Mod+ Assume the proponent is generally correct. Why then is this world is so skeptic friendly?

S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#1
Mod+ because the assumption here is that materialism is false, that Consciousness is fundamental, that there are spiritual beings if not a God, that mind is not equal to brain and there is an afterlife.

Let's say tomorrow mainstream academia and the world governments accept the above things mentioned in italics.

How would we then explain the seeming rarity of near unarguable paranormal phenomena? Is it a Trickster? Are we just one part of the universe/multiverse/dimensions that don't have a lot of macro-PK, magick, etc?
 
#2
How would we then explain the seeming rarity of near unarguable paranormal phenomena?
The rarity of paranormal phenomena is an illusion created in your mind by materialist propaganda.

Every scientific controversy shows us that the best explanation for the evidence is an opinion, therefore nothing is unarguable. If nothing is "unarguable" then there are no unarguable paranormal phenomena. Unarguable paranormal phenomena are rare because there are always some people who are ready to argue against any paranormal phenomena.

The question is why do so many people argue against paranormal phenomena? (See below for my opinions on why that is.)

If you mean why aren't paranormal phenomena more common, why aren't more people psychic etc, then the answer is the same as why the charge of the electron is 1.6 x 10^-19 columbs or why the gravitational constant is 6.7 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2. It is the way the laws of nature are.


However, to me paranormal phenomena seem common and the evidence convincing.

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/psi_experience
It's sort of odd that in the mainstream culture of the US, psychic abilities are considered either non-existent or rare and unusual, while at the same time Spiritualists have been quietly going about their daily lives living with and experiencing psychic phenomena as a normal everyday thing as certain and natural as the sunrise or the changing seasons.
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers
Many nobel prize winning scientists believed in paranormal phenomena because of the evidence: Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, Guglielmo Marconi, J. J. Thomson, Brian D. Josephson, William Phillips, Richard Smalley, Ernst Chain, Charles Robert Richet, John William Strutt, Marie Curie, Pierre Curie, Eugene Wigner, John Eccles, Otto Stern, Arno Penzias, Charles Townes, George Wald, Arthur Compton, Antony Hewish, Christian Anfinsen, Walter Kohn, Arthur Schawlow. Other great scientists who also believed in paranormal phenomena because of the evidence: Charles Darwin, Kurt Gödel, Sir Fred Hoyle, John von Neumann, Alan Turing, Wernher von Braun, David Bohm, Karl Popper, Louis Pasteur, Carl Jung, Alfred Russel Wallace, Sir William Crookes, Sir Robert Boyle.
See the link for information on what they believed and why.


There is plenty of good scientific evidence for paranormal phenomena:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/articl...ect.html#articles_by_subject_science_evidence
Scientific Evidence of Paranormal Phenomena

Peer Reviewed Journal Articles on Paranormal Phenomena (Healing at a Distance, Physiological Correlations at a Distance, Telepathy & ESP, General Overviews and Critiques, Survival of Consciousness, Precognition & Presentiment, Mind Matter Interaction)
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

Publications - School of Medicine at the University of Virginia (Ian Stevenson et. al.)
http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/cl...ychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/publications-page

Past "Journal of Scientific Exploration" Research Articles from The Society for Scientific Exploration
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal-library

Selected Scientific Papers - Campaign for Open Science
http://www.opensciences.org/papers

The Geller Papers
http://www.uri-geller.com/books/geller-papers/gpap.htm

Evidence of the Afterlife
http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/summary_of_evidence

Proof of ESP
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/04/proof-of-esp-1889-1997.html

Evidence for Psi: Thirteen Empirical Research Reports
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/occasionally-i-post-something-to.html#misc_evidence_13

The following may provide some insight into why some people are always ready to argue against paranormal phenomena:

Consciousness is non physical but science can only measure and describe things in physical terms so scientists don't have the tools or mental inclination to conceive of anything that is non-physical.

Scientists are so habituated to thinking in reductionist terms they can't cope with something like consciousness that is irreducible and can't be explained in terms of anything simpler.

Non-physical + irreducible = scientific fumble

Maybe science as we know it today can't study consciousnss. Maybe consciousness can only be understood through experience?
I have often wondered why so many scientists are so ardently "binary" in terms of the spiritual.
There are many reasons (see below for details):
  • Some scientists experience cognitive bias because materialism gives them prestige.
  • Humans can't think analytically and intuitively at the same time and due to neuroplasticity scientists become fixed in analytical thinking and they become unable to conceive of anything that cannot be proved through reductionism.
  • Certain scientists used Darwinism to make methodological naturalism a part of mainstream science - making religion heretical to science.
  • Some atheists have promulgated the fallacy that religion is at war with science. (History shows this is not correct, it is atheism that is at war with religion.)


https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/suppressed_parapsychology

Dean Radin, in his book "The Conscious Universe" in the chapter "Seeing Psi" proposes that some scientists may have too much self interest in preserving the materialist status quo to be objective about psychic phenomena. He writes that if this is true, belief in psychic phenomena should depend how committed a person is to the materialist world view. He then presents evidence to support this contention showing that 68% of the general public believe in the possibility of psychic phenomena, 55% of college professors also believe, 30% of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) division heads believe, but only 6% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) believe in psychic phenomena.

Radin points out that a skeptic might suggest that this dependency is due to greater knowledge about perceptual and memory biases that are said to lead to mistaken belief in psychic phenomena. But it is also true that the skeptics' own perceptual and memory biases might be the cause of their skepticism. It seems unlikely that there would be a great difference in knowledge about perceptual and memory biases between AAAS division heads and NAS members. However, there would be a difference in attachment to the scientific world view since being a NAS member is more prestigious than being an AAAS division head. Therefore the contention that the cause of disbelief is due to perceptual and memory biases in skeptics seems to be justified.

It should be understood that Radin is not saying NAS members are deliberately dishonest about the existence of psychic phenomena. He is saying they are so caught up in the scientific world view, (for example, because they get a lot of personal status from it, or because they spend their careers defining that world view) that they are unconsciously unable to accept that the scientific world view might be so seriously flawed, that it could have such big gaps in it, that psychic phenomena could be real.

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies#skeptical_fallacies_skeptics_rational

Research has shown that people who think analytically rather than intuitively tend to be atheists. People who analyze problems using logic, because of their education, career, or innate characteristics, may become habituated to reductionist analysis. Reductionism is the belief that something complex can be understood by the interaction of simpler components. This way of thinking works well in many branches of science. Psychology can be explained in terms of biology, which can be explained in terms of chemistry, which can be explained in terms of physics. However, some scientists, engineers, philosophers, and other intellectuals, may become so habituated to reductionist thinking that they are unable to conceive that some phenomena cannot be explained in terms of simpler phenomena. For example, the subjective experience of consciousness, what pain feels like, or what red looks like, cannot be understood through reductionism. Psychic phenomena that cannot be explained by current scientific theories, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, and precognition cannot be understood through reductionism. This is why some people who are habituated to reductionist thinking simply cannot conceive that psychic phenomena could be real or consciousness might be nonphysical and survive bodily death. Reductionists suggest consciousness is an epiphenomenon even though that is a poor explanation of consciousness because it is the best they can conceive of within their reductionist prison.

...

Some people hold a grudge against religion because they have been harmed psychologically by overly dogmatic upbringing, or because some religion condemns their lifestyle choices. They may choose to vilify anything that relates to the supernatural, including psychic phenomena. Often this type of skeptic is a victim of Christianity who has been brainwashed by church logic who has substituted the extreme dogmatism of Christianity with the extreme dogmatism of the religion of materialism.

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-contents-evidence-for-afterlife.html#articles_by_subject_science

Why Scientists are often Narrow-minded

George Orwell: "... the scientists themselves would benefit by a little education." Darwin agrees.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/08/george-orwell-scientists-themselves.html

Why are so Many Scientists Pseudo-skeptics?
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/01/someone-in-internet-discussion-forum.html

Perceptual Bias in Parapsychology
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/perceptual-bias-in-parapsychology.html

...

The Brain Can't Empathize And Analyze At Same Time
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/252241.php

Why Don't Psychopaths Believe in Dualism?
http://ncu9np.blogspot.com/2015/05/pl9-tsc-2012-anthony-jack-why-dont.html

A scientific case for conceptual dualism: The problem of consciousness and the opposing domains hypothesis.
http://tonyjack.org/files/2013 Jack A scientific case for conceptual dualism (1).pdf


http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2012/09/t-h-huxley-accidental-founder-of-modern.html

Why are so many scientist skeptics? Because naturalism is an implicit part of the culture of science and science students are indoctrinated in that philosophy during their education. Naturalism is the belief that science should only study natural processes and consider natural explanations for phenomena. This is a mistake. Science should be the search for the truth where ever it leads. This flaw in the culture of science is due to a large extent to T. H. Huxley and the X club. The X Club was Founded by T. H. Huxley and played an important role in making naturalism a fundamental tenet of modern science.
The nine men who would compose the X Club already knew each other well. By the 1860s, friendships had turned the group into a social network, and the men often dined and went on holidays together. After Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, the men began working together to aid the cause for naturalism and natural history.

...

More importantly, the men of the club all shared an interest in natural history, naturalism, and a more general pursuit of intellectual thought free from religious influence, commonly referred to as academic liberalism.

- Wikipedia​
...

Because of T. H Huxley and the X club, naturalism has become so ingrained in modern scientific culture and education, students don't even realize they are being indoctrinated. Because of this, Huxley can be considered a major cause of modern of science's intolerance to psychic phenomena and the source of modern pseudo-skepticism.

It is unfortunate that Darwin was used this way in the adoption of philosophical naturalism and materialism by the scientific establishment. Materialism is a gross misrepresentation of Darwin's thinking. Darwin believed that natual laws were designed - which is a form of intelligent design. Darwin also doubted human reason could be reliable if it arose through natural selection. If you cannot trust reason, then it is not rational to believe in anything including materialism.

...
Because naturalism is such an integral part of the scientific worldview, working as a scientist tends to brainwash a person into believing in physicalism. This is because scientists spend all their time trying to find physicalist solutions to problems. They get stuck thinking that way and can't conceive there might be something that current science can't explain or that there could be significant gaps in scientific knowledge. Like the proverbial man with a hammer to whom everything looks like a nail, to a scientist every question must have a physicalist answer.​
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2016/04/warfare-thesis-failure-leaves-evolution.html

Ever since Voltaire mythologized the Galileo Affair, Hume’s Philo demolished Cleanthes, and Gibbon blamed pretty much everything on the Christians, evolutionary thinking has had an unbeatable template: The Warfare Thesis. Anyone who opposes or even questions evolution is automatically branded as having religious motives. Religion is at war with science. That claim has failed the test of historiography over and over, but so what? Who cares about history? Certainly not journalists, policy makers, federal judges, textbook authors, and anyone else who matters. But now there is an entirely different, empirical, falsification of the Warfare Thesis, and evolutionists are in full-panic.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/video-lecture-by-john-lennox-explains.html

Lennox also makes the case that science and theology are not in conflict. Science and theology provide different kinds of explanations. You can explain a car by describing an internal combustion engine, and you can explain a car as a product of the company founded by Henry Ford. Both explanations are true, but they are different kinds of explanations. Many Nobel Prize winning scientists believe in God. Lennox says, "We owe modern science to Christianity directly. All the early pioneers Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Clerk Maxwell were all Christians." He says Christian faith is based on evidence and the faith modern scientists have that nature is orderly and subject to natural laws originated from religious beliefs about God. Science is man's attempt to understand the universe created by God. God is not a god of the gaps who's role is diminished with every scientific discovery. That misconception arises when you believe there is only one kind of explanation. God is the creator of the natural laws scientists are trying to discover.

The conflict is between atheism and theism. Lennox sides with the theists and concludes that it is atheism that is incompatible with science.
Nobel Prize winners Erwin Schrödinger, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Guglielmo Marconi, Brian Josephson, William Phillips, Richard Smalley, Arno Penzias, Charles Townes, Arthur Compton, Antony Hewish, Christian Anfinsen, Walter Kohn, Arthur Schawlow and scientists, Charles Darwin, Sir Fred Hoyle, John von Neumann, Wernher von Braun, and Louis Pasteur, believed the scientific evidence demonstrates the existence of God or that the universe was designed:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/articles-and-links-arranged-by-subject.html#articles_by_subject_science

George Orwell: "... the scientists themselves would benefit by a little education." Darwin agrees
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/08/george-orwell-scientists-themselves.html
neuroplasticity is why many scientists are pseudoskeptics. Their lifelong habituation to reductionist thinking has caused their brain to become wired in a way that makes it impossible for them to conceive of phenomena such as ESP and the afterlife which, since consciousness is non-physical, cannot be explained in terms of simpler phenomena known to science.
Why are so Many Scientists Pseudo-skeptics?
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/01/someone-in-internet-discussion-forum.html
Habitual reductionist thinking prevents scientists from accepting anything that they can't explain in terms of simpler phenomena, such as non-physical consciousness, qualia, and psychic phenomena.
Indoctrination into philosophical naturalism during science education.
Psychological attachment to the status quo scientific world view because it is the source of their status and livelihood.
Fear of alternative means of obtaining knowledge about the universe that might supplant science as the most important source of knowledge. If you can ask a psychic or a spirit, why would you need scientists?
Persecution of heretics. If Nobel prize winning physicist Brian Josephson is ostracized because of his interest in psi, what chance does an ordinary scientist have?
Perceptual Bias in Parapsychology
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/perceptual-bias-in-parapsychology.html


https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies#skeptical_fallacies_skeptics_rational
Skeptics do not Base their Beliefs on Evidence

Why are skeptics so set against belief in psychic phenomena and the afterlife? There are a number of reasons and they have very little to do with evidence.
Genuine psychic phenomena have been experienced by ordinary people throughout the history of humankind. However, these phenomena were rejected by science for "political" reasons, not empirical reasons, when the scientific revolution deposed religion as the ultimate source of knowledge. Philosophical naturalism, the belief that paranormal phenomena do not exist, has been integrated into the scientific world view and students of science are indoctrinated in that philosophy during their education.

Besides being seen as allied with religion, psychic phenomena are also a threat to science's place as the best means of obtaining information about the universe. Why would you need scientists if you could ask a psychic or a spirit? Many scientists also have a psychological attachment to the status quo scientific world view because it is the source of their status and livelihood. Recognizing the reality of psychic phenomena would force scientists to admit that science has for centuries failed to recognize huge gaps in its world view. Because of all of this, many modern scientists have a lot of cultural baggage that prevents them from accepting that some paranormal phenomena are real.

Furthermore, doctrinal discipline is maintained among scientists by ostracizing anyone who espouses different views. A prime example of this is the Nobel prize winner in physics Brian Josephson who was banned from a scientific conference due to his interest in parapsychology. Because scientists are influential in society, they control allocation of funds for research, and are respected for the technological advancements of modern civilization, they have a great influence on the rest of society. Their skepticism of paranormal phenomena lends moral authority to anyone else who advocates that view.

Research has shown that people who think analytically rather than intuitively tend to be atheists. People who analyze problems using logic, because of their education, career, or innate characteristics, may become habituated to reductionist analysis. Reductionism is the belief that something complex can be understood by the interaction of simpler components. This way of thinking works well in many branches of science. Psychology can be explained in terms of biology, which can be explained in terms of chemistry, which can be explained in terms of physics. However, some scientists, engineers, philosophers, and other intellectuals, may become so habituated to reductionist thinking that they are unable to conceive that some phenomena cannot be explained in terms of simpler phenomena. For example, the subjective experience of consciousness, what pain feels like, or what red looks like, cannot be understood through reductionism. Psychic phenomena that cannot be explained by current scientific theories, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, and precognition cannot be understood through reductionism. This is why some people who are habituated to reductionist thinking simply cannot conceive that psychic phenomena could be real or consciousness might be nonphysical and survive bodily death. Reductionists suggest consciousness is an epiphenomenon even though that is a poor explanation of consciousness because it is the best they can conceive of within their reductionist prison.

Some religious leaders reject psychic phenomena (see the comment at the top of the link) because those phenomena threaten the dogmatic teachings of their religion. It undermines their authority as the source of information on the afterlife, God, and other spiritual subjects. In some cases it also subverts their role as an intermediary between the individual and supernatural entities.

Some people hold a grudge against religion because they have been harmed psychologically by overly dogmatic upbringing, or because some religion condemns their lifestyle choices. They may choose to vilify anything that relates to the supernatural, including psychic phenomena. Often this type of skeptic is a victim of Christianity who has been brainwashed by church logic who has substituted the extreme dogmatism of Christianity with the extreme dogmatism of the religion of materialism.

Sometimes materialism is just wishful thinking. It makes some people (who may be suffering from depression) feel better to believe all pain and suffering will end with the extinction of consciousness at death.

When some people experience a personal loss, or experience extreme hardship, or feel concern about the extreme hardships of others, they may be unable to understand how God could allow such suffering to occur. As a result, they may feel angry at God or be unable to believe in God. This may cause them adopt materialism and express hostility toward anything that relates to God such as belief in the afterlife or anything that contradicts materialism such as evidence for psychic phenomena.

Certain government agencies have spread disinformation about the reality of psychic phenomena to discourage other countries from developing psychic means for spying and sabotage, and to protect the secrecy of their own government's programs to develop those capabilities.

Some debunkers make a living disputing every paranormal claim and sometimes misrepresent the empirical evidence because real paranormal phenomena jeopardize their career and life's work. Their livelihood is based on media exposure to sell books, raise money, and generate more media exposure, and as a result their influence is far greater than their qualifications in the field should warrant.

Many people who, because of their education, accept the authority of scientists, suspend their critical thinking in order to embrace the debunkers' deceptive "logic" because it allows them to hold on to their world view in the face of empirical evidence, including scientific research, that demonstrate genuine psychic phenomena. People resist changing their world view because it requires admitting they were wrong or misled.

In children, the brain is very flexible. To young children, everything is new, and they are able to absorb new information easily. However, in adults the brain is less flexible, it runs on automatic most of the time. It has difficulty perceiving and conceiving of things that it has not experienced before. If an adult hears of something that is not consistent with previous experiences or existing beliefs, the brain will most likely filter it out as "impossible".

Some people may have a psychological disorder, such as a phobia, that causes them to be horrified that consciousness might end at death. Just like learning how an airplane works doesn't help people who are afraid of flying, learning about the evidence for the afterlife doesn't change their fear of death. Because they fear that consciousness ends at death and knowledge about the evidence for the afterlife doesn't help them, they feel that they don't believe in the afterlife.

It should also be pointed out that we all incarnate for different reasons. Some people are meant to be atheist materialists because there are lessons that are best that way. Skeptics are not necessarily bad people however activist pseudo-skepticism is harmful to society for many reasons and at many levels.
 
Last edited:
#3
How would we then explain the seeming rarity of near unarguable paranormal phenomena? Is it a Trickster? Are we just one part of the universe/multiverse/dimensions that don't have a lot of macro-PK, magick, etc?
Under your assumption the observed laws of physics must still be almost universally true even though physics itself is just an illusion and no such things as fundamental particles and forces exists. If the opposite was true I think we would see levitating tables etc as an everyday phenomena. The near complete absence of these phenomena points to a higher entity governing the 'rules'. For those who finds the prospect of a god unacceptable an alternative hypothesis is that of the simulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis as advocated by people like Elon Musk (not sure if he is serious). Small flaws in the simulation could be what we observe as abnormalities like paranormal phenomena.
 
#4
Mod+ because the assumption here is that materialism is false, that Consciousness is fundamental, that there are spiritual beings if not a God, that mind is not equal to brain and there is an afterlife.

Let's say tomorrow mainstream academia and the world governments accept the above things mentioned in italics.

How would we then explain the seeming rarity of near unarguable paranormal phenomena? Is it a Trickster? Are we just one part of the universe/multiverse/dimensions that don't have a lot of macro-PK, magick, etc?
I would guess there is an optimal balance between rigid structure and liminality (or rule breaking) that results in a maximally interesting story/game. It is our limitations and the rarity of the supernormal that allows us to have the experiences we have. If the rules are too rigid, that's oppressive and dull. If everyone is superman, that's equally dull. Perhaps the balance point changes - that's interesting too.

I have a feeling this balance would be maintained even if we were to wedge open Pandora's box and discover physical laws that govern Psi and turn Psi into reliable technology. In other words if we break out of this structure we'll find a meta-structure outside of it with roughly the same balance... maybe altogether different rules, but structure nonetheless.

The balance between structure and chaos will be roughly the same as is found in the mental states of a healthy sane creatively maximized disciplined and fully integrated individual - someone who has complete self-knowledge and is in full control of themselves and willingly lets themselves be silly and crazy and light-hearted - the wise fool or the capricious sage.

In any interesting game, the pieces or areas of great power or freedom must be more limited and those with less power or freedom are more common. The queen in chess, the wild card, trump card, etc.
 
#5
I do not find the universe very materialist-friendly, such a universe should have kept going into further entropy (meaning none of us would be here). What little 'order' we see, is still quite a stretch if you believe that the foundation of reality is a random mess of particles, virtual particles, fields and assorted madness.
 
#7
The question in the title is a constant source of concern for me too. For the most part, I lurk more than contribute here these days but I think this question gets to the heart of why I hang around here at all.

Over the years I have followed the to-and-fro between materialists and proponents and some things have indeed become clear. The world today is being conditioned to ignore, deny and even ridicule the proponent viewpoint. There are many posts on this forum about how that conditioning is happening. Both sides will claim to be evidence driven but, it seems to me, the materialists will demand that the evidence be materialistic. What I mean by that is that scientific evidence is deemed to be scientific only if it is natural (of this world, according to scientific naturalism).

Wikipedia said:
Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, and scientific materialism is a worldview, which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.

More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.
So, at the outset, any evidence pointing to the "super"natural is deemed inadmissible and rejected. There is a panel discussion on YouTube between proponents of ID and their mainstream opponents and this position is explicitly invoked as a reason why ID can never be considered scientifically (i.e. it should be confined to church sermons).

Therefore, we have to consider that our perception of a skeptic friendly world is, at least partly, a consequence of our conditioning. Perhaps miracles and magic were more commonplace when minds were open to them?

One last point. My own abiding interest in this subject has a single point of focus: the point of my own death. What will happen at that point? Am I convinced yet? No. Do I find the evidence compelling? Yes. It is not so much the quality of NDE evidence or any other single aspect, it is the sheer preponderance of stories from different cultures and from history that has me almost convinced. In a skeptic friendly world there are an awful lot of personal testimonies, anomalies and mysteries to warrant the question: can we justify a claim that each and every one is a fabrication or a delusion?

One white crow.
 
Last edited:
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#8
Therefore, we have to consider that our perception of a skeptic friendly world is, at least partly, a consequence of our conditioning. Perhaps miracles and magic were more commonplce when minds were open to them?
Yet it also seems like there is possibly a veil - one that is also enforced from the other side?

And She Came Back


...his function was to insure that I did not remember some of the things that Rene and I discussed. I know we talked about the kids and loving each other. I am also sure that I would have had a million questions about what it was like to be dead. However, I do not remember any of the content of our discussion and that is not like me. In some way, completely unknown to me, this other person had the ability to make sure that Rene and I could get together and that I would take away from that meeting only the information presented here....
I can sort of see the need for this Veil, at least why some entities (our between-incarnation selves?) would have it. But isn't odd that Psi is, as mentioned elsewhere [by me in the past], so shy?

One thing I think is possible is that there is a range of what we might call "enchantment" in different realities. We may simply be in one of those realities where mind-over-matter effects (magick, Psi, mediumship, etc) is harder to manifest. So it's just our bad luck, but other realities - that some claim to have visited via Astral Travel - are much more like mythology.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#9
Sometimes I wonder why there are any psi anomalies at all. If we think of this world as a kind of boot camp, isolated from other spiritual dimensions, then why is the isolation not perfect? Yet it seems there are some people born with abilities to peek behind the curtain, as it were. And then I speculate whether there is a good reason for allowing these little teasers - these glimpses of a greater reality. Perhaps they allow a little comfort when the world of the boot camp seems unrelentingly bleak and cruel. These glimpses are like postcards from home: a safe and loving home. Or perhaps they just prod us gently in the right direction.

They also seem to come along in pockets of intensity, at certain times and places: as though the whole society of that time and place is in need of a gentle reminder of our eternal spirituality. For example, in the late Victorian era when the industrial revolution had provided a powerful metaphor for a mechanistic universe. People like Leonora Piper and D. D. Home were there to provide a hint that all is not what the mechanists would have us believe.

Yet there is always room for doubt, as though proof is elusive by design. There is a movie out at the moment which speculates on what might happen if there was proof of an afterlife. I haven't seen it but I understand the speculation goes to mass suicides. Judging by the scarcity of suicides among NDE survivors I personally doubt that would be the case but it does perhaps hint at why certainty is always beyond the fingertips.
 
#10
On further reflection, the point I made above about NDE survivors may be very relevant to this discussion. Why is it that NDE survivors do not contrive to return to the afterlife as quickly as possible? From what I have read, it is probably because they not only get a glimpse of that dimension but also a deep understanding of the purpose of life in this dimension. The survivors generally seem re-energised to complete the mission, as it were.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#11
On further reflection, the point I made above about NDE survivors may be very relevant to this discussion. Why is it that NDE survivors do not contrive to return to the afterlife as quickly as possible? From what I have read, it is probably because they not only get a glimpse of that dimension but also a deep understanding of the purpose of life in this dimension. The survivors generally seem re-energised to complete the mission, as it were.
Aren't there some NDErs who do end up at least contemplating suicide?
 
#12
Probably. I doubt that we can apply absolutes to life situations we can barely comprehend. But I do know that when I read or listen to what some of the more prominent NDE survivors have to say, the message seems pretty consistent: they do not seem depressed or lacking hope - quite the opposite.
 
#13
Conditioning definitely plays a big role, by nature I think as we grow older we become more skeptical. Too much logic and rationale or too much of anything creates a state of unbalance. Our minds are tricky and seems to stick to what is familiar and or dominant to our experiences. Even with my multiple pre cog psi experiences I have moments of doubt from over rationalizing my experiences, maybe it's because I want these experiences to be from a non physical mechanism opposed to a physical mechanism. Which brought me to my point as far as we know through science we are 99 percent empty space. The physical is really the illusion at least technically. I find it highly unlikely this .1 percent of matter causes a conscious experience
 
#14
Skeptics should keep dream journals, I think the position of being skeptical in a sense is a easier and less intellectual stance to take. You demand the burden of proof you, you read articles to confirm your bias and create rational explanations to hold your biases in place. These are mostly traits of pseudo skeptics. Proponents have their problems too, they get way ahead of themselves generally speaking when evidence favors their points of view. Proponents have biases and seem to take evidence further then what it is currently saying. One may have a nde experience for example and come back and believe it to be the ultimate reality, but who's to say that isn't but one layer higher of what we experience and there might be more layers beyond. Maybe when we pass our beliefs shape our afterlife sort of like a virtual reality our essences plug in to. People that have new experiences experience bliss usually, is it possible to for these subjective experiences to be further set free as our essences progress to higher levels of experience maybe there is something to learn from experiencing pure bliss and love. Remember sometimes too much of anything is not usually good or maybe that out applies to our 3d reality. How many transitions can our energy or essences make? If we are eternal we might be experiencing and transitioning for eternity in different forms
 
Last edited:
#15
Yet it also seems like there is possibly a veil - one that is also enforced from the other side?
The veil is mostly a consequence of natural law. Influencing the physical world isn't a trivial undertaking for them. And, there are some things spirits are not allowed to communicate through mediums.

But if the other side wanted to, I think they could amass the resources to do pretty much whatever they wanted to in the physical world. If they could cause the big bang, what could they not be capable of? So there is a natural veil and breaching it is strictly controlled.

One thing I think is possible is that there is a range of what we might call "enchantment" in different realities. We may simply be in one of those realities where mind-over-matter effects (magick, Psi, mediumship, etc) is harder to manifest. So it's just our bad luck, but other realities - that some claim to have visited via Astral Travel - are much more like mythology.
I've read that there is a group effect. The beliefs of the group influence the capabilities of individuals. Doubt about psi is a self fulfilling prophesy. - Maybe that answers the question in the title of the thread?
 
Last edited:
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#16
I've read that there is a group effect. The beliefs of the group influence the capabilities of individuals. Doubt about psi is a self fulfilling prophesy. - Maybe that answers the question in the title of the thread?
Yet weren't there times when people believed in the an enchanted world where consciousness had a direct impact on our flesh? One might think the Great Plague wouldn't have been so bad if prayers could cure.

Perhaps beings that feed off offerings/prayers are just spirits who can, as Gordon White suggests, influence probability but can only do so much. As he once suggested, "the spirits are real but the gods are just in your head"?
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#17
Skeptics should keep dream journals, I think the position of being skeptical in a sense is a easier and less intellectual stance to take. You demand the burden of proof you, you read articles to confirm your bias and create rational explanations to hold your biases in place. These are mostly traits of pseudo skeptics. Proponents have their problems too, they get way ahead of themselves generally speaking when evidence favors their points of view.
I would agree "skeptics" have created a religion with high walls of "rationality" to feel safe, though OTOH the world under empiricism via replication has assisted them. Imagine if 1/3 of the human population had enough reliable Psi experiences, even if these could not be duplicated in the lab. I don't just mean synchronicity but telepathic predictions of high accuracy.

Proponents have biases and seem to take evidence further then what it is currently saying. One may have a nde experience for example and come back and believe it to be the ultimate reality, but who's to say that isn't but one layer higher of what we experience and there might be more layers beyond. Remember sometimes too much of anything is not usually good or maybe that out applies to our 3d reality.

Maybe when we pass our beliefs shape our afterlife sort of like a virtual reality our essences plug in to. People that have new experiences experience bliss usually, is it possible to for these subjective experiences to be further set free as our essences progress to higher levels of experience maybe there is something to learn from experiencing pure bliss and love. How many transitions can our energy or essences make?
I like the idea of layers, it fits in with my suggestion that we are one of the lower magic realities. Perhaps enchantment (by which I mean consciousness as fundamental and conscious narrative impacting the world) has limited power here and as we move on the spectrum you get worlds that are less "dense".

Bernardo said something along these lines:


If we are eternal we might be experiencing and transitioning for eternity in different forms.
A friend of mine once said this to me, that we would just continue to grow further in the afterlife. Or as Attanasio put it, we are continually incarnated across reality in a spiral toward the Divine. An interesting idea for sure.
 
Top