Anthony66 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:03 amFor the record, I thought your sunglasses metaphor was excellent. My response was largely in jest although I did have a point to make. If one employs Bayesian reasoning, the prior probability of someone genuinely having access to special knowledge or a special key to knowledge must be low given the numerous contradictory claims of such in human history. Confirmatory evidence in favor of the claim is required to drive up that probability. The problem we have here (and with other such claims) is that that evidence is only available if you take the "plunge".Federica wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:20 pmAlright Anthony, if you can't see the difference, I will not insist - spiritual science does not need salespersons, you certainly don't need that either. And thanks for the feedback I will hopefully come up with better illustrations another timeAnthony66 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:16 pm But if you are really lucky, here comes a fundy Christian to you and tells you: Federica, this is actually not accurate. Out there, there is indeed some color consistency to what you are observing. I can tell you there’s a lake that’s always within the blue-gray tones, there’s grass that’s always light green, and even an ice-cream stand that is reliably pink. There is even a wood that lawfully appears within the dark green scale, always. You don’t have to believe me, just please follow the book in my hands. I’ll explain. You are actually wearing immersive glasses which conceal the lawful color patterns around you. But this book was written by the one who created the lawful color patterns and it tells us of a wonderful arrangement of colors. By learning the contents of this book you too come to know yourself that there’s actually no color chaos. Shall we read it together?”![]()
![]()
Anthony,
Just to start from your thought, in your Bayesian reasoning you are making an undue assumption of equal likelihood through time of that prior probability, as if the evolution of consciousness did not exist, as if through history the possibility to access spiritual wissenschaft had been fixed and given for the people of 100, 1000, or 2000 years ago alike. Does this make any sense? Is this an appropriate framework of analysis?
More generally, you don’t need to cast your checkered net of prior probability assessment reasoning, looking at the abstract event of ‘knowledge being accessed by some hypothetical, time-neutral human head’ wandering in some thrown up world-bubble picture. Isn’t this reasoning being sketched by You-Right-Now? Are you not the active author of these thoughts? Then take responsibility for them, you can’t call yourself out of the equation and, from the hiding place of your speculating vantage point, borrow Bayes' sunglasses and rock the catwalk with these, because you feel like. This whole idea is flowing through your own creative thinking agency, you have to acknowledge that!
At this pace, the standard of contemporary thinking habit will soon become DID thinking, where the thought is forming through our own agency, but with zero recognition of this fact, as if the whole creative process was happening in some external, abstract, duplicated place, head, or agency, that one can have fun furnishing and refurnishing like a Barbie house, with any sort of combination of hypothesis of our liking.
Anthony, If we unfold the Bayesian grid we will surely get Bayesian results. If we go for the Barbie house, we’ll get Barbie-like results. If we look through the sunglasses above, we’ll get chaotic colored dot series, and nothing else. But we don’t have to do any of these houses of cards, when we ourselves have under the scope of our willed initiative the instant possibility to take a direct no-matter-how-little step, free from any arbitrary set of hypotheses! And it’s not true that one has to take the plunge to get access to 'evidence'. Developing spiritual wissenschaft is a continuous (in mathematical sense) progression where every little step grants proportionate, directly experienced ‘evidence’. If you have the feeling that you have not experienced any evidence so far, it must be because you have not yet accepted to let go of the intellectual grid, and to put yourself at the center of your spiritual experience.