Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove, The Long-Term Future of Parapsychology |349|

#22
Great interview. Would love to have seen some discussion of the possibility that Mishlove was the reincarnation of William James. which was presented to him by Walter Semkiw, ,and the work they did to check out the claim.
That would be interesting, I've not investigated that possibility. However personally I have my doubts about some of Semkiw's work, I suspect he has made some erroneous (mis-)identifications.
 
#24
The UFO thing might be a a way of putting his intentions into the hands of higher beings (rather than himself), which might increase the effectiveness of his intentions.
Are you saying the "ufo thing" is a product of his individual consciousness or are the aliens discreet individual beings. In either case how would this increase the effectiveness of his intentions.
 
#25
That would be interesting, I've not investigated that possibility. However personally I have my doubts about some of Semkiw's work, I suspect he has made some erroneous (mis-)identifications.
The story has little to do with Semkiw and people's opinions of him. Has to do with the investigation Semkiw and Mishlove did investigating the possibility and how Mishlove's relatives and friends were checked.. For example type in www.williamjames.com to see who owns it.
 
#26
Are you saying the "ufo thing" is a product of his individual consciousness or are the aliens discreet individual beings. In either case how would this increase the effectiveness of his intentions.
I'm not sure about Owen, of course, but I am convinced that when we want or need something it's likely always more apt to happen when "handed over to God" or a higher power outside ourselves . . . whether a prayer for something or with things like quiting alcohol (as AA admonishes). It seems that equally if not more important with the request part of prayer is the letting go part. Handing it over to a higher power allows for letting go more easily. It just occurred to me that in his case the alien thing might serve a similar function.

I'm not necessarily ruling out taking it literally and at face value though.
 
Last edited:
#27
The story has little to do with Semkiw and people's opinions of him. Has to do with the investigation Semkiw and Mishlove did investigating the possibility and how Mishlove's relatives and friends were checked.. For example type in www.williamjames.com to see who owns it.
I did say that I hadn't investigated that particular case.

Still my comment was relevant since you were the one who mentioned Semkiw. I don't necessarily regard him as a reliable partner for such an investigation (though he may be). I'm not aiming to discredit your post, merely add some background, since I've studied a number of other cases, on which I reached varied conclusions.
 
#28
Are you saying the "ufo thing" is a product of his individual consciousness or are the aliens discreet individual beings.
They're not always that discreet.

(I mean really, who flies a giant black triangle anymore, that's just so, so *provincial*. Steampunk Jules Verne creations are what it's all about on the catwalks and runways of Vega this month.)
 
#29
Are you saying the "ufo thing" is a product of his individual consciousness or are the aliens discreet individual beings.
They're not always that discreet.

(I mean really, who flies a giant black stealth triangle anymore, that's just so, so *provincial*. Frothy steampunk Jules Verne creations are what it's all about on the catwalks and runways of Vega this month. For next season I'm picturing: giant Greek acropoli and romper suits, I'm calling it "Who Mourns For Adonis")
 
#30
I came upon PK man in the early days of youtube but learned a bit more watching the video above! Wilhelm Reich comes to mind. He used weather modification and had UFOs as a result. Owens seems to do the same thing with the only difference being Reich needed a device. I recall reading in the Seth books (Jane Roberts), that shaman's, medicine men or whatever name of these types would have an intimate knowledge of emotion and it's relationship to weather. I thought, we often make comparisons to the weather and emotion, for all we know the weather IS an emotional response in the same way we experience a hot headed temper. Perhaps Ted Owens, being the Grizzly Bear with a burr up it's ass, had just the kind of reckless emotional capacity to make major changes in the atmosphere. Just some thoughts but my god this story is truly confounding. I'm lastly reminded of the Twilight Zone episode where Burgess Meredith plays a no body whom aliens decide to give super powers to...HaHa, the Ted Owens story?
 
#31
I don't think it's so much technology that is at the root of materialism, as the simple fact that our perception is what lends an apparent concreteness to at least the part of reality most people are commonly aware of. Of course, it's true enough that as technology improved, and seemed to verify a lot of our understanding of the world in concrete terms, the illusion of an apparent material reality became stronger and stronger.

That said, and beyond technology, as scientific theory progressed, things became just as prone to woo as they ever were in the past. A simple fact: no one knows what matter and energy actually are. Most physicists offer some kind of model based on them, and their essential equivalence. Upon this, the immense edifice of materialistic science is based. Because the models to some extent work, as exemplified by technology, then the inference is that they must be literally real, or at least that they are our best current understanding of something that is literally real.

We can't escape the undeniable perception of concreteness that our senses provide us with. We're constituted that way; but perhaps Samuel Johnson's kicking of a stone didn't refute immaterialism, so much as demonstrated how compelling the illusion of material reality is. I think it was possible to go along with this until the advent of quantum mechanics, when all of a sudden things seemed to become much less concrete; science arrived at a place of "no-thing-ness", to which it reacted with attempts to "re-thing" them, whilst at the same time rather revelling in the new found ability to speculate using mathematical constructs. I mean, if something as weird as QM could exist, why not things as weird as black holes, not to mention the big bang and inflation?

Lo! Science has declared the universe is 13 billion years old, and most of us have swallowed it because we don't possess the mathematical chops to question it. However, could be there's as much evidence for such things as that the moon is made of green cheese. Most "evidence" is extrapolated from from theory, and when empirical data refutes it, the response is to either ignore it or complexify theory well beyond its capacity to describe reality.

A large amount of time in the 20th and 21st century has been spent by scientists gambolling about like lambs in fields of speculation created by themselves -- because it's sheer fun, and enables them to feel intellectually superior to non-scientists.

Why on earth would we need consensus if so many scientific hypotheses were true? Why would we need to make heretics of people with differing opinions (indeed, why would there be such opinions in the first place)? After all, it's in these opinions that the future breakthroughs in science are likely to originate. Why subject ourselves to more inertia in the system than is necessary? The answer, at least in part, may be that scientists are enjoying their little selves and it would be a shame to interrupt their interminable peregrinations. Besides, we can ourselves borrow from their authority and join in all the fun.
I have emphasised some of your observations that are particularly relevant.

That is the sort of post that makes me wish we had a "Like x 100" button - it is spot on.

When people who are not into science talk to me now, I say things like "Remember that much of this will turn out to be bullshit!" - particularly when people talk about cosmology or high energy physics. I try to make them aware of the fact that the 'Higgs boson' signal was the result of filtering something of the order of 1 trillion collisions per supposed particle observed (I have seen that figure disputed, but no other figure was offered in its place), and that no Higgs got anywhere near the detectors (the Higgs is supposed to last 10^-25 of a second, and they detect decay products), and that because of the huge background, the data had to be discarded after it had gone through an electronic filtering process. Nobody can ever re-analyse the raw (ish) data!

David
 
#32
Love Dr Mishlove and his show "New Thinking Allowed." Also wanted to just comment on his observation that science is not simply synonymous with technology. Science, broadly speaking, is the study of relationships such as correlation and cause and effect. There is no reason for science to be limited to the simple notions of "billiard ball" causation. Everyday we see how people's thoughts and emotions affect other people and the world and such psychological effects are perfectly respectable variables for scientific analysis. There is no requirement coming from science that human psychology or life in general be reduced to mechanistic functions of the body and brain.
 
#35
I watched this a while ago... good stuff... but kinda buries the lead -- Ted Owens made UFO appear at will, and directed lightning with his finger!
This intrigues me.....I am not at all into UFOs hence definitely not an expert but recently I came across a tweet about this man who allegedly can summon UFOs, too:
This video came up on youtube just after it and it explains how to do it!

There are plenty more videos on Youtube (with other people summoning UFOs), and since I am not into this stuff my spontaneous reaction is disbelief. Would the resident "Skeptiko UFO experts" be so kind as to comment on these videos and tell me what they think?
 
Top