Stevenson’s main claim to fame was his meticulous studies of children’s memories of previous lives. Here’s one of thousands of cases. In Sri Lanka, a toddler one day overheard her mother mentioning the name of an obscure town (“Kataragama”) that the girl had never been to. The girl informed the mother that she drowned there when her “dumb” (mentally challenged) brother pushed her in the river, that she had a bald father named “Herath” who sold flowers in a market near the Buddhist stupa, that she lived in a house that had a glass window in the roof (a skylight), dogs in the backyard that were tied up and fed meat, that the house was next door to a big Hindu temple, outside of which people smashed coconuts on the ground. Stevenson was able to confirm that....
I’d be happy to say it’s all complete and utter nonsense—a moldering cesspool of irredeemable, anti-scientific drivel. The trouble is, it’s not entirely apparent to me that it is. So why aren’t scientists taking Stevenson’s data more seriously? The data don’t “fit” our working model of materialistic brain science, surely. But does our refusal to even look at his findings, let alone to debate them, come down to our fear of being wrong? “The wish not to believe,” Stevenson once said, “can influence as strongly as the wish to believe.”
Ian Stevenson’s Case for the Afterlife: Are We ‘Skeptics’ Really Just Cynics? (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2013/11/02/ian-stevensons-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-skeptics-really-just-cynics/?print=true)
Skeptics are often enough cynics, often enough they lack intellectual curiosity and, even though they like to think of themselves otherwise, they deny empirical data, not to mention logical conclusions.
Let's give it a try. What explanations do you have for the data? If you deny the data, then on what grounds? Further, what do you think 'reincarnation', 'rebirth' or 'afterlife' means and entails so that it should be denied?
AFAIK , many stuffs created nor developed just to make the Peace in Mind .
Psychology , philosophy , etc ..
once i read some article about therapy by psychologist using hypnotheraphy .
to hypnotize his patience to Look back to his previous life .
i perhaps not understand his goal .
IMHO that's just methodes
there are differences between a Goal and a Methode .
and if some methodes looks stupid , but works .
then it aint stupid .
That article already has lots of comments. I like this one. (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2013/11/02/ian-stevensons-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-skeptics-really-just-cynics/#comment-5679)
That article already has lots of comments. I like this one. (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2013/11/02/ian-stevensons-case-for-the-afterlife-are-we-skeptics-really-just-cynics/#comment-5679)
It's a long comment, provided that I landed on the right one (the one that begins with a complaint that the first attempt to post it failed).
What specifically do you agree with? With the general thrust that anyone interested in investigating the paranormal should be shunned? So, your stance is that investigation is okay, but not investigation of those things?
I'm gonna give this an "I don't know". I may have seen a ghost once. It was night, I had just gotten home from work (second shift at a factory, it was probably 11:30 that night) and something appeared to go from the coal-bin of our house to the neighbor's bushes. It looked like a woman in a white gown, and that section of the neighbor's bushes would hardly permit a rabbit to pass let alone a woman in a gown. But---- it was late, I was tired and it's just possible my brain was playing tricks on me. You know how it is when you're at that stage where you have micro-naps and you have a dream that seems real-- it could have been that.
You-Tube has lots of videos that show paranormal activity. Problem: I can't tell "for sure" what might be real and what is a magician's trick without actually going there and testing it for myself. Slamming doors, sliding chairs and bowls of fruit that fly off a table are all easy tricks to perform, I, non-magician that I am, could easily stage it. But--- it could be real. Can't tell just by the video.
Investigation is good, if someone cares. The amount of reasons not to take that case seriously are impressive.
Investigation is good, if someone cares. The amount of reasons not to take that case seriously are impressive.
List some reasons that have impressed you.
Summing just that comment up:
- 1 and 2. He had a paranormal background, and worked in many kinds of weird stuff besides reincarnation. Bias on sight.
- 3 and 5. He lied or misinformed about a town and about a rare malformation.
- Other reviews stating that his works lack consistency.
Summing just that comment up:
- 1 and 2. He had a paranormal background, and worked in many kinds of weird stuff besides reincarnation. Bias on sight.
- 3 and 5. He lied or misinformed about a town and about a rare malformation.
- Other reviews stating that his works lack consistency.
And you have materialist background and anti-investigative mindset. The rest follows. You are very easily impressed when preconditioned.
Basically, for you reincarnation does not merit any study because nobody in their right mind believes it. In India, reincarnation does not merit any study because nobody in their right mind doubts it. Same diff.
(Thanks for evaluating me, even as I haven't asked.)
You are right. Everybody requires a good reason to change their mind.
Strange things happens. If we have the right tools for analyzing it, that's another story.
Like in UFOs, not everything are meteorological balloons.
My biggest problem off the jump is the study being done on kids. Children learn to read emotions and gestures well before they learn to use words. Probably the only time reading even micro-gestures is second nature. So can easily infer the wanted answer. That this all is more prevalent in a culture that accepts it is confirmation bias at its best. You'll have to go along way to get me to accept the data at face value. That I won't accept it off hand isn't any proof I'm unwilling to accept it, only that I'm not willing to take a leap of faith off one man's vision when he didn't look around much.
Strange things happens. If we have the right tools for analyzing it, that's another story.
Like in UFOs, not everything are meteorological balloons.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/6a/0b/3d/6a0b3deca84ce619cfb171e5c6d101ce.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/6a/0b/3d/6a0b3deca84ce619cfb171e5c6d101ce.jpg)
That's the best comment yet.
I used to believe in the Greek and Roman gods, but I've grown skeptical since I quit drinking.
Seriously, I don't find anything in paranormal reports more foolish than Judeo-Christian beliefs. And I wouldn't attempt to convince anybody that my agnosticism makes more sense. Some things are beyond meaningful argumentation.
all People is liar , especially those holy man .
imagine , there is kid that Born Blind .
he keep questioning why must he , that born without vision .
and some day , come a BS Talker , saying some lies like , in his previous life he was a General of 1.000.000 army .
he not obey his king , and Betray him .
therefore he is cursed in the next life he will born as a man without Vision .
it will relieve pain in those kids mind , probably will reduce if there are Suicidal thoughts , etc ..
repeat that more and more in a good tone with music , etc ...
and some people sometimes will believe that ..
since Human mind tend to believe something that make sense , or doesnt make sense .
not what is right or wrong .
My biggest problem off the jump is the study being done on kids. Children learn to read emotions and gestures well before they learn to use words. Probably the only time reading even micro-gestures is second nature. So can easily infer the wanted answer.
Quite true. I also see it as a severe limit of the study that only children are subjects. However, looks like Stevenson's results consistently steered him that way. Some of his conclusions (as cited in the article) are:
First, he was convinced that there is only a brief window of time—between the ages of about two and five—in which some children retain these reminiscences of an earlier self. [...] Also, as with the Sri Lankan girl, memories of previous lives tend to occur only when something in the child’s current life jars the recollections awake (in cognitive science terms, a form of recognition memory). In other words, it’s mostly useless to “interview” a child about his or her past life, since—like remembering one’s dream from the night before only while lying in bed tonight—recall can’t be forced on the spot.
But I don't think your hint that children can fool us qualifies as a serious argument against the study. Yes, children can fool us, but we have to find it out and be above it. If we cannot do it, then we are no better than children and we are not qualified to rationally determine anything.
You'll have to go along way to get me to accept the data at face value. That I won't accept it off hand isn't any proof I'm unwilling to accept it, only that I'm not willing to take a leap of faith off one man's vision when he didn't look around much.
To me it looks like Stevenson looked around pretty much and made a case as serious as he could muster. Personally, I am not impressed by his results and data like this would not be able to sway me. His results demonstrate the severe limits of the so-called scientific method. In his results, if the subject didn't spontaneously blurt out enough falsifiable data that could be recorded and verified, then there would be no data. All data needs to be interpreted, and the danger with limited data is that it can only be overinterpreted.
If there are more ways to how reincarnation works, then it looks like those other ways cannot be empirically studied at all. Belfrager's observation is perfectly to the point here. Another point from the article:
Interestingly, and contrary to most religious notions of reincarnation, there was zero evidence of karma. On the whole, it appeared to be a fairly mechanical soul-rebirthing process, not a moralistic one.
Given the entirely mechanical process of recording and verifying, it's no surprise that Stevenson found no evidence of karma. At least he was able to verify that physical traumas carried over in rebirths. But if rebirths are real and people are composites of physical, emotional, and intellectual features, then naturally emotional and intellectual impressions must get re-embodied too. It's all just a memory problem. Death and birth are the worst traumas imaginable, so no wonder hardly anyone remembers anything across rebirth.
Seriously, I don't find anything in paranormal reports more foolish than Judeo-Christian beliefs.
In my life I have met weird people with amazing capacity to confirm what they want to believe contrary to all evidence. Believers who have paranormal experiences, such as seeing ghosts, invariably think the ghosts are angels or devils. Atheists deny ghosts even when they are possessed by them at the same time. Most people want to see (and, consequently, they see) a familiar dead person in the ghost. A tiny minority of people with paranormal experiences is able to keep a cool head and approach the topic rationally, i.e. verify the nature/personality of the ghost and test if there's any trick involved. Children can fool us, other people can fool us, so can ghosts. It's our own responsibility not to be deceived.
Note that I am not saying that ghosts exist or reincarnation exists. I don't care what you believe. What matters is how you deal with reality despite of what you believe. For example, a monster in a dream is "not real", it's just a monster in a dream, but a person's reaction when encountering the monster in the dream is very telling. If it's not real, why do you get scared? How do you get scared of something unreal? So with all reactions. If materialists think they are thoroughly empirical, then instead of denying, let them deal with the empirical data.
Ghost Existed in Mind .
So if someone Possesed by Ghost , take a bat and hit his head until unconciousness .
or give anti-psychotics drugs , instead .
anti delusion , nor anti hallucination , mostly will remove ghost from mind .
If materialists think they are thoroughly empirical, then instead of denying, let them deal with the empirical data.
Nobody is "thoroughly empirical," however much he thinks he is. Monsters in dreams are real enough until one awakens.
When you write "empirical data," what do you mean?
Bandwagon is not empirical at all .
try this with some Paranormal .
analyse their sylogism using scientific proven methodes .
mostly they will do "Special Pleading fallacy " .
Paranormal should be left alone.
Way back when I was about 10 or thereabouts, my mother bought an Ouija board. This device was in our house for a couple of weeks before she got rid of it. In that couple of weeks we saw enough to know--- don't go near that stuff, it's not to be messed with. Whatever it is that powers that thing, it's mighty dark.
Nobody is "thoroughly empirical," however much he thinks he is.
Indeed. Usually they are empiricists up to a point, and the rest is denialism. Inconsistent people are hard to deal with.
When you write "empirical data," what do you mean?
I mean the data verifiable by means of the five ordinary senses. This corresponds to how the empiricists usually mean it. They don't consider the sixth, seventh, etc. senses any more.
Empiricism as per Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism), "Empiricism is a theory which states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] One of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism, empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory experience, in the formation of ideas..."
In contrast, I am a rationalist.
False Evidence Appearing Real = Fear
some people are Denying they have that ..
and prefer make imaginary reality based on their Emotion nor state of mind .
Everyone have Fear , but excessice fear of something is abnormal .
looks like Stevenson's results consistently steered him that way.
Curious there's no other direction to confirm anything he claims. One might assume he stuck to the area that gave the results desired.
If we cannot do it, then we are no better than children and we are not qualified to rationally determine anything.
Don't be so hard on yourself. They're little us-es. Their only job for a few years is to learn how to manipulate us.
To me it looks like Stevenson looked around pretty much and made a case as serious as he could muster. Personally, I am not impressed by his results and data like this would not be able to sway me. His results demonstrate the severe limits of the so-called scientific method.
I'll have to part with wiki on what's empirical to respond. You'd be wise to remove as much of the human element as possible in the data. Universally repeatable results are required not just human sensory observations. Or simply saying this person is sensitive to <blank> that I'm not isn't gonna cut it.
Moreover if I'm to walk down this path you now have to show it's not a result of some other "para" normal device. Not just the one he wanted and can't prove but some other thing that can't yet be detected not involving the soul being transferred. Telepathic transference would be an easier road for me to walk. Memories alone being transferred under certain conditions. There is no doubt the brain emits electromagnetic waves. To what extent it can function as an antenna or transmitter is questionable but gives a ledge to stand on outside how you or I feel about results.
In contrast, I am a rationalist.
Nobody is exclusively one or the other, so if you're a rationalist, you're so in a limited sense.
In contrast, I am a rationalist.
Nobody is exclusively one or the other, so if you're a rationalist, you're so in a limited sense.
You are ridiculously anti-labellist, despite the fact that categories are inevitable. I am very conscious and determined in my self-definition.
You have no chance. Every word you use is a label. Resistance is futile.
looks like Stevenson's results consistently steered him that way.
Curious there's no other direction to confirm anything he claims.
One might assume he stuck to the area that gave the results desired.
Scientists - conscientious scientists at least, and his overall career seems to have been marked by conscientiousness - do not claim so much as they report. The genre of his studies suggests that Stevenson was just reporting. That's data.
I'll have to part with wiki on what's empirical to respond. You'd be wise to remove as much of the human element as possible in the data. Universally repeatable results are required not just human sensory observations. Or simply saying this person is sensitive to <blank> that I'm not isn't gonna cut it.
Your extent of skepticism is irrational, well into the territory of denialism. What do you mean by "universally repeatable results"? Should everybody invariably pole vault 6 metres for you to acknowledge that 6 metres can be pole vaulted? Should chimps get the same results as humans for you to believe it?
Besides, didn't Stevenson remove as much of the human element as possible by concentrating on children? Children are uneducated, free from indoctrination, they don't have a crystallised personality conditioned by the culture yet, etc.
Telepathic transference would be an easier road for me to walk. Memories alone being transferred under certain conditions. There is no doubt the brain emits electromagnetic waves. To what extent it can function as an antenna or transmitter is questionable but gives a ledge to stand on outside how you or I feel about results.
So, telepathy would seem plausible to you? But let me guess, you would subject it to the condition of "universally repeatable results", i.e. you would not believe it unless everybody everywhere anytime would be able to transfer thoughts to each other without any loss, nevermind that people often can't even catch ordinary physical objects they throw at each other.
"Are We ‘Skeptics’ Really Just Cynics?" is the sillies title ever. Very this or that.
But first, we're gonna have to take a ride on the perspective train. Sit back, take in the views and feel free to answer the questionnaire and tell us what you think at the end of the ride.
Besides, didn't Stevenson remove as much of the human element as possible by concentrating on children? Children are uneducated, free from indoctrination, they don't have a crystallised personality conditioned by the culture yet, etc.
They are primal. All they have are feelings and have derived social skills from them. Not much difference than, say, a horse and herd socialization. What sets humans apart is we grow well beyond that state and fill our heads with stuff. Sometimes stuff that makes us forget that primal connection to feelings.
My niece's imaginary friend was a tiger. No idea how this came about but nevertheless she would sell it to ya. Answer for everything. She also was totally random with it. There were times she'd be playing dolls or whatnot, ain't heard about the tiger in days, hop up run around a corner and scream/takeoff running then fall in the floor... Other than there was no tiger, you'd swear you were watching a tiger attack. She's 5 now and there's no mention of the tiger ever.
Kids come up with the most off the wall things and are clever. They absorb information so quickly it's often hard to derive the source.
Anyway, more to the point:
Your extent of skepticism is irrational, well into the territory of denialism.
Labeling. Why that is the silliest title ever is because it rejects the idea you could be a little bit of both. Or neither. I've barely shown any skepticism beyond- one article isn't going to persuade me. Most would call that either reasonable skepticism or common sense. You can get so caught up in labeling everybody and everything that your definitions can get screwed up. "If it's this - it's not that" or " If I/he/she is this - they are not that" are fallacies in logic when you account for the variances in people.
What do you mean by "universally repeatable results"? Should everybody invariably pole vault 6 metres for you to acknowledge that 6 metres can be pole vaulted? Should chimps get the same results as humans for you to believe it?
As a standard; With the same source others should be able to prove it is what you say and not something else. Not an unreasonable request. No idea why you jumped to an extreme as a response tho?
If there are memories there is a difference form one who does remember and one that doesn't. Proving it's not cultural will be hard enough without even using medical scanners. But then you do always go for the "human element", at least as you see it. The article goes out of it's way with the author explaining how he was a skeptic and rational and intelligent and everything else that his reader might be. Meant to evoke emotion and make it relatable, which matters greatly if the labeling system in the title is something you subscribe to.
"Are We ‘Skeptics’ Really Just Cynics?" is the sillies title ever. Very this or that.
If you can only think in binary terms, then this is what it looks like, yes. In reality, there are two options explicitly spelled out right there, so you can settle on something in between the two, as you wish. Apparently you have no such wish. For you it's either all or nothing.
They are primal. All they have are feelings and have derived social skills from them. Not much difference than, say, a horse and herd socialization. What sets humans apart is we grow well beyond that state and fill our heads with stuff. Sometimes stuff that makes us forget that primal connection to feelings.
Your utter mistrust for raw data shows here. This is called skepticism.
My niece's imaginary friend was a tiger. No idea how this came about but nevertheless she would sell it to ya. Answer for everything. She also was totally random with it. There were times she'd be playing dolls or whatnot, ain't heard about the tiger in days, hop up run around a corner and scream/takeoff running then fall in the floor... Other than there was no tiger, you'd swear your were watching a tiger attack. She's 5 now and there's no mention of the tiger ever.
Kids come up with the most off the wall things and are clever. They absorb information so quickly it's often hard to derive the source.
In addition to utter mistrust for raw data, also wilful lack of analytical skills shows here. This goes further than mere skepticism. What could be the reason? Are there some kids in your neighbourhood who pull pranks on you and you find no way to retaliate?
Anyway, more to the point:
Your extent of skepticism is irrational, well into the territory of denialism.
Labeling.
Every word you use is a label. If you mean "labeling" as a kind of objection, then show how the label is inappropriate. The label "shop" on a shop and "cat" on a cat is just common sense. What is there to object?
As a standard; With the same source others should be able to prove it is what you say and not something else. Not an unreasonable request.
And how has this standard not been met? You think Stevenson is the only one to have conducted such studies? It's probably just that his standard is higher than ordinarily is the case. Or are there studies that disprove these results?
Very few people care to investigate paranormal topics at all. No consistent grants, hence no consistent standard, hence no consistent proof, and no decisive disproof either.
Don't get me wrong. I am as skeptical of empirical data as you are. But I am not scared to call it for what it is - data, and I am not afraid to do with it what should be done with data. Data is not going away by denial. If you get lucky, it goes away by exorcism, like in mjmsprt40's case.
Are there some kids in your neighbourhood who pull pranks on you and you find no way to retaliate?
Please explain how you came to this conclusion? I'd like to understand what you mean before I respond.
Are there some kids in your neighbourhood who pull pranks on you and you find no way to retaliate?
Please explain how you came to this conclusion? I'd like to understand what you mean before I respond.
You said, among many other things in similar vein, "Kids come up with the most off the wall things and are clever." Now, clever is not an absolute. It's a relative term. So, you must mean kids are cleverer than someone else. Who else? From the context - kids are cleverer than you.
Your entire post presses the point that children are incomprehensible and unmanageable, and this is the basis on which you mistrust Stevenson's study. I hope you understand when I label your reasons flimsy at best, but likely something worse is at play.
but likely something worse is at play.
You don't play nice with others. There's little point.
You've gone to great lengths to skew my meaning. It's clear you don't respect me, and that's fine. I feel it's earned and nothing I need. But, not everyone feels that way and some will demand respect. You'd have to wonder what their definition is vs mine. I may not believe he is getting that respect but meh. I'm willing to understand all he wants is people to be decent to him. Whether I'd call it respect or not.
The label "shop" on a shop and "cat" on a cat is just common sense. What is there to object?
Nice that you picked things I can empirically prove no problem when I said:
when you account for the variances in people.
Because we are talking about ideas or paranormal. Kinda rules out that argument for you. Confirmation of one thing's label is not confirmation any label fits where applied.
Other than you want to try and make me look foolish, and maybe you have, what was your point in responding? While on label how about refute vs attack.
Did you try to change my position or attack it as foolish?
Because we are talking about ideas or paranormal. Kinda rules out that argument for you. Confirmation of one thing's label is not confirmation any label fits where applied.
The question is what labels you think are applicable in case of ideas and paranormal. My point is that yes, there are perfectly applicable labels for ideas and paranormal, and the principle of applying the labels is the same as with empirical things. Also the standard of verifying the correctness of labels of ideas and paranormal are analogical to empirical labels. I have been making the analogy between the empirical and the paranormal all along, because to me there's no big difference.
Anyway, Stevenson's study is completely empirical. It concerns empirical people and places, their readily verifiable names, features, etc. All this should be within your grasp. It doesn't set out to psychoanalyse the character profiles of the subjects. It reports on reappearance of visible physiological features across rebirth.
Did you try to change my position or attack it as foolish?
Your position on Stevenson's study is that kids say the darndest things and the thing to do about it is to pay no attention. Is this an unfair summary? Feel free to correct my impression of your position. Or elaborate what you really meant, if you meant something totally different.
In a day or two I will state my own reasons why I dismiss Stevenson's study, so you can compare my reasons and yours.
The question is what labels you think are applicable in case of ideas and paranormal.
And the reply was nothing shows one ambiguous label fits better than another. The cause is assumed. (Based on a cosmological constant isn't enough?)
You were trying to show I'm an irrational skeptic because I'm not interested in weighing this one man's life work out. I'd offer you showed you're the cynic in the process.
In a day or two I will state my own reasons why I dismiss Stevenson's study, so you can compare my reasons and yours.
Comparison is important to you. No need to wait, please. I don't see overdue attention as more rational.
But then you seem to play for stalemate (unless in thesis form, then Katy bar the door) and assume I am playing to win. This conversation didn't go anywhere. Well, not from a point progressive standpoint. All I had to do was ask nicely tho. What was my last issue about? Feelings affecting outcomes, or something? IDK.
it is like some people that insist this world is matrix world .
it is like begging another people to hate you ...
Sir , Please ...
Science is antidot for Stupidity .
so they can save themself from the Charlatans .
How does science measure the paranormal? One problem that science has is that you can't actually measure this stuff to see what it weighs, how large it is, whether it moves and so on.
Sometimes they try taking photos of ghosts, but there always seem to be problems. Ill-defined shapes, sometimes just hovering balls of light, something which may or may not be there.... you know how it is. The spirit is willing, but the flash is weak. :faint:
Perhaps because they search ghost in the wrong place .
find them inside the Hallucinated mind .
Perhaps because they search ghost in the wrong place .
with wrong tool?
few months ago , something appeared in my mind .
if there are device that can match Brain wave to language ( Mind to text ) then automatically do Google search in internet .
Perhaps we can read everybody mind in details easily .
especially children mind , which their language development is in progress , and some people that lack in grammar .
or probably something ambitious such to see what is inside the Animal Mind .
therefore, there will some good methode to Solves Mysterious thingy .
well , maybe it is just my tradition that lack of English .
so perhaps i just can not find The right keyword to find that kind of Project .
to check if it is already existed or currently there are development in that way .
The question is what labels you think are applicable in case of ideas and paranormal.
And the reply was nothing shows one ambiguous label fits better than another.
But you haven't shown that the labels are ambiguous. We are quite clear on what we are talking about. Reincarnation, reappearance of physiological features across rebirth, memories of past lives... What is unclear here?
A monster in the closet or some such may be spooky and it may scare you to heart attack - and it may not exist -, but it is by no means unclear.
The cause is assumed.
The cause is assumed as opposed to denied. Which one is better? "Yeah, the effects seem to be there, but really, there's no cause. Cannot be."
You were trying to show I'm an irrational skeptic because I'm not interested in weighing this one man's life work out. I'd offer you showed you're the cynic in the process.
You participated in this thread while evidently not being very interested in the topic. I don't quite know how to label it, but there's no ambiguity about what it is that I am failing to label right now. If I gave it enough time (I won't), I would eventually find the right label. Until then, thanks for your contribution. This thread would not be half as long without you.
Comparison is important to you.
Yes, because this is how standards become so clear that there will be no ambiguity about their labels. Skepticism minus scientific curiosity is denialism.
The spirit is willing, but the flash is weak. :faint:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.sodahead.com%2Fpolls%2F002107461%2F1034187152_facepalm_homer_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg&hash=0ad9708e7606ceeb93b01f57eed244d4" rel="cached" data-hash="0ad9708e7606ceeb93b01f57eed244d4" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002107461/1034187152_facepalm_homer_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg)
You participated in this thread while evidently not being very interested in the topic.
Well. You've got me there.
We are quite clear on what we are talking about. Reincarnation
I offered telepathic transference. Memories being transferred could have an affect on the brain causing under development or any other random effect. Mind over matter. I wouldn't have to attach too many other papers I've read on para-issues to have data supposedly supporting the idea. But like both of us have said at one point or another, if that's what I'd actually have is another question.
Skepticism minus scientific curiosity is denialism.
I disagree that denialism applies. I understand the subject and it's not by any means well accepted everywhere. Only in the data's query. I brought up a label for that earlier but you denied it. :P
so perhaps i just can not find The right keyword to find that kind of Project .
to check if it is already existed or currently there are development in that way .
Project Stargate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project)
I don't remember the Soviet program's name offhand.
We are quite clear on what we are talking about. Reincarnation
I offered telepathic transference. Memories being transferred could have an affect on the brain causing under development or any other random effect. Mind over matter.
You mean you offered telepathy as an explanation for the rebirth effects? Like, traumatic memories get carried over into the next person (pre-birth in the womb?), and the memories cause the deformations to take shape?
This is what I didn't get. I thought you brought up telepathy as a separate topic, just like mj brought up ouija board.
So, care to elaborate your ideas on telepathy?
You mean you offered telepathy as an explanation for the rebirth effects? Like, traumatic memories get carried over into the next person (pre-birth in the womb?), and the memories cause the deformations to take shape?
Yessir. I was using it more to make a different point tho.
So, care to elaborate your ideas on telepathy?
Perhaps, as time permits.
You mean you offered telepathy as an explanation for the rebirth effects? Like, traumatic memories get carried over into the next person (pre-birth in the womb?), and the memories cause the deformations to take shape?
Yessir. I was using it more to make a different point tho.
What was the different point? Because to me the entire telepathy reference looked like a loosely dangling remark.
What was the different point? Because to me the entire telepathy reference looked like a loosely dangling remark.
That reincarnation wasn't the only para-solution. And thus favoring one over the other is labeling bias given no reason to discount the other without proof. The greater point being one has to follow their feelings not a process to make the distinction. Does one want there to be a soul so bad you simply deny the possibility that's not what happens and really something else paranormal or just regular normal is the result.
What was the different point? Because to me the entire telepathy reference looked like a loosely dangling remark.
That reincarnation wasn't the only para-solution. And thus favoring one over the other is labeling bias given no reason to discount the other without proof.
You mean you see reincarnation and telepathy as somehow mutually exclusive? You will really have to explain how this works for you. I don't get it.
To me reincarnation and telepathy are different aspects of the same thing. Both are transference of mind, but telepathy is the miniature version - thought transference between two (rarely more) people. In contrast, reincarnation is personality transference across a rebirth - a single personality drops a body and adopts another, ordinarily a subconscious deeply hypnotic or traumatic procedure.
The greater point being one has to follow their feelings not a process to make the distinction.
:eyes:
Elaborate on this one too. Why follow feelings rather than a process? What does it mean to follow a process? A process of what? And make the distinction of what? Between reincarnation and telepathy?
You mean you see reincarnation and telepathy as somehow mutually exclusive?
You'll have trouble showing me they are or aren't.
Why follow feelings rather than a process? What does it mean to follow a process? A process of what? And make the distinction of what? Between reincarnation and telepathy?
Now you're getting it. There's just no way to be sure.
So, care to elaborate your ideas on telepathy?
Perhaps, as time permits.
You don't need to do it ensbb3, with telepathy ersi will know it.
So, care to elaborate your ideas on telepathy?
Perhaps, as time permits.
You don't need to do it ensbb3, with telepathy ersi will know it.
Indeed. I know he wasn't talking about time. I provided definitions for him that he refuses to deny or confirm, so his point is that as soon as we approach anything resembling an explanation, the discussion is over.
I guess we have covered Stevenson's material as thoroughly as could reasonably be hoped. Let's move on to item number 2. Explain this:
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_VaT5-x83M[/video]
This is from a Russian TV series Battle of the Witches. The witch (the lady who enters in the beginning) is supposed to find a male from among the seated ladies without looking at the face. To test yourself, see if you are able to spot the male by the face. The witch gets the male's passport from the host (forbidden to open the passport) for help, but the witch doesn't need it.
This particular test (and the whole TV series) has a lot more to it than what is shown in this clip. At each test there are several witches involved who have to pass the test at their own turn. Some concentrate on the passport while some don't need it. Some fair better than others. Some reveal personal material of such nature that the subjects break down emotionally. The full material is not for those weak at heart. It's a good thing that you cannot understand the language, but I will answer if you have questions.
Obviously, there's mind-reading involved here. Anyone can do it to an extent. The ordinary human language, speech and text, is the most elementary form of meaning-inference from signs. Mind-reading is similarly an inference of meanings from other kinds of signs.
there is no mind-reading .
there is only correography .
btw , have you tried to smell the color 9 ?
Why have none of these witches claimed the James Randi Education Foundation's million dollar challenge offering a prize US$1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power or event, under test conditions agreed to by both parties. Anyone possessing a genuine paranormal ability should easily be able to reach an agreement on the test criteria with James Randi. No one has ever been able to claim the award, so no one posses any provable paranormal ability. Period.
People are drawn to the paranormal because they have paranormal experiences--as defined by paranormalists. These experiences are inexplicable at a particular moment in time, but why would one choose to leap to the metaphysical for a reasonable explanation? It is not rational to do so, at least not in today's world. Remember that just because you don't know of a reasonable explanation to something doesn't mean that there isn't one. Ersi, you are looking at an event and data that not even you can verify, test or repeat, so why ask us to debunk this event? Apparently you are so taken by this man Stevenson, that you believe he is beyond reproach...or is it simply that he believes in the same thing you do? (Much more likely.)
Your terms, 'reincarnation', 'rebirth' or 'afterlife' should be dismissed out of hand because those terms arose at a time when people were highly superstitious, scientifically unaware and simply gave them a relieving and satisfactory explanation for what they could not understand or have knowledge of at that time. Those terms have been carried over to today by those who have a need to believe in them--you are such a person. You have ulterior motives for your beliefs and as such, they are inadmissible here based on personal bias. So many other beliefs (paranormal, occult, UFO, Loch Ness or otherwise), have been debunked as time and science marches on, that it sets a precedent for all such beliefs as being unreasonable--even irrational, if you will. You could do so much better if you put such foolish things aside. :knight: :cheers:
there is no mind-reading .
Indeed, the more appropriate term for the video is clairvoyance. But what would you care of these distinctions that go over your head :)
I have heard people say "there is no meaning (as such, at all)". If this statement is supposed to have a meaning, then it's self-refuting. If this statement is supposed to have no meaning, then it matters as little as any other meaningless statement.
Why have none of these witches claimed the James Randi Education Foundation's million dollar challenge offering a prize US$1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power or event, under test conditions agreed to by both parties. Anyone possessing a genuine paranormal ability should easily be able to reach an agreement on the test criteria with James Randi. No one has ever been able to claim the award, so no one posses any provable paranormal ability. Period.
Not sure if the test conditions really are agreed on by both parties. Randi has been able to attract only shameless cranks thus far so probably he has a filtering system that deters any real paranormalists. What if he forbids rituals, for example? What do you know about the conditions he has?
Money is the root of evil in the world of paranormal. Even black magicians acknowledge this. Black magicians may work for fame/vanity (which is also forbidden by more rigorous understanding of esoteric ethics), but they have a strict attitude about money. The fact that Randi's challenge is about his dollars is enough to deter all witches of the sort that step up in the Battle of the Witches. They all say they are there to popularise their art and to "help people". You may be skeptical about what they do, but their ethical attitude is not a mere posture. Doubt this and it's evident that you fundamentally misunderstand what drives them.
People are drawn to the paranormal because they have paranormal experiences--as defined by paranormalists. These experiences are inexplicable at a particular moment in time, but why would one choose to leap to the metaphysical for a reasonable explanation? It is not rational to do so, at least not in today's world. Remember that just because you don't know of a reasonable explanation to something doesn't mean that there isn't one.
Remember that you don't have an explanation precisely because you are looking at the wrong place for the answers. I don't have this problem. I have the explanation and I don't need to worry about looking for any "rational" explanation as defined by irrationalists.
Empiricism and rationalism are different things, as has been known in philosophy for a few millennia. Wikipedia will help you out.
Anyway, my question is this: If you had the chance to repeat the experiment as shown in the video and you got the same results, would it convince you? If yes, go ahead and do it.
intuition is not paranormal thingy at all .
do this simple test to those that said have ParaNormal ability .
in loterry , ask them two number for tommorow ( 2D) .
see the result , then collect the statistic .
on the other hand , just because do not understand how it works , does not mean it is Wrong .
Vice versa .
just because understand how it works , does not mean it is Right .
intuition is not paranormal thingy at all .
I'm quite convinced that the entire so-called paranormal is not so para after all. It's pretty normal, rational.
Anyway, my question is this: If you had the chance to repeat the experiment as shown in the video and you got the same results, would it convince you? If yes, go ahead and do it.
There are magicians who have fantastically marvelous tricks and I am not only amused, but I am completely baffled as to how they perform such "magic". Do I believe in magic or should any rational person believe it is magic simply because they can't explain it? Of course not and even the greatest magicians tell their audiences that it is all just illusion, deception and misdirection that tricks the human eye and mind. If these 'witches' were to say the same thing to the audience, there would simply be no show. They must keep up the ruse with a very straight and serious face to get gullible people to believe it. If nothing else, they are good actresses and that is all. A show such as this would never get on the air in the US because it is so hoaxy and depends only on the witches to be convincing to make a good show. Is this the Russian version of reality TV? You got a long way to go, baby.
It is only logical that so called clairvoyant people deny the desire for money lest it taint their craft simply because it is the only explanation for them not being filthy rich. Can you imagine what the defense department and other companies would pay true clairvoyants to work for them? No one is immune from the desire for money, not Buddhist monks, ministers, doctors, heads of state or witches Ersi--grow up. :knight: :cheers:
This is one time I have to side with Seaton. If these people were for real, they'd be lining up at the $100.00 window at the horse track, winning big on the stock market and buying the sure-thing winning Lottery ticket. Instead, she's sitting in a run-down house reading your palm for what amounts to peanuts.
There are magicians who have fantastically marvelous tricks and I am not only amused, but I am completely baffled as to how they perform such "magic". Do I believe in magic or should any rational person believe it is magic simply because they can't explain it? Of course not and even the greatest magicians tell their audiences that it is all just illusion, deception and misdirection that tricks the human eye and mind. If these 'witches' were to say the same thing to the audience, there would simply be no show.
With all due respect for the illusionists, if they put up anything resembling what the witches do, now that would be quite a show. And nicely enough, some in fact are quite impressive
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJPBZtmaANI[/video]
Except that intentional hurting is a no-no in the witches' world. The difference between illusionists and witches is ethics. (Not saying that the witches in the Russian show are really angels. Witches is the right word.)
No one is immune from the desire for money, not Buddhist monks, ministers, doctors, heads of state or witches Ersi--grow up. :knight: :cheers:
If it never occurred to you that some might desire power instead and sacrifice everything they have (money being the first and smallest thing) to get power, then it's high time for you to grow up.
If it's power you're after, and money means nothing to you---- may I suggest top-fuel drag racing. Or top-fuel tractor-pulling competition. Unbelievable amounts of power being generated, blowing through money like it's nothing.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PEYGEzuJh0[/video]
If it's power you're after, and money means nothing to you---- may I suggest...
To get rid of money (and health), alcohol or drugs also do the trick. Does the addict want money? Only insofar as money gets him drugs. Amazing how this world works, isn't it? So simple, yet so complicated.
I just wrote about monetary eigenvalue in the economy thread. I do not subscribe to that theory. And I honestly do not comprehend people who buy into it and live accordingly.
And nicely enough, some in fact are quite impressive
Lol...look closely Ersi. There is a half second delay between the time the blow from behind is delivered to the time the shill finally reacts. I showed this to 3 others without saying a word to them and they all saw it too, this is a very poorly performed trick. The delay is the reaction time it takes for the shill to get his cue and then to react to it. And why was this man not propelled forward at all by a blow from behind? :knight: :cheers:
I have trouble embedding video, but go here for a look at Clairvoyance Exposed!!...lol. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3UANEflcX0
Soviet marine conducted experiments with telepathy because when submarines are under the north pole communication by usual ways it's not possible.
Western reports about those experiments were inconclusive.
So I could link to something (dnd sine qua non credibility) there you have it (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vision_remota/esp_visionremota_9a.htm).
Lol...look closely Ersi. There is a half second delay between the time the blow from behind is delivered to the time the shill finally reacts. I showed this to 3 others without saying a word to them and they all saw it too, this is a very poorly performed trick. The delay is the reaction time it takes for the shill to get his cue and then to react to it. And why was this man not propelled forward at all by a blow from behind? :knight: :cheers:
The problem is that you think it's a blow or a punch. It's not. It's like a sudden stomach or liver ache.
If it were a punch, the illusionist could simply deliver it without ceremony, like the sensei does in the beginning. But the illusionist does differently. He uses hypnosis and builds a psychic rapport. Therefore the effect is different too. You of course don't believe in those things, but when you see somebody doing that to you, run away. Luckily not everybody is sensitive to hypnotism. You will find out when you try :)
Now, if you research this illusionist, Derren Brown, you will find him saying that he does not use hypnotism. You will find him repeatedly denying hypnotism. However, his behaviour speaks against this. What you see there is building a psychic rapport. He does it just for show, while witches do it upon request and permission "to heal" (according to their own particular definition of healing).
Often, psychics are not frauds--they genuinely believe in their powers. But they've never tested their powers in any meaningful way. For a witch (psychic), to use her astounding powers on a silly TV show to pick out the male transvestite from a group of women (correct me if I am wrong, I didn't understand a word), is rather a waste of an exceptional and propitious talent--wouldn't you agree? Why are psychics not predicting the next terrorist attack, bus bombing, school shooting, assassination, natural disaster or anything else meaningful? :knight: :cheers:
Often, psychics are not frauds--they genuinely believe in their powers. But they've never tested their powers in any meaningful way. For a witch (psychic), to use her astounding powers on a silly TV show to pick out the male transvestite from a group of women (correct me if I am wrong, I didn't understand a word), is rather a waste of an exceptional and propitious talent--wouldn't you agree? Why are psychics not predicting the next terrorist attack, bus bombing, school shooting, assassination, natural disaster or anything else meaningful? :knight: :cheers:
They actually are doing it. Belfrager's material is one that hints that way. It's just that there are not so many good foretellers, then there are things that are meant to happen anyway, and the whole paranormal field is officially shunned while it's up to the authorities to act on information. Even the more ordinary spy information gets overlooked or ignored, such as Sorge's messages to Stalin on the date of Hitler's assault or the French police records on Kouachi brothers who were known dangerous criminals.
The paranormal field is shunned for good reason. Scientific test results have shown time and again that the abilities of self-proclaimed psychics is actually on the same par as flipping a coin (or sometimes worse), when it comes to predicting anything--as is pointed out in this short article: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/may/12/psychic-claims-james-randi-paranormal :knight: :cheers:
(Dumb luck was not even on her side, much less any psychic ability).
So, someone who passes Randi's test would convince you? But this would not convince me, because such psychic would fail the ethical test, which is far more serious. The psychic skills alone are not so important. The way they are used is important.
For example in case of a person with engineerial skills it makes quite a difference if he is building houses or blowing them up. Similarly with psychics, it is not just what skills they have, but how they are contributing to the reputation of their art. And I agree that the reputation is not so good, but I maintain that this does not disqualify every practitioner.
Ethics is central to this art and ethics is at a universal low. Even physicians are not ethical these days. And when somebody happens to make ethics central to his life, he automatically commits himself off the radar screen of media interest.
So, someone who passes Randi's test would convince you? But this would not convince me, because such psychic would fail the ethical test, which is far more serious. The psychic skills alone are not so important. The way they are used is important.
Really Eric...really? Why not win the prize to promote their own cause and shut people up about psychics being nothing but slick charlatans. Use the money for a psychic foundation or just donate the cash to their favorite freaking charity fer chrissakes. These ladies have done nothing but put a new spin on the psychic con game and you have bought it hook, line and sinker (for the life of me, I can't imagine why). There are 'spin doctors' for anything and everything and it comes at a very hefty price too. You need to talk about something else Eric. :knight: :cheers:
Really Eric...really? Why not win the prize to promote their own cause and shut people up about psychics being nothing but slick charlatans. Use the money for a psychic foundation or just donate the cash to their favorite freaking charity fer chrissakes.
Actually they did that. They proved themselves for themselves, they made skeptics talk another way (skeptics cannot be shut up even when Randi changes his mind), they promoted their cause and earned some money - in Russia, where they live. If you are so keen to test them again, go to Russia. Don't be a chicken.
Another simple question. Who is better/worse: Someone who tells people he got psychic powers when he only uses illusion tricks (Uri Geller) or someone who tells people he uses no psychic powers when he evidently uses them (Derren Brown)?
well ,
using degraded term is not wise too ...
psychic in old school used to described as Psyche , or something like that ...
but the world has changed ...
Psychic nowadays is Paranormal , or wtf thingy
Another simple question. Who is better/worse: Someone who tells people he got psychic powers when he only uses illusion tricks (Uri Geller) or someone who tells people he uses no psychic powers when he evidently uses them (Derren Brown)?
Why would I bother with such a thing? People (soothsayers and the likes), have claimed to have psychic powers since recorded history, and yet such a power has never been adequately demonstrated by anyone beyond expected mathematical probability. I call that nothing. Hence there is no further investigation called for at this time. Same analogy applies to gremlins, ghosts, god and the striped purple dragon in my garage. :knight: :cheers:
What colour stripes?
I've never seen anything "paranormal" that didn't have some rational explanation if you want to dig for it. Most of it-- maybe all-- is some sort of flimflammery. Even the night I thought I saw a ghost has a possible-- in fact, likely-- other explanation. Now, I can't entirely rule out having seen an actual ghost--- but the possibility that I was tired, it was late and my mind might have been playing tricks on me can't be ruled out either.
Now, as it happens I did see a pink elephant wearing glasses a few times. Seems the elephant isn't sure he's seeing us. Yes, there's photographic evidence to prove the existence of this elephant--- you don't suppose I'd leave a thing like that to chance, would you?
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.c.photoshelter.com%2Fimg-get%2FI0000pbvPu1Q09Qs%2Fs%2F860%2F860%2FElephantGlasses.jpg&hash=6f8d689d0ee7999dc07ddb162f287d18" rel="cached" data-hash="6f8d689d0ee7999dc07ddb162f287d18" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000pbvPu1Q09Qs/s/860/860/ElephantGlasses.jpg)
I've never seen anything "paranormal" that didn't have some rational explanation if you want to dig for it.
You mean like the Ouija board you told about in post #19? The digging you did to find a rational explanation for it was to get rid of it...
I've never seen anything "paranormal" that didn't have some rational explanation if you want to dig for it.
You mean like the Ouija board you told about in post #19? The digging you did to find a rational explanation for it was to get rid of it...
That sure seemed to be the right thing to do at the time. Stuff I've read and heard since backs up that notion.
Mr Seaton would tell you not to mess with it because the "power" is fraudulent, and not apparently subject to scientific tests. I say not to mess with it because whatever is behind that thing is evil. So, JSeaton and I are on the same page concerning Ouija boards, but for different reasons. Not even that different as it happens: If there IS evil behind it as I suspect, that evil is trying to deceive you--making the advice given by the "magic oracle" fraudulent.
Messing around with witches, Tarot cards, Ouija boards and for all I know hanging garlic on your door to ward off werewolves doesn't make for good 21st Century educated discussion. All that stuff really belongs to back-woods lore at a time when people feared going to the castle on the hill because the vampire-prince that lives there would eat you. But, on a storm-tossed autumn evening, when the shadows lengthen, it makes a great story to scare each other around the camp-fire.
"Hoot"
I just heard a wolf.
(Everybody takes off, running in terror.)
Heh heh. Wolves don't hoot. :D
I've never seen anything "paranormal" that didn't have some rational explanation if you want to dig for it.
You mean like the Ouija board you told about in post #19? The digging you did to find a rational explanation for it was to get rid of it...
That sure seemed to be the right thing to do at the time. Stuff I've read and heard since backs up that notion.
Mr Seaton would tell you not to mess with it because the "power" is fraudulent, and not apparently subject to scientific tests. I say not to mess with it because whatever is behind that thing is evil. So, JSeaton and I are on the same page concerning Ouija boards, but for different reasons. Not even that different as it happens: If there IS evil behind it as I suspect, that evil is trying to deceive you--making the advice given by the "magic oracle" fraudulent.
Messing around with witches, Tarot cards, Ouija boards and for all I know hanging garlic on your door to ward off werewolves doesn't make for good 21st Century educated discussion. All that stuff really belongs to back-woods lore at a time when people feared going to the castle on the hill because the vampire-prince that lives there would eat you. But, on a storm-tossed autumn evening, when the shadows lengthen, it makes a great story to scare each other around the camp-fire.
"Hoot"
I just heard a wolf.
(Everybody takes off, running in terror.)
Heh heh. Wolves don't hoot. :D
Maybe only occasionally.
Anybody remember this guy? Bela Lugosi of the old Dracula movies. I'm old enough to have seen his films.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southernwinesblog.com%2Fimages%2Fbl0156.jpg&hash=058c7ea917bba93aa083cf5ec7fbaae9" rel="cached" data-hash="058c7ea917bba93aa083cf5ec7fbaae9" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.southernwinesblog.com/images/bl0156.jpg)
Lugosi was one of the worst actors to put on makeup and funny costumes. Here's one of the worst movies ever made, and Lugosi is in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5DZhDH8eew (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5DZhDH8eew)
"power"
there is no that kind of power , there is only lies .
and the source of that lies is Politicians .
Definition of Politicians ---> Lies Producers , since the People Loves to hear lies .
i tell you Sir , some myth in my land .
in Tuesday Kliwon Night , and thursday kliwon Night .
All Ghost will Go out .
Everybody Believe that , and most of them don't go out at Tuesday/ thurday night .
but only some that understand and just laugh .
Tuesday Kliwon night , is
Malam Anggara kasih .
in a nutshell it is the good night to f***k and make children .
so does at Thursday night .
that Kind of Politics , simply will Solves Peeking issues when People F***k their wives at home .
Anybody remember this guy? Bela Lugosi of the old Dracula movies. I'm old enough to have seen his films.
I'm probably not half as old as you are, but I watch older movies than you. Here's a pioneering film by a well-recognised illusionist.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh86QqNfs3k[/video]
F***k their wives at home
I'm not one to worry over spelling. First time I can recall a word misspelled in asterisks tho.
"For sexing" or "make love to" (for a woman's acceptable version) could of been asterisk free versions of the same.
Anybody remember this guy? Bela Lugosi of the old Dracula movies. I'm old enough to have seen his films.
No, I dislike Hollywood's copyright infringement.
An interesting argument I encountered on the interwebz about mind-body connection.
Suppose that the mind is distinct from the body (which it logically must be, and no neuroscientist has proven otherwise). And that we have free will, i.e. the individual mind can move the body-parts and stuff within reach of the body-parts.
If the mind is immaterial (neuroscientists have not shown it to be anything else), then its relationship with the physical body is telekinetic. The mind moves the body-parts by telekinesis.
Normally, the individual mind is tied to a specific body, but if the nature of the relationship between them is telekinesis, then under some circumstances it must be possible for the mind to take on the same relationship with other bodies too. It's just a matter of conretely realising the relationship in oneself and figuring out the circumstances to make it applicable.
Suppose that the mind is distinct from the body (which it logically must be, and no neuroscientist has proven otherwise).
In which case there are minds floating around everywhere in Seance City. Anybody run into one lately?
Suppose that the mind is distinct from the body (which it logically must be, and no neuroscientist has proven otherwise).
In which case there are minds floating around everywhere in Seance City. Anybody run into one lately?
You can always go there to make sure.
My inner mind bows to your inner mind. Or whatever...
(It's not working. Damn underdeveloped mind of mine...)
Well jimbro I ran into a Scottish nationalist dishing out general election leaflets and regarded him as paranormal??
Russians made a lot of experiments about telepathy during under North Pole passages of their submarines when communication it's not possible.
No one knows for sure the results.