those same approaches. I'm not what I can see so I must be the unseen, then it latches unto that idea, not realizing it's just an idea it itself is being.

Yahtzee! Bingo! Uno!

❤️ 

[zurew]

5 hours ago, llumin said:

This wouldn't even get an A in an Intro to Research Methods course, it definitely won't find truth. Even the brainwave scans of monks in meditation fail to properly replicate, and that's about the most concrete physical proof you can have for this sort of thing. 

I grant that it wouldnt get an A, maybe not even a C. But what we have here is even worse.

What we have is people introspectively giving explanations which is even worse.

This shit would be a disaster even if it would be done on any non-controversial thing like smell.

People having a sense of smell give them no authority or credibility to speak on how smell works.

They would cook up and come up with crazy and trash theories.

 

 

But at the same time, I also understand the other side of the story. Using Plato's cave analogy - it would be like endlessly studying the shadows and thinking that that will help you to make good inferences about the items that created the shadows or thinking that the shadow "caused" the items.

Edited yesterday at 08:51 AM by zurew