1

Topic: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

I will try to explain on an example. Here, you are abducted by aliens. Carry over the earth in a plate, you look in an illuminator. Can  communicate with them, they to you tell something. Then land in a certain place on the earth where you never were. You attentively look at the big stone, trees, an inscription on a stone and so forth details. Through time you bring back home. You at first cannot come to the senses. Start to doubt that it is all was actually, suddenly it was temporal insanity. Try to forget and not to tell another not to pass for the guy with strangenesses. But nevertheless curiosity assorts you and you decide to save up money, to take vacation and to go to that place where you were brought by aliens on the plate (on other end of the earth so to say). If it exists - this all means actually with you happens. Come, find a place - and feel repeated shock - all truth, up to trifles and a picture on a stone. Thus: 1. You have 100 % of knowledge that aliens exist. 2. Prove to another you can of nothing. I.e. knowledge which you cannot personally doubt which, probably, are interesting and valuable to others. But are thus useless in view of the unprovability.

2

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote:... It is called "mystical experience". From outside seems that at you there went a roof. But it is not terrible. The most important thing is as you can integrate this experience into the life.

3

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> I.e. knowledge which you cannot personally doubt which, probably, are interesting and valuable to others. But are thus useless in view of the unprovability. About it Castaneda wrote

4

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> 1. You have 100 % of knowledge that aliens exist. Not 100 %. There is a probability that you were hypnotized skillfully and suggested everything that you saw.

5

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, LVE, you wrote: LVE> It is called "mystical experience". LVE> From outside seems that at you there went a roof. LVE> but it is not terrible. LVE> the most important thing is as you can integrate this experience into the life. Not, not it: a faith in existence of supernatural forces with which the person is enigmatically connected and capable to communicate; also - the sacral religious practice having for an object experience of an immediate unification good luck (or gods, spirits, other non-material entities). Any supernatural forces and especially any non-material entities. Easier other civilization, not from mother Earth. After all the scientific world puts millions dollars in searches of signals from aliens, so? Means admit their existence. I about that also ask: knowledge does not concern mysticism, that is all is material and within the limits of a science. But thus, in view of a phenomenon rarity prove you it cannot, as not on you depends it to repeat and video-records does not remain. Instead of aliens earlier there was a fireball - the science did not trust in its existence but if you with friends saw it - that could not doubt. Whether there is a term for such knowledge?

6

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, wildwind, you wrote: S>> 1. You have 100 % of knowledge that aliens exist. W> not 100 %. There is a probability that you were hypnotized skillfully and suggested everything that you saw. You too exaggerate hypnosis possibilities. In films it so, in practice is not real.

7

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: whether S> There is a term for such knowledge?  there are 4 levels of knowledge: 1. Stochastic, it is immediate sensual experience, 2. Empirical, it is level of guesses and conjectures, extrapolation, 3. Axiomatic, this detection of logical regularities, 4. Mystical, religious, this detection of emotional regularities. In process of a growing the person goes from stochastic experience to mysticism. The atheist is glad to stop at axiomatic level, and to win the pure logic. But it would become a concentration camp for remaining. Therefore the person after 30 years carries out on mystical level. How it can be shown? Normally how it is convenient to the person. And it is unimportant, whether gray-haired it is the grandfather on a cloud or lines or the alien. Such business overtakes clever and talented people earlier, than stupid and callous.  - smoke, drink beer. Be not nervous. If want to uncover the abilities and if you have for this purpose a basis look on  at the channel "100 secrets of development of internal force". I wish successes!

8

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Any supernatural forces and especially any non-material entities. Easier other civilization, not from mother Earth. After all the scientific world puts millions dollars in searches of signals from aliens, so? Means admit their existence. S> I about that also ask: knowledge does not concern mysticism, that is all is material and within the limits of a science. But thus, in view of a phenomenon rarity prove you it cannot, as not on you depends it to repeat and video-records does not remain. While it is indemonstrable and is not played back, you cannot tell, what it concerns. Therefore by default carry to mysticism.

9

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> you too exaggerate hypnosis possibilities. In films it so, in practice is not real. Really. Witnessed. That is I have authentic, but indemonstrable knowledge.

10

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, wildwind, you wrote: W> While it is indemonstrable and is not played back, you cannot tell, what it concerns. Therefore by default carry to mysticism. Well here earlier the science long could not prove a fireball and many carried to illusion or a myth. But now confirmed. Who told that by default there should be a mysticism? That is you by default suggest not to trust yourselves, to the eyes, ears, additional check - to carry all to a myth. And only when others tell to you that it not a myth - then to start to trust. Whether nonsense it?

11

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, LVE, you wrote: LVE> In process of a growing the person goes from stochastic experience to mysticism. With it I will not argue, but I about other. Not about the mystic. Here that that is real with you happened, but even if there were certificates - that to them not begin to trust, tell that you forged. And it is impossible to repeat - a case rare. Here is how with a fireball.

12

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Here that that is real with you happened, but even if there were certificates - that to them not begin to trust, tell that you forged. And it is impossible to repeat - a case rare. Here is how with a fireball. Well and on which horse-radish it is necessary to you? The person is so selfish that itself creates a superdominant. In your case are aliens. What are you going to do with this superforce which created? After all it is your reality.

13

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> That is you by default suggest not to trust yourselves, to the eyes, ears, additional check - to carry all to a myth. And only when others tell to you that it not a myth - then to start to trust. Whether nonsense it? Do not confuse a myth and mysticism. The mysticism is a subjective experience, subjective on determination, individual for each person. And while people do not learn to exchange immediately thoughts and feelings, it cannot be generalized and scientifically researched. But it not the reason to deny it absolutely.

14

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, LVE, you wrote: LVE> That you are going to do with this superforce which created? LVE> after all it is your reality. Well and why superforce? Not superforce. Well, promoted a bit further, have the best technologies than we. But no superforce is present. Why my reality? Simply to me fell out to witness, others did not see. But there are acknowledgement that it not seemed to me.

15

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, wildwind, you wrote: W> do not confuse a myth and mysticism. The mysticism is a subjective experience, subjective on determination, individual for each person. And while people do not learn to exchange immediately thoughts and feelings, it cannot be generalized and scientifically researched. But it not the reason to deny it absolutely. There is a difference between the rare physical phenomenon and mysticism? For example the fireball is mysticism?

16

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, LVE, you wrote: LVE> Hello, Shmj, you wrote: whether S>> There is a term for such knowledge? LVE>  there are 4 levels of knowledge: LVE> 1. Stochastic, it is immediate sensual experience, LVE> 2. Empirical, it is level of guesses and conjectures, extrapolation, LVE> 3. Axiomatic, this detection of logical regularities, LVE> 4. Mystical, religious, this detection of emotional regularities. At Gurdzhieva peeped? At it 4 stages of development of consciousness of the person: 1) a state of a dream 2) a state of wakefulness 3) a state  4) the State of Objective Consciousness

17

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> After all the scientific world puts millions dollars in searches of signals from aliens, so? Means admit their existence. Desire  do not admit?

18

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, Sharov, you wrote: S> Hello, LVE, you wrote: LVE>>  there are 4 levels of knowledge: LVE>> 1. Stochastic, it is immediate sensual experience, LVE>> 2. Empirical, it is level of guesses and conjectures, extrapolation, LVE>> 3. Axiomatic, this detection of logical regularities, LVE>> 4. Mystical, religious, this detection of emotional regularities. S> at Gurdzhieva peeped? At it 4 stages of development of consciousness of the person: S> 1) a state of dream S> 2) a state of wakefulness S> 3) a state  S> 4) the State of Objective Consciousness Is not present. Peeped a little at Ostretsova, remaining itself glades.

19

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> I.e. knowledge which you cannot personally doubt which, probably, are interesting and valuable to others. But are thus useless in view of the unprovability. I think that such knowledge can quite be called as philosophy. Considering also that Platon has a myth about a cave which is formulated rather similar that you here wrote. So, most likely, it is possible to name such approach idealism.

20

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, baily, you wrote: B> I think that such knowledge can quite be called as philosophy. Considering also that Platon has a myth about a cave which is formulated rather similar that you here wrote. Well and why philosophy? Here if you individually became the witness of a crime - after all the court considers your indications. Though could invent all, truly? If except your indications there are no proofs more - whether takes them into consideration court, or 2 witnesses are necessary a minimum? And whether there will be your indications philosophy only what nearby there was no second person? It is good. If there were 2 persons in a case with aliens - whether the science into consideration takes their indications?

21

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Well and why philosophy? S> here if you individually became the witness of a crime - after all the court considers your indications. Though could invent all, truly? S> if except your indications there are no proofs more - whether takes them into consideration court, or 2 witnesses are necessary a minimum? S> and whether there will be your indications philosophy only what nearby there was no second person? S> it is good. If there were 2 persons in a case with aliens - whether the science into consideration takes their indications? At me such impression is added that you rub here any hogwash. Because you supposed a thick member on my councils - did not thank. And thus, continue to persist in the insanity.

22

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Hello, baily, you wrote: B>> I think that such knowledge can quite be called as philosophy. Considering also that Platon has a myth about a cave which is formulated rather similar that you here wrote. S> well and why philosophy? S> here if you individually became the witness of a crime - after all the court considers your indications. Though could invent all, truly? S> if except your indications there are no proofs more - whether takes them into consideration court, or 2 witnesses are necessary a minimum? With court the analogy is incorrect. For court norms are registered in the law what to consider as the proof and that is not present. I think that in certain cases will be enough indications and one witness. And here for a science a situation not the such. There recurrence of experiment is important. At least while, as our world, seemingly, possesses what that rather and normally if to repeat a certain experiment repeatedly each time we expect that results will be identical. If it not so now it is considered that a problem that experiments were nonequivalent. So, if will be even set of witnesses of a certain phenomenon, but then given phenomenon will not manage to be played back, or to receive what that certificates repeated presently that the phenomenon took place this phenomenon will not be recognized by scientific. Though, it is assured that there will be a set of attempts that such certificates to find.

23

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> Come, find a place - and feel repeated shock - all truth, up to trifles and a picture on a stone. S> thus: S> 1. You have 100 % of knowledge that aliens exist. S> 2. Prove to another you can of nothing. The described situation is not the proof. Your brain can deceive you rather artful methods. In particular, you could know all up to trifles, but forget that know also this knowledge to you could will be shown in the sleep, for example. It is one of methods. The second method, for a change, the such: an instant later after you learned something to you can seem that you already knew it. Effect similar to effect of a deja vu. The third method, as from Henry Gustav Molisonom to whom Bill Skovill deleted a brain part. Henry  could not remember anything new, but repeatedly repeated training led to that repeated training happened much easier. I.e. Henry of M. Did not remember that knew, but could to put, in some measure, this knowledge into practice. I think there are also other effects of the same row. S> I.e. knowledge which you cannot personally doubt which, probably, are interesting and valuable to others. But are thus useless in view of the unprovability. In general generally there is no such knowledge in which it is impossible to doubt. It is possible only for each of knowledge to attribute a certain level of reliability. And so, to knowledge based exceptional on memories on improbable things follows concerns carefully.

24

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, B0FEE664, you wrote: BFE> the Described situation is not the proof. Your brain can deceive you rather artful methods. In particular, you could know all up to trifles, but forget that know also this knowledge to you could will be shown in the sleep, for example. And whence you could know, if were in this place never? BFE> the second method, for a change, the such: an instant later after you learned something to you can seem that you already knew it. Effect similar to effect of a deja vu. Well and if wrote down in a notepad before? BFE> the third method, as from Henry Gustav Molisonom to whom Bill Skovill deleted a brain part. Henry  could not remember anything new, but repeatedly repeated training led to that repeated training happened much easier. I.e. Henry  did not remember that knew, but could to put, in some measure, this knowledge into practice. I think there are also other effects of the same row. But to you nobody deleted a brain part? BFE> in general generally there is no such knowledge in which it is impossible to doubt. It is possible only for each of knowledge to attribute a certain level of reliability. And so, to knowledge based exceptional on memories on improbable things follows concerns carefully. A question at all in that how to concern and how such knowledge is called? I think your excuses - type the brain knocks - the full nonsense. If you know that at you problems with a brain - then, yes. But when never the brain brought - that of that to doubt? After all with the same success it is possible to doubt that that you correctly read judgements of scientists - suddenly the brain replaces one words with others. And when speak, think that tell one, and language says another, besides you do not know about it as the brain substitutes words. Well same marasmus.

25

Re: Whether there is a term for proved (for you) but indemonstrable knowledge?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: BFE>> the Described situation is not the proof. Your brain can deceive you rather artful methods. In particular, you could know all up to trifles, but forget that know also this knowledge to you could will be shown in the sleep, for example. S> And whence you could know, if were in this place never? Saw video shootings of this place, for example. BFE>> the Second method, for a change, the such: an instant later after you learned something to you can seem that you already knew it. Effect similar to effect of a deja vu. S> well and if wrote down in a notepad before? And if wrote down, would began to tell about other reality. BFE>> the third method, as from Henry Gustav Molisonom to whom Bill Skovill deleted a brain part. Henry  could not remember anything new, but repeatedly repeated training led to that repeated training happened much easier. I.e. Henry of M. Did not remember that knew, but could to put, in some measure, this knowledge into practice. I think there are also other effects of the same row. S> but to you nobody deleted a brain part? Think Henry  remembered, what to it deleted a brain part? BFE>> in general generally there is no such knowledge in which it is impossible to doubt. It is possible only for each of knowledge to attribute a certain level of reliability. And so, to knowledge based exceptional on memories on improbable things follows concerns carefully. S> a question at all in that how to concern and how such knowledge is called? It is called "says lies as the eyewitness". S> I think your excuses - type the brain knocks - the full nonsense. In vain so think. Whether segments on the given picture are equal:? S> If you know that at you problems with a brain - then, yes. If know - then all simply. S> but when never the brain brought - that of that to doubt? You never did corrigendas? Never forgot and did not confuse number? Did not forget house keys? You did not have stipulations? S> after all with the same success it is possible to doubt that that you correctly read judgements of scientists - suddenly the brain replaces one words with others. It happens pretty often. Here a vivid example when media to figure Puchkovu (known under an alias the Goblin) Evgenii Timonovoj is the extremely difficult to perceive words. S> And when speak think that tell one, and language says another, besides you do not know about it as the brain substitutes words. So happens. I watched it at two dialogues, short of individual stipulations when the person himself notes that told not that word. In the first the interlocutor in flow of ten minutes substituted a word "orthodox" for a word "Christian" opposing to its word "Catholic". I.e. stated that in Russia a faith Christian, and in the west - Catholic. And only after a question, ' and who such "orthodox"? ' the interlocutor realized the error. This example is not so indicative, as following: One my acquaintance in flow of talk to it substituted instead of a word "buyer" a word "seller" without noting it. Sentences were about such: "If the seller - the woman coming to shop it yet always knows that wants to buy and it should offer and show some goods. If the seller - the man, as a rule, he precisely knows that wants to buy, therefore he should ask, what exactly he would like to buy." And further in the same spirit. On a direct question, instead of whether it confuses the seller to the buyer the answer was - yes, confuses. S> well same marasmus. No, marasmus is an illness such. And the healthy brain "knocks" even.