I made clear that there are at least three criteria for belief other than conclusive scienfic research OR blind faith. To reiterate: Yeah, we've already heard your claims over and over... Any evidence? If you have a way of scientifically proving that certain of my beliefs come from my imagination, I'm all ears. If not, then your statements reveal a callousness bordering on delusions of Omniscience. Trying to shift the burden of proof? You made the wild claims, not me. You have once again propagated the absurd claim that your faith in science's current body of research is equivalent to absolute knowleldge about the nature of reality. This is true disinformation. So, science is disinformation? You have just officially obtained "kook" status. As for my arguments, I have stated that in order to confirm the existence of 6+ human senses, one would have to rely on first-hand experience first and foremost, which is not the context for "evidence" that you requested In other words, we take your word for it. Yeah, right. See, Q, I don't have a problem with Rationalists, skeptics, or most other philosophical or ideological orientations. I just don't like snide people with delusions of absolute knowledge about reality. It's really quite simple, either put up or shut up. You can tear apart anything I say, but the bottom line is that your claims are worthless because they are conjured from your imagination. You live a fantasy. This conversation is over unless you can come up with anything substantial. You are simply wasting everyones time with your delusions.
You're mincing words, perhaps to avoid addressing the quotes I cited. I never said that science propagates disinformation; I said that YOU do. Most scientific discoveries to date are valid, at least within the constraints of the current body of knowledge, but that does not make them absolute. When you're ready to admit to the glaring fallacies in your own prior messages (especially the "I know the truth about reality" section), drop me a line. Unless, of course, your own claims are untenable in ANY context.
I agree that this conversation is over. Feel free to believe that scientists everywhere will view this thread and say "Hear hear, Q! You showed 'im!" Granted, you will be wrong, since I just made a case for one of the underpinnings of science (the causality of evidence) and you labeled me a "kook" in lieu of a coherent reply. Hey, this logic stuff feels pretty empowering--I now realize that reason cannot coexist with mystical awareness. You won!
WW? You're joking, right? http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/winstonwu.htm It's long, but it demonstrates how incredibly flawed Wu's tirade is. Edit: It seems somebody beat me to this. Good to know that people are aware what a joke Winston is. Transmaterial: Seriously, just provide some evidence and you'd blow everyone away. Your accusations of "You follow the religion of Materialistic Scientism" are totally stale. Simply prove everyone wrong with evidence. There is nothing else to it, really.
Sorry, Crunchy Cat, I was a little preoccupied. I think I got the last of the poison out of my system, so I'm just going to pretend that this is a new thread. Nice site. It has alot of good information that is mixed with alot of false information. A dangerous combination IMO. Many of the logical arguments behind it are sound, though in my opinion Mr. Wu extends the definition of "scientifically acceptable evidence" too far in some places. Anyhow, you implied that you have a new sense. That's cool. What is it? Once this is defined lets work together to test it. (Senses, plural... and "new" is hotly debated, but I'm going to rely on the anthropological/ontological evidence for this one.) Of course, there are proven extraordinary abilities such as heightened somatic awareness, which has documented, peer reviewed research to back it up. There were the yogi experiments of the 1970s, in which people who claimed to be masters of bodily control slowed their heartbeat or radically shifted their brainwaves on command. Biofeedback and certain forms of meditation have been used to "train" people to produce similar results, though rarely to the same degree. People under hypnosis have given themselves blisters, etc. I'm loath to go into the really extraordinary claims... at this point, it's like bleeding in shark-infested waters... but what the hell. First, your example: Heck, I'll even throw in some weird claims myself. I can cause a strange physical sensation to manifest in my body {sic} ...in fact I saw a 'Chakra' diagram once and the points of 'energy' shown correspond to many of my pulse points... but this is just an observation and not intended to act as proof of 'Chakra'). I have made an interesting observation; however, if I wake up from sleeping then initiating a pulse will immediately launch me into a lucid dream. {sic} ..Usually the corruption clears in what I would approximate to be 5-10 minutes of dreamtime. So, lets summarize my claims: * I can reproduce a very unusual physical sensation at will. * The sensation can be brought about in pulses and typically emanates from my head but may emanate from various points in my body. The emanation point is not something I can control. * The greater the intensity of the pulse, the farther the sensation will travel in my body. * Initiating a pulse after waking up will immediately throw me into REM sleep (there have been no exceptions to date). The content of the dream after doing this will be corrupted for a short time. I'll make you a deal. If you tell me about your sense and help me test it then I will be accountable to you for proving any of the above claims I made (which are consequently much harder to prove because they are all internalized). Forgot where I was going with this... oh yeah--you framed your "interesting sensation" in a fairly rational light. I feel that this is absolutely necessary for people delving into experiences that are not widely recognized as normal and/or real. The mind CAN delude itself into believing, seeing, hearing, or sensing many different things, depending on one's conscious and unconscious intentions. The greatest New Age pitfall is learning about an unfamiliar belief, saying "it would be so cool if that was true!" and then making up reasons to believe in it. This is an easy mental trap to fall into, but it is not the only psychological mechanism behind mystical exploration. The capacity for discernment, in my opinion, is often indicative of one's ability to perceive what is real. Anecdotal accounts of mystical experiences, for example, are often contradictory when taken as a whole. When you sift through this continuum of belief, however, some voices stand out as the product of people with few mechanisms, illusions or scheming agendas. I don't really count myself in this camp, since I have my own hangups--pride in my intellect, anger at spiteful attitudes... but there are a few, such as Michael Murphy, Stephen Mitchell, and Ken Wilbur, whose level of clarity I aspire to. To say nothing of Plato. Now, those funky senses: Sense #1: Perception of energy fields which pervade matter, and a more refined, coherent type of energy which living beings appear to emit, and which can transmit mental and emotional content from one person's mind to another. This sentient energy is hard to classify in a five-sensory context, as it appears to have a property of sympathetic sound vibration (i.e., empathy), currents that resemble electricity, and a radiating property that resembles the behavior of light. Sense #2: Awareness of an aura of coherent energy surrounding and pervading my own body and the bodies of other people. Said auras change in form, vibration (this is the most difficult aspect to describe; the sound-wave analogy falls short of the actual experience), and intensity. It is impacted by a person's state of mind, and the energy of his or her surroundings, both of which are interdependent. Sense #3: Enhanced spatial orientation. Actually more of an application or side-effect of #1 and #2. Ability to discern people's emotional state at a distance, without visual or auditory contact and no deductive grounds on which to base these conclusions. Also an ability to detect the proximity of a person. This doesn't mean that I'm always saying to myself "I sense that so-and-so is getting nearer," or "so-and-so is feeling angry," in which case the odds are that eventually I'll be correct and can then falsely believe I have a special power. It is generally accurate. Granted, this is just my experience; I don't expect anyone to accept it unless their own experience leads them to similar observations. For what it's worth, this is one of the more commonly reported spontaneous psychic experiences (among people without a prior belief in their own psychic ability). This is sporadic, but might be repeatable under controlled conditions. I certainly don't have the research savvy to design the study. I'll give a little background, which incidentally predates the Celestine Prophecy's popularization of these extrasensory abilities. Early in high school, I didn't know mucch about Eastern metaphysics, then one day, someone performed a 30-second Reiki session by pointing their fingertips at my hand from about three inches away. It had a strange effect of making me acutely aware of electrical impulses circulating throughout my body (I was expecting something more like warmth spreading through my hand). It was a bit like what some people have described feeling while on MDMA. I was intrigued and decided to investigate the notion of energy exchange in hopes of learning about the mechanism behind what had happened to me. I found out that it is not a new idea; it is present in the beliefs of Hindus and all offshoots, particularly Tibetan Buddhism; in Celtic mysticism; even, arguably, in Christianity (laying on of hands, casting out demons, etc). I found the Tibetan explanation most appealing; for over a thousand years, people in Tibet have been deeply involved in trying to systematize knowledge obtained through senses 1 and 2, among others. Science is just a tool for getting at the truth. It is quite frankly the best tool available by leaps and bounds. Most reliable, formulaic and systematic, sure. But it necessarily has shortcomings in what it can identify as "real." The way I see it, there are two Great Hypotheticals at the core of the mysticism vs. science debate: 1. Human beings can develop abilities unknown to most scientists. 2. The human mind is capable of both embellishing one's subjective experience with information that is not real, and screening out information that is real. Both of these abilities being contingent on expectation and belief, it is possible that people who are psychologically invested in the apparent continuity of a certain reality construct could, hypothetically, screen out certain information about their reality in order to reinforce that construct. Now, still speaking purely in hypothetical terms, IF the above statements were true, would you rather that the people studying psychic powers tried to systematize their perceptions, and to be cautious about self-deception interfering with the process, or would you rather that they explore these abilities recklessly, place no value on objective discernment, and accept others' assertions about psychic powers without checking them against what they actually perceive? When a claim is made, it is an assertion of truth and there are a bazillion ways to support claims. I have ESP (ok read my mind). I have telekinesis (ok raise my hand). I have clairvoyance (ok get the winning lottery numbers). Planets are spherical (ok show me). At the risk of feeding into the same logical stalemate, suffice it to say that unlike a planet, the mind does not have a fixed, geometically simple shape. Each person is inconceivably complex, and it is impossible to control all of the conditions within oneself. In my limited experience with ESP, concrete thought ("I am thinking of a ring that I left in Tuscaloosa") does not transmit as often as abstract content ("I am thinking about something that I lost, an object that I lost recently and cannot get back"). The patterns of meaning are what transmits most easily, and it's mora of a challenge to prove that this kind of information is something other than fancy guesswork. (I'm not trying to make a scientific case here, just stating some of my own tentative conclusions.) The only context that Q and I are working in is the known model of existence. If someone builds upon the model or corrects in that is a wonderful thing. If someone jumps into a different model then they are going to have alot of contradiction to get over. I agree. It doesn't make every contradiction correct--and I say that as someone who has contradicted a fair share of "extraordinary claims" myself. My opinion on this is that the disciplines that produce results are the ones worth studying. I agree this wholeheartedly, but would you apply this to first-hand "results" as well? Granted, there are ways to produce elaborate delusions (LSD, for example). There may also be ways to become more perceptive of objective elements of reality. Case in point: a lot of people start yoga believing that it is a fitness program and intent on doubting the claim that it is based on vital energy which arises from the Earth, ascends through the Chakras and back out the top of the head. A lot of them who practice it, particularly the pranayama discipline, end up believing otherwise based on what they consider sensory evidence. Oh, as for this: Your accusations of "You follow the religion of Materialistic Scientism" are totally stale. Simply prove everyone wrong with evidence. There is nothing else to it, really. Stale but true. Scientific Rationalism: "We can functionally disregard most claims that have not been proven, while remaining open to the possibility of research which could eventually prove them. Those who cease to reserve a margin of doubt are no longer truly objective." Materialistic Scientism: "Human science has advanced so far, it has functionally replaced religion as the ultimate authority on what it real. Based on our faith in science, we can assert that claims which radically diverge from the available scientific evidence are NOT real. furthermore, we can safely assume that attempt to prove them WILL be futile, because they are imaginary." I'm paraphrasing, but the terms themselves aren't mine. Q perfectly illustrated the latter paradigm, by claiming to know exactly what is NOT REAL when it comes to psychic ability. This polarization is significant, if you consider that one or the other viewpoint will dictate what a given scientist will consider researching, and that scientists, in turn, are building the body of evidence which determines what many believe. Their choice of paradigms could have a pretty fucking monumental impact on humankind.
I had a dream of some sorts. I dreamnt that in 2008 Paris,France was attacked with a nuclear device. I saw people incinerated in the dream. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Such dreams can be common place, It always asks the question "What would you do in this situation", notibly the dreams never give you time enough to do anything of use or importance in changing the run up to such events. I would question how you percieved Paris, have you been there before?, or is it just a sculpture of what you believe Paris to be like? have you seen programs on Paris? Can you remember a reason as to why you saw Paris? Where you at a convention, holiday or just passing through? Last question would be in 2008 will you go on Holiday to Paris?
I think I got the last of the poison out of my system, so I'm just going to pretend that this is a new thread. And it appears you're leaving us with the same old tired assertions without a shred of evidence. Nothing new there. Q perfectly illustrated the latter paradigm, by claiming to know exactly what is NOT REAL when it comes to psychic ability. Its quite sad you have to lie in order to support your argument. But it appears that's all you have.
Cool beans. This gets right to the core of it. Regarding sense #3, might I ask approximately what is the maximum distance this ability extends?
Transmaterial: So many words, so little content. Just back up your claims. Please. As for your classification of "scientism", you will be hard pressed to find anybody here who actually falls under your New-Age-backlash-definition. Just because people don't believe in your fantasies doesn't mean we're not rationalists.
Crunchy Cat, Not sure of a range, though this "sense" is less likely to be discernible at greater distances. It could just be that when people are further away, I'm usually not as mentally focused on them since I'm not likely to deal with them in the immediate future. When attention to the person diminishes, so does the receptivity. _____ Erk, Define "content." There's plenty of it in my last post, you're just implying that you know what type of content is worthwhile. There are indeed lots of words, but they are strung together in many different patterns which mean lots of different things. As for Scientism: http://www.wynja.com/personality/trurel.html http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/scientism
When I said no 'content', I meant that any use of the word 'scientism' usually involves a backlash against skeptics from people who simply cannot back up their own assertions. All of this rhetoric would be completely unnecessary and replacable with an infinitely more convincing "I told you so!" if you could find, anywhere, evidence of your claims.
Knowing this, how well do you think you could work this 'sense' if your target is in one room of a house and you are in another?
People with special gifts do not usually talk about them, because it is not important. They don't want to get famous with their gifts. That would be black magic, if used to gain something for oneself. All people have some 'powers', and they should never be used to gain something for oneself.
They usually don't talk about them because they can't actually perform under scrutiny. Calling abilities 'black magic' is dark age thinking--who's to dictate whether or not using mysterious powers is wrong? And who says it would be for self-gain? For example, if remote viewing was real, it could be used for all sorts of things that would better humanity: finding missing people, stopping criminals in their tracks, even finding cures for diseases. With such an incredible insentive, you'd think at least one remote viewer would step forward and try to better the world. There are only two conclusions: either every remote viewer is a morally corrupt person, or remote viewing doesn't work (or, isn't useful.) Also, provide evidence that all people have some 'powers.'
For contrast: http://www.williamjames.com/Folklore/PSIONICS.htm Psychic Police Work "The use of psychics by police for solving crimes goes back many decades... Today in the United States, a number of police officials have publicly credited clairvoyants who have helped them with difficult investigations. One of the most prominent of these seers is Marinus B. Dykshorn, a Dutchman, whose autobiography is titled, My Passport Says Clairvoyant. Dykshorn's career spans three decades and three continents. He currently resides in the U.S. For his psychic detective work he has twice been made an associate member of the Sheriffs Association of North Carolina. In May, 1971, he received a commission from Louis B. Nunn, the governor of Kentucky as a Kentucky colonel, "in consideration of outstanding achievement." Dykshorn's book contains ten notarized affidavits from individuals who have received benefit from his clairvoyant abilities. It is particularly interesting to note in his book the difficulties that he had getting researchers interested in testing his abilities, well after his practical successes had been acclaimed." This article is a gold mine of corroborating information on psychic ability.
All people have the power to lift their hand for example. This may not sound like a miracle because we're used to it, but it is actually "the same thing" as if we would lift some object "outside" our "body". We would be able to do this if we were more aware of our body and ourselves. We never think about when we walk, that our feet carries us wherever we "want". We don't even "feel" anything, we are the walking itself, "we are walking". There is nothing wrong with using any powers. As I said, it depends on how we use a power, that decides if it is evil. We all know that it is wrong to say that a person is ugly for example, and we know it is wrong to kill someone. That would be to misuse the "power" (the power of words and the physical power). Man is an egoistic creature, because he yet thinks he can find something good for himself in this world. He does not know that this world is only for the use of the body. We know that we must think about others. It is wrong to gain something for oneself at the expense of others.
That's the issue. Prove it. There is no good evidence that we would be able to do any such thing with a heightened level of awareness.
