Shadow_self

There are actually a lot of legitimate teachers out there...Some are sitting under your nose The group just have it in their head that : John said x therefore John is correct...anything which deviates from that is a no-go...we will not invest any time in a system until we see some extraordinary evidence of chi emission or whatever. I understand the sentiment...i just dont see it as a runner John did whatever he did...and he gained nothing from it. He lost a lot. Go and take a look at the entitlement of people like Jim and Kostas...Jim publicly badmouthed John over and over after he was told no more...Kostas doing what he did, ended with serious ramifications for John...And he was tormented for the rest of his life by people arriving on his doorstep...prior to this, he was a peaceful healer in Indonesia... Do you think another teacher really wants to open that Pandoras Box? Honestly See it from the other persons perspective...You come to them, with nothing of value to offer, and expect them to show you proof of something that you can gain exponentially from, whereas they stand to lose so much. There is no balance here. There is a reason people are tested for a long time prior to being left into a lineage in Asia...most people are just given an exercise or two...do this, dont ask questions....that's about the start of it...and if you can make it past the next series of stages...You might be in for a bit more...then more "tests" until you slowly make your way in...then you'll get what you want I didn't mention if you don't know where these people are....you often have to know others and/or exchange large sums of money in order to even get a formal introduction to start the above process So it isn't that these things aren't there...they are, and not as rare as one typically thinks...but how many people have the time, money and perseverance to go through that series of hula hoops?

Given so many avenues have been explored, and you all seem to come up empty handed every time...this should tell you something important Morever, considering there are plenty of people who have teachers, have progressed, have witnessed their abilities. You might get where this is going I told you this months ago, and it was echoed by several posters....the onus will always be on you to prove to a teacher you are worth their time and effort...Arriving on their doorstep with measuring equipment, monetary incentives or demands to "scientifically" verify whether or not they have any extraordinary ability....that's a surefire way to get every door you approach firmly slammed in your face But I dont need to say that, you've already said it for me... Time, patience, effort, trust...that might get your foot over the threshold....No need to take my word for it though...testimony is we agreed, useless in terms of extraordinary claims. However, here im only mentioning how to be respectful to people who can gain nothing at all of use from you, but you could gain a lot from them. What does the documentary evidence suggest?? This one isnt supernatural...so go nuts Any teacher worth their salt wouldn't feel the need to prove anything you are right. However...there are plenty of scenarios where these things are shown not as a means of evidence, but as a means of aiding the student.

Given the amount of controversy that group has created historically...and the strong attitudes they have taken...including an often serious lack of respect for others...I am not in the slightest bit surprised... That's not a reflection of you personally...rather a reflection of the archives here....which I can only assume based on observation are transferable If you dont want to go abroad...go speak to robert peng Look, he even has a student that can demonstrate weird things....

They might be the only ones you've seen on video demonstrating such thing (though funny you didn't mention Zhou, Kangqi, Valente et al). At this point in time...you should be able to find one of Jiang's students...there's one on this site teaching people. Even then they are not the only ones who have demo'd such things....there are more...and there are others who can do other things as well. Please see below Do you have any idea how common siddhi type behaviour is in South East Asia? Thailand, Myanmar, Indonesia, Malaysia...these are actually the places this stuff was practiced when it was pushed out of China. There's one to follow up...they guy that took that video is very close with Lawrence Blair....You remember Lawrence right? It is recent, chances are the guy isn't dead Why not go see for yourself?

No it isnt the other option...and you yourself are the one who brought up demonstrations need I remind you (Again) In respect to extraordinary claims A person can lie...it is useless A video can be manipulated...it is equally useless Unless you can find something to overcome the weaknesses of these things...they are of no use in the case of extraordinary claims...because neither can produce extraordinary evidence

No, you misrepresent the situation as a false polarity...as if an individual has no option to see/experience such things themselves.. You are doing so to exclude this option, and it is creating a strawman as it attempts to place my position as testimony is acceptable (you even created a thread. You are presenting the only alternative as testimony, which is also a false dichotomy...when that is not the case....it never was...You are the one who mentioned giving demonstrations to convince skeptics need I remind you? Personal direct experience is the ONLY medium that will suffice...no other option is acceptable in the face of extraordinary claims But you have given two redundant options in place of it. Here is why they are redundant A person can lie about their experience....they could also be telling the truth...the only way to know is to go and experience oneself A person can manipulate a video...it may also be accurate....the only way to know is to go and seek out the experience yourself Both are easily misrepresented...and there is an endless amount of limitations...there is none better than the other in the case of extraordinary claims. So there are people who see "UFOs" all the time There are people who regularly interact with teachers who can light them up with Qi There is no need for video or testimony because there is a very real option to seek these things out and inspect for oneself...anything else is faith...nothing more The only thing we agree on is extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...and as such neither video or testimony will suffice. Examples of court cases and such dont hold up...because they are not extraordinary...those things are routine happenings

I have no idea...if the mods feel that way so be it, I'm not going to argue the point, I can only clarify what I meant.

I just wanted to add, for anyone that isnt aware...this strawman argument of "personal testimony" seems to keep coming up. I dont think anyone made the case for "testimony" but this is a classical logical fallacy. Below is a graphic that explains it

@Iliketurtles your post will be answered here...there's no point in having this all over the forum. One thread is fine Video is video. All video is open to the same manipulation, irrelevant of who was there or what happened. There is no confusion there. What I stated earlier was that anyone who believes solely because a few scientists or doctors are present, that this automatically validates a video...is either overly trusting or perhaps easily swayed/suggestible (I originally used the term gullible, but see how that could be misinterpreted, so retract it in favour of the these terms). I used the example of "scientism" to illustrate this point, as this is usually the best example of this. Anyway, in all of those videos, there is no evidence those individuals did their best to rule out fraud. There is evidence they did something...but that something is a country mile from "best practice"...in terms of that standard...they barely got off the mark... This is where the matter of competency comes into play. [Sidenote: There was another part of the forum where I was asked to outline my credentials...I made it very clear it was not required...and to judge me not based on the amount of letters after my name (though I have a few), but my ability to critique what I seen in the science presented] A title does not equate to competency, because as we have already established...titles are so often gained through dishonest means...therefore it stands to reason logically, that a lot (not all, certainly) of the people with such titles actually gained them through a lack of competence. (If someone wanted to create a thread on that, I could dive pretty deep on that topic if they wish) Moral of the story...competence is key and title ≠ competence This might be a difficult truth to swallow for some, but make no mistake...it absolutely is the truth I say this based on 2 facts #1 The state of science as a whole, as outlined by myself in terms of the exponential level of dishonesty and deceit that permeates almost every aspect of it #2 The very true statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence #1 Is an indisputable fact...the evidence is absolutely overwhelming #2 You already admitted, video evidence is not extraordinary evidence...therefore it stands to reason it cannot be used to verify extraordinary claims @Pak_Satrio made the very good point, that it may provoke one to go in search of evidence for themselves...but that it would not be convincing. I think that's a fair point, and I see the merit in his words With that out of the way...I need to address your very false claim that the question is loaded...it is not The question is very clear, we are trying to ascertain whether or not video is acceptable form of evidence in terms of supernatural/paranormal events. As we are amongst a forum of cultivators and those in pursuit of spiritual truth, I had to use the word routinely, as for some of us, what is considered paranormal has become normal. The vast majority of people seem to think no it isn't. There is only one person who believes that it does. Therefore, while you might think a video is a convincing piece of evidence in this case ( and that's fine, you're free to hold your own beliefs, whatever they might be) …most people don't seem to share that sentiment. This small piece of empirical data, should however, give you a reason to pause, and consider why you are making the argument for people to place faith in a video in this instance, when they clearly don't see it as sufficient?

Generally speaking, from any system that I have encountered...It is these qualitative shifts where the real potential for spiritual growth is buried. I don't think one can even do alchemy without a radical overhaul of personality and so forth. In reality the energetic work...it is a double edged sword. If you are an angry person for example, and you do a strong energetic practice...chances are it will just amplify these traits and make you worse...unless you are doing all the other practices alongside it. Conversely if you are making those changes and overcoming the traits, mind-states and habitual programming, the energetic work will fuel that process...and support it This is one reason why you see multiple layers of practice in a lot of traditional systems...they cover every angle so that progression is much more likely..and the bases are covered

Is evidence of physical manifestation of abilities a necessity for a good spiritual system? Not necessarily The tantric/alchemical approach is just one means. There are others Imo the things that arise that aren't as easily quantified are far more beneficial than those which are...but that revelation only came after the confirmation such things are "real" to begin with...It takes a bit of time for the mind to adjust when new paradigms are formed, and old ones are...well in my case destroyed

You're entitled to moderate as you please...but if you could point out to me where there is a violation in that post I'm more than happy to listen. The following is not a defense, it is a clarification...seems my intention and your interpretation are divergent..so I'll elaborate for those purposes only. That's a criticism of academic practice, not a school or individual. There are three videos with scientists present...It is not specific, and not targeted. A layperson generally is not accustomed to academic practice and so has not been privy to a publish or perish culture, and the dishonesty and lies that comes with it. I'm very familiar with it...and know that a vast majority of scientists are liars. There's literally no need take my word for it...anyone can read around the replication crises and what has become standard academic practices There is a certain degree of blind acceptance amongst academics, especially in terms of the general public...It is this that I reference as gullible, and meant in the manner of "overly trusting". You may be familiar with the term scientism? The following is most worth anyone's time, if they wonder what I am talking about If pointing these facts out ( and they are facts) is worthy of moderation, by all means, please moderate as you see fit. I have no objection

I think that @Nungali and I both had better alternatives...Have them go see for themselves The point is you cannot trust documentation...it is that simple...Irrelevant of the medium Therefore, from a logical perspective the only rational choice is to experience the phenomena in question for oneself..be it alone, or in the presence of the person making the claim ( as in the case of UFO watch parties) This way there is no faith required..at all. What you suggested not only requires faith...but puts it in the hands of people who reside in a field which is known to have an exponentially high percentage of liars and frauds...and that is a really big problem now. Especially when you have no reliable gauge of competence. It is, how would one say, not too unlike placing your faith in a religion...

You still dont see the problem with this? Please reread this...I did not write it without reason...it is a literal summary of what really happens Can you not trust yourself to rule out fraud? Perhaps that is easy for me to say as someone with training in experimental design...but given what I have seen in the field...One would be foolish to trust an academic to do that for them. The vast majority literally lie through their teeth to get the results they want, to get the promotions they want, to get the grants they want...and so forth...tweak here, P hack there..omission of data...fabrication of other data....it goes on and on Do you have a way to screen for that? If not, I think you are sorely mistaken trusting anyone to do that for you...Its actually gullible if im being honest to trust someone based on a title. I get the attraction towards it...but if you lived that reality for a while..you'd see exactly why Im saying it

The answer I gave was for a good reason. I dont think there is "better" in this case You tell someone you seen something " Youre a liar" You show them a video of something " Thats fake" In both scenarios there is no proof of anything, and you cant win Do you believe Bob Lazar from example? Reasons like this are why I wouldn't use a video. If you were clever enough, you would tell them to go to the location at the time said things appear, and make their own judgement...that's honestly what I would do. Pretty sure thats what Bob Lazar did as well

It comes down to a matter of confounders and controls In none of the videos above, do I see stringent, sufficient controls being applied without any editing whatsoever...This in and of itself creates the possibility of so many confounders, its somewhat impossible to trust it. So....by not being able to reduce those....I think any given individual would be perfectly justified in not accepting what they see

Not really...most scientists cant even do their own jobs correctly (replication crises anyone?). A large portion of them derive both their income and form their entire belief system on the basis of personal testimony (journal articles). You are often so critical of this fact regards science...yet you would place faith in these same people as legitimate, when it is known that they literally manipulate their own results to get what they want?? Please think about that very carefully...it makes no sense This was why I said to you, it is a matter of competence, not title. I know people who have no formal training in the sciences that could design an experiment better than some "distinguished" professors of experimental psychology But I know If I am there, and I apply the controls and exclude the confounders as much as humanly possible, then I know all that can be done has been done...there is no faith involved (unlike the scenario you laid out)

Personally id not bother..Consider this How many videos of UFOS are out there? how much testimony? How much documentation? Now tell me how much of that is considered as legitimate evidence?

If a person asked me about my experiences as a matter of interest I would gladly share what I have seen/experienced/witnessed and so forth. If they asked me for proof, id say it is pointless. This is not something I can prove because I am not the one who is able to do said things...so anything I could present you with (be it testimony or video or whatever) any would fall short of an experience that would leave you without doubt. Id simply say that's something you'd need to experience for yourself...there is no other way to know without invoking some kind of faith. Like I said..extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....neither the medium of testimony nor video can provide that in my opinion.

There is no need to constantly make reference to "testimony"...nobody has mentioned the word I am glad you agree....here's the problem. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Something classified as not very good is certainly not extraordinary However...being present, having supplied sufficient controls....and the phenomenon in question arising despite this...that is extraordinary Heres the problem...you are conflating first hand observation with a second hand recording... Someone cannot edit your experience in real time when controls are sufficient and applied well...but you have no idea what happened in between the time the video is recorded and it's eventual presentation to you I hope this makes sense Again, nobody is making the argument for testimony...so why invent an argument against it? Actually it is a criticism of video....because the video is editable, that is exactly the problem...in other words it can be manipulated...and manipulated to a far greater degree than real time experience when one is readily prepared for fraud to occur.

Well said. I share a very similar sentiment I mean, can anyone say they weren't taken aback when they started to run into all this stuff? It is however, for someone who hasn't been around it... a complete minefield.

Practicality vs efficacy are not the same thing...and nobody mentioned what is easier for you If the end goal is to recruit suggestible individuals...sure a video will might suffice But for people with a critical mindset...I don't think that will manage. However..to test the notion that video is a good form of evidence to convince some, I created a topic and poll to discuss just that matter. Let us see what happens. This is particularly timely...because there have been a whole heap of things popping up on YouTube lately...some of which I have linked I invite you to cast a vote here :

Well you got there eventually....thankfully. In person is better. Im glad we agree However, a professional being present is absolutely meaningless....There are actual doctors and neuroscientists out there practicing all sorts of woo woo nonsense...and I know some of them by name, which you can google and see for yourself You need a person who is able to apply meaningful controls and a robust experimental paradigm...a competent student with a BA will trump a professor with a bias towards the woo every time. It is a matter of competence, not a matter of title...and the latter is, unfortunately, in no way a reflection of the former (much as we might like to think it is)

The only person mentioning anything about testimony is you....creating strawman arguments doesn't make you right...it makes you look foolish I said direct observation and involvement...is superior to video...always has been and always will be I will try this one last time...because I can see the nonsense starting to emerge from the abyss If someone did a demonstration for you live in person...you may do all you can to rule out fraud...if you are competent enough (like the scenario I mentioned above) you should be able to exclude all confounding variables If the best you have is someone on video....you cannot personally inspect said confounders...and have no idea whether it be true or false that they were controlled for...in other words your acceptance of said event is based on faith, unless you have direct experience of something yourself

Believe me, I know its your 0.02... If you want to get into an argument about cognitive biases and memory with a person who's job it is to literally design experiments of memory, executive functioning, attention, recall, perception and so forth we can do that. Id suggest not though...that's a road better not travelled I never mentioned testimony or studies.. So please don't create strawman arguments You can either find a hole in the paradigm laid out, or we can agree that live presence in that situation under those conditions is more useful. You cannot edit that scenario to pull the wool over someones eyes...But I've got 101 ways to edit a video at the click of a button... A video is only as useful as how "untouched" it is. You understand this I assume?