Dr. Stephen Braude, The Veil of Stupidity |485|

#41
I grew up in a highly Christian household. We had to pray before dinner, pray before sleep, and attend Church every Sunday. I tried to read the bible every night, but every time I read it, I felt that it was bullshit. In fact, I thought I was evil, because of this supposedly good thing that everybody believed in seemed like bullshit to me. Furthermore, I could see that the church was filled with hypocrites and liars. I couldn't understand why it would be so incredibly important to get around a lot of other people on Sunday, who are obviously flirting with one another, and trying to look perfect in front of one another. The other part is the story that makes Christianity what it is.
thank you for your thoughts, Shane. Believe it or not I feel the same way about most organized religion. I think many Christian religions and Jesus have split long ago and are running at a tangent to one another. If Jesus said, "Call ye no man on Earth father, ye have only one Father and he is in Heaven," (Matthew 23:9) then why should Catholics enter their confessional and say, "Bless me father for I have sinned." And what about that stupid confessional? Is it not an "occasion for sin" for the celibate priest as a young lady/girl/boy enters to confess her/his naughtiness? Besides, near death experience research reveals that a, "life review" is a common element for many experiencers. They describe seeing, "a movie" of their entire life play before them. this may be explained by the fact that their Guardian Angel as their constant companion is doing the recording. This will be replayed again when they die again and are taken before our Creator. I would also agree that a lot of the Bible is irrelevant for the salvation seeker. I do think the book of Genesis is important and is probably a closer explanation of creation than anything science or Darwin has so far come up with. And most importantly, the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John should be read carefully and thoughtfully. they contain Jesus' instructions for us if we at last seek exit from this hard world and to a better place next time we die. "Whoever lives and believes in me shall never die." (John11:26) Kind Regards, ~g
 
Last edited:
#42
Here is a link Micheal, as you requested: Both fossil ages and evident soft tissue are discussed. Needless to say established science is incredulous. Cheers, ~garry
https://www.newgeology.us/presentation48.html
Thanks for the link. A fascinating read. The evidence looks to be reasonably strong that either a) not all dinosaurs died out 65mya, or b) they did, but somehow, soft tissue preservation can exist even after 65m years. My vote would go for a), since there's also also good evidence that soft tissue preservation can't last anywhere near that long (c. 100,000 years max?). The story of persecution of people challenging the status quo is a depressingly familiar one, I'm afraid.

That said, the evidence isn't necessarily supportive of YE creationism. It could rather support the conclusion that indeed, some of the dinosaurs survived until comparatively recently, possibly contemporaneously with human beings -- and that therefore the staunch belief they all died out in a cataclysmic asteroid collision event 65mya is erroneous. As to an explanation why that should be quite so challenging to the scientific establishment, my best guess is that it's down to its usual knee-jerk arrogance and dogmatism.
 
#43
Total length of time for all of this to happen? Most creationists say about 6 thousand years. I'm willing to concede that it might have taken 40 to 60 thousand years. These are the ages that carbon dating of dinosaur fossils reveal. Some fossils still contain soft tissue.
I suspect that the orthodox response to that might be that since
Thanks for the link. A fascinating read. The evidence looks to be reasonably strong that either a) not all dinosaurs died out 65mya, or b) they did, but somehow, soft tissue preservation can exist even after 65m years. My vote would go for a), since there's also also good evidence that soft tissue preservation can't last anywhere near that long (c. 100,000 years max?). The story of persecution of people challenging the status quo is a depressingly familiar one, I'm afraid.

That said, the evidence isn't necessarily supportive of YE creationism. It could rather support the conclusion that indeed, some of the dinosaurs survived until comparatively recently, possibly contemporaneously with human beings -- and that therefore the staunch belief they all died out in a cataclysmic asteroid collision event 65mya is erroneous. As to an explanation why that should be quite so challenging to the scientific establishment, my best guess is that it's down to its usual knee-jerk arrogance and dogmatism.
I wondered about the possibility that the soft tissue had become contaminated with more recent life forms. The problem is that the half life for C14 is about 5400 years, so something aged 65 million years would have lost almost all its carbon-14 a very long time back - so even a very slight contamination would pull the apparent age down a lot.

Nevertheless, I am sure that geology and archaeology have more than their fair share of dodgy science.

David
 
#45
I wondered about the possibility that the soft tissue had become contaminated with more recent life forms. The problem is that the half life for C14 is about 5400 years, so something aged 65 million years would have lost almost all its carbon-14 a very long time back - so even a very slight contamination would pull the apparent age down a lot.
Watch the video at the link that Garry supplied:


In the first 2 minutes it mentions how Dr. Mary Schweitzer used antibodies to establish that what she identified as soft tissues contained collagen proteins, which bacteria can't produce. Hence it looks like bacterial biofilms have been ruled out. If one argues that the source of contamination comes by some other route, then why wouldn't that also apply to artefacts used to verify the accuracy of C14 dating by correlation with historical information? If it did, then the confidence in C14 measurements would seemingly be unwarranted.

Besides, the histological evidence is clear enough: there are blood vessels and red blood cells in the soft tissue samples, as shown in the following video from around 4:40:


Schweitzer, incidentally, is a respected palaeontologist, and her work on Dinosaur soft tissue is mentioned in the Smithsonian magazine. She seems to believe that her samples really are from 68m-year-old Dinosaurs because of the strata in which they were found, but if so, I'm puzzled why there is any C14 left in them. Could it be that geologists have got their ideas about stratigraphy not quite right, and that there's some way in which at least some, relatively recent, dinosaurs can be found in strata currently deemed to be ancient?

At any rate, it's clear that Schweitzer holds no truck with YE creationists despite herself being a self-confessed Christian. She thinks they are simply seizing on her work to justfy their views, and I'm inclined to agree on that point at least. Seems to me that YE people and the scientific establishment are really quite similar in their proclivity to look mainly for evidence supporting pre-existing convictions, whilst studiously ignoring any that doesn't.

Mary Schweitzer strikes me as a genuine scientist, in that she challenges the status quo to at least some extent. However, she doesn't go so far as to take on board the possibility that some dinosaurs might have existed until relatively recently, which to me seems perhaps the most parsimonious explanation. Keeping to the current notions of stratigraphy is possibly what has kept her in the fold. Going any further would probably be deemed too far beyond the pale and (erroneously) supportive of YE creationism.
 
Last edited:
#46
thank you for your thoughts, Shane. Believe it or not I feel the same way about most organized religion. I think many Christian religions and Jesus have split long ago and are running at a tangent to one another. If Jesus said, "Call ye no man on Earth father, ye have only one Father and he is in Heaven," (Matthew 23:9) then why should Catholics enter their confessional and say, "Bless me father for I have sinned." And what about that stupid confessional?
Thanks for getting back to me with your thoughtful response, Gary. Certainly, I am genuinely curious about many aspects of faith and how it operates in our lives. Faith and doubt are both fascinating psychological states of mind for me. I wouldn't say they are two sides of the same coin. Also, I don't like the "coin saying," and I agree with a lot of what Jesus said about money, such as "render those things to Caesar's that are Caesar's and those things to God that are God's." Also, I have a deep appreciation of the Jesus that whipped and beat people changing money at the church. Let us get back to faith and doubt. Is faith an aspect of the heart, and doubt an aspect of the mind? Have you ever tried to do something that you knew you could do, but that sliver of doubt ruined the desired outcome? On the contrary, have you ever placed faith in a cause, a job, or another with all your heart, yet were only rewarded with a ludicrous amount of ill repute and disrespect? Life is often a game of properly using faith and doubt.
 

Alex

Administrator
#47
Late in the interview, Braude said he thought that there was compelling evidence of the possibility of an afterlife than NDE research. Unfortunately, there was no more dialog to explore that comment. I'd like to know more about his thoughts on this...
I don't know... but it sounds like he hasn't changed his position... which is unfortunate... I mean, the nde evidence has moved forward by leaps and bounds... and he still not convinced? still holding onto super psi?

I pushed him pretty hard. I didn't want to antagonize him. he deserves our respect and admiration for all he's done and contributed.
 

Alex

Administrator
#48
I was friends with a brilliant man, Dr. Don Watson (now deceased, at least physically) who researched this matter. He found that after organ transplants, recipients often displayed characteristics associated with the people who had donated the organ(s). I suspect that Braude was referencing this phenomenon.
that's my take as well. gary schwartz at university of arizona has also done some research in this area.
 

Alex

Administrator
#49
Thanks for bringing up such an exceptional interview! What this is told me is that the Great Love does just that: loves us in just the way we need at the time. "We are here to learn to bear the beams of love." William Blake
love it!
 
#50
Let us get back to faith and doubt. Is faith an aspect of the heart, and doubt an aspect of the mind? Have you ever tried to do something that you knew you could do, but that sliver of doubt ruined the desired outcome? On the contrary, have you ever placed faith in a cause, a job, or another with all your heart, yet were only rewarded with a ludicrous amount of ill repute and disrespect? Life is often a game of properly using faith and doubt.
Jesus tells us to have faith and not to doubt, Shane. (Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:23). Experience has shown me that it works best in projects undertaken where the outcome would benefit myself and/or my family. For instance, building a house or rebuilding a farm tractor. If other people might be affected in a negative way by an outcome my objective might not be met. As a Christian I know all people matter to God and I will not be rewarded for greed though a non Christian very well might be. It depends on which side one has chosen to be their guide through life, god's or the Devil's. Jesus tells us the prince of this world is the Devil. (John 14:30) The truth of this becomes apparent each time I turn on the TV to listen to the news. I'm sure you will agree that a lot of what is going on out there is quite to the negative.
 
Last edited:
#51
Mary Schweitzer strikes me as a genuine scientist, in that she challenges the status quo to at least some extent. However, she doesn't go so far as to take on board the possibility that some dinosaurs might have existed until relatively recently, which to me seems perhaps the most parsimonious explanation. Keeping to the current notions of stratigraphy is possibly what has kept her in the fold. Going any further would probably be deemed too far beyond the pale and (erroneously) supportive of YE creationism.
You've gotta wonder just who comprises the, "status quo"? And why such learned scholars stubbornly refuse to cave or at least concede even a little in spite of such convincing findings? Add to this NDE research. Hopefully a few seeds of doubt exist in at least some of them. This world would seem a lot less hopeless for all of us if the existence of a conscious Creator with a better place prepared for each of us at the end of our ordeal here was accepted. As opposed to accepting that we exist here as biological robots due to an evolutionary process in a meaningless universe? That material gain is the only thing that matters? That when you're dead you're dead with no possibility of an afterlife? That a nasty self centered life on Earth will be inconsequential for us at death? Please, let me instead remain a hopeful Christian.
 
#53
Michael,

Can you summarise what evidence was used to come up with the traditional age of dinosaurs? Clearly not C-14, but maybe the dating of the sedimentary rocks?

David
Well, I'm no geologist or palaeontologist, but you only get fossils in sedimentary rock (which covers most of the earth's surface). If you find a dinosaur in sedimentary rock, its is assumed to have died at around the time the sedimentary layer (stratum) was deposited. You can estimate the absolute age of the rock in the stratum (e.g. of ultimately volcanic origin) using various kinds of non-C14 radioactivity measurements (i.e. of radioactive isotopes having a much longer half-life than C14).

There were, if I recall, early experiments in measuring sedimentation rates with waterborne rock fragments, but I'm not sure whether that's much used today. Thing is, it strikes me that the rock fragments may have been formed well before the organism died. So you can't simply measure the approximate absolute age of the rock and infer that the organism, say a dinosaur, is the same age. As I said, what seems most important to me is when the rock fragments, for example of volcanic origin, were actually deposited and subsequently cemented together.

If you were to imagine an organism dying today in a flood, it could get covered very rapidly in rock fragments that are many millions of years old. Estimating the age of it thousands of years in the future would be a complicated business. I suppose this would have to include how long it took for it, or mainly its bones, to fossilise. The absolute age of the sedimentary layer or stratum in which it was found wouldn't tell you much.

One can come up with relative ages of sedimentary rock. For the most part, they come to be layed down successively in strata, so that younger strata lie on top of older strata. But it's not always so simple because parts of the earth can move about and even fold over time, so you can find that sometimes younger rocks are below older ones.

So what to do? Well, there are so-called index fossils that are often found associated with specific types of rock strata; the fossils are of organisms that are assumed to have lived at a certain time, and so the time of deposition is assumed to be in the same period. Hence fossils can be used to date deposition times, but that seems to me to involve a degree of circular thinking. How is it known for sure when the organisms lived in the first place?

There's all sorts of indirect evidences and the experts have come up with what is essentially a generally agreed narrative about what happened and when. But every now and then, something comes up to challenge that narrative, and in the present instance, the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is one of those. It presents quite a quandary.

On the one hand, C14 decay measurement is deemed to give very accurate results (judged by dating artefacts understood to be of a certain age from human historical data), and so the fossils can be no more than of the order of tens of thousands of years old. But on the other, the established narrative is that all the dinosaurs were wiped out 65m years ago. So either that's false, or, to keep the narrative alive, one has to posit some kind of hitherto unknown process that somehow slows down the rate of C14 decay. That seems a tad dodgy to me, which is why I find it more parsimonous to hypothesise that at least some dinosaurs lived until comparatively recently.

But if they did, that could change the narrative drastically, and who knows how extensive the damage would be. Moreover, the inertia of the scientific establishment, its reluctance to change comfortable narratives and admit error, is well known. Joe and Jane Bloggs generally tend to accept the narratives because they don't have access to all the data, and even if they did, wouldn't know how to interpret it. But, just maybe, neither does the scientific establishment, which relies quite heavily on the consensually agreed narratives to account for empirical observations.

Whilst it's difficult to argue with empirical data, it's easy to simply ignore or hand-wave it away if it's challenging -- we're finding that increasingly in all sorts of fields from cosmology to physics to the mechanics of biological evolution to medicine to psi. But where it can't be ignored, scientists often reach for ad-hoc explanations and the science becomes less and less parsimonious -- becomes riddled with holes, the biggest of which, I'd say, is the simple fact that relativity can't currently be squared with quantum mechanics.

The emperor, it seems, is naked, and the little boys and girls pointing that out are currently being largely ignored. Luckily for us, engineering has to work and be seen to do so, and engineers don't care so much about truth so much as utility. Does a model theory work well enough to produce iphones, satnavs and big-screen TVs? If it does, engineers are happy as gambolling lambs. But that says little about whether underlying theory is an actual representation of reality. It only says that the representation is fit for current purposes.
 
#54
Jesus tells us to have faith and not to doubt, Shane. (Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:23). Experience has shown me that it works best in projects undertaken where the outcome would benefit myself and/or my family. For instance, building a house or rebuilding a farm tractor. If other people might be affected in a negative way by an outcome my objective might not be met. As a Christian I know all people matter to God and I will not be rewarded for greed though a non Christian very well might be. It depends on which side one has chosen to be their guide through life, god's or the Devil's. Jesus tells us the prince of this world is the Devil. (John 14:30) The truth of this becomes apparent each time I turn on the TV to listen to the news. I'm sure you will agree that a lot of what is going on out there is quite to the negative.
First and foremost, I love this line of introspection and deeply respect your thoughts, Gary, Christian or not. I understand how endeavors motivated by greed are certainly failed endeavors by those who have a conscience. Could this be the voice of God speaking from within? Also, I understand that many have no conscience at all, and would happily take advantage of others regardless of any spiritual consequences. What fascinates me is that kind of psychology that actually looks at magnanimous individuals as "stupid."

I thought it was extremely generous of Alex to offer help to that Australian guy who wants to create a documentary about Aliens accelerating human evolution. Sorry, the name escapes me now, but that was a fascinating episode. For me, that is what Christ consciousness is, if such a thing actually exists.

I think that you are right about how the news is quite negative, and I think that it has been for a long time. However, any deep thinker must ask, "Who is the devil? Why does the devil exist, if it does, in fact, even exist?"

There are some convenient explanations such as: "the Devil became the Devil because it rebelled against God." There is also some more confusing explanations such as: "If the devil didn't exist, you wouldn't have free will." These do not satisfy my intellectual appetite. I think the first implies that God must not be all knowing if He is innocent of the Devil's choice to rebel. Also, I think the second makes Good dependent on the existence of Evil. How is it that your will is only free because you have the opportunity to go against God? Furthermore, if you do, no matter what, you will be doomed? This, to me, does not sound like the behavior of an all loving creature, but the activities of a power hungry, capricious deity.

I could always be wrong. What are your thoughts?
 
#55
But if they did, that could change the narrative drastically, and who knows how extensive the damage would be. Moreover, the inertia of the scientific establishment, its reluctance to change comfortable narratives and admit error, is well known. Joe and Jane Bloggs generally tend to accept the narratives because they don't have access to all the data, and even if they did, wouldn't know how to interpret it. But, just maybe, neither does the scientific establishment, which relies quite heavily on the consensually agreed narratives to account for empirical observations.

Whilst it's difficult to argue with empirical data, it's easy to simply ignore or hand-wave it away if it's challenging -- we're finding that increasingly in all sorts of fields from cosmology to physics to the mechanics of biological evolution to medicine to psi. But where it can't be ignored, scientists often reach for ad-hoc explanations and the science becomes less and less parsimonious -- becomes riddled with holes, the biggest of which, I'd say, is the simple fact that relativity can't currently be squared with quantum mechanics.
Thanks for that great fleshing out (if you pardon the pun) of this area of science!

That is a good summing up (but note you should say General Relativity - no problem I think with Special Relativity).
If suspect that scientists know the flaky bits in their own speciality, but assume all the other stuff is solid. If and when they face the real truth, I think they, and everyone else is going to be pretty staggered.

Does 'young carbon' diffuse into older material? Is this a recognised reason why C-14 dates can go wrong - I mean I assume the samples for dating aren't taken at the surface of a sample.

David
 
#56
Just diverting a bit, getting back to the super-psi vs discarnate spirit thing, must admit I take the super-psi hypothesis seriously. That doesn't mean I discount the discarnate intelligence/spirit hypothesis. There is an idea that both may be true, that they represent 2 sides of the same coin, and that ultimately the truth of what is going on is simply beyond our comprehension, our language even.

Have been a fan of Braude's for years. There is a reason that super-psi is out there. If anything the evidence from multiple sources, seance mediums, shamanic possessions, animist religions in which spirit possessions predominate, occult and magikal practices, multiple personality disorder, in combination with the reality of the paranormal and the collective unconscious, gives credence to super-psi. I realise that the same spiritual and spiritist topics are taken as evidence for the discarnate hypothesis.

Yet it is obvious that very many of these spirits, are ficticious, that is archetypes and fragments of the mediums' and others' subconscious minds. Even many mediums admit they were and are never sure what is going on. When you look at spirit possession in say the related religions of voodoo/vodoun and Brazilian Afro-spiritist faiths, we are clearly dealing with archetypes, the wise weary old slave, the native American warrior, the seductress, the trickster etc.

A regular criticism of the trance controls in the western medium tradition since the 19th century, is how many of them are American Indian chiefs and Chinese sages, never Chinese peasants or lowly European serfs. Medium controls in the west have included Atlanteans and Martians and Venusians. After it was recognized that Mars and Venus could not be inhabited by advanced life, mediums' ET controls disappeared all of a sudden! Actually they sometimes just moved to other star systems and galaxies. Famous medium Eileen Garrett took seriously the possibility that her control was just an unconscious creation. Also the kind of stories and revelations these spirits relate, are routinely false and dubious (all these afterlife realms filled with houses and valleys, animals etc. and so much similar cornball hokum. If you want to believe it, fine. I'm not going to change anybody's mind), there is also an unconscious pandering to the audience concerned, and the medium himself/herself.

The bizareness and extreme nature of MPDs, and the power of the subconscious mind, think in health and sickness, and again the reality of the collective mind, and how things like PK, telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, have all been demonstrated - on principle this all makes super-psi scientifically credible and very plausible; there is no miracle or profundity attributed to spirits that people have not demonstrated, without possession of any kind coming into it.

Braude is right when he says that we want to displace our own powers and capabilities onto spirits and related because to acknowledge the power and abilities we have buried in our own minds, can be very disturbing, even terrifying. Yet I think it's great news!
 
#57
I think that as soon as you accept that psi is real you enter a different theoretical landscape - one where anomalous things happen and can be explained by a range of phenomena - ESP, precognition, discarnate entities (including people who were alive), etc.

It is clearly impossible to prove that a particular anomaly was caused by one of those or some other non-physical phenomenon. We define all the above types of phenomena by the way they break ordinary reality, but that subdivision may not be terribly useful. Think of the anomalies that Special Relativity produce in Newtonian physics - mass increasing at high speed, length shrinking along the direction of motion, etc. We don't have a physics of mass increase (say) we just have a physics of relativity that includes all those anomalies.

However, that doesn't mean that we should abandon common sense. The fact that NDE's happen, and that reincarnation seems to be fairly solid, must mean that apparent communication with dead people is very probably real.

David
 
#58
There is an idea that say somebody becomes possessed or entranced rather with the spirit of an old great artist, and starts producing great paintings in the exact style of that artist, or entranced by a deceased writer and starts writing tomes in the writer's style (automatic writing), that what is going on is that the living person is indeed 'possessed' by a surviving mental fragment of the core personality of the deceased writer/artist, but it is not a spirit possession as we would normally understand it. That is all our personalities with their core characteristics actually survive death, but as a kind of mental recording in the collective mind/unconscious, yet a recording that is free of the seeming constraints of time and space, and such core mental personality records are able to interact with the minds of the living. So these mental records of distinct personalities in one way are like a recording of a normal film or sound recording, we are able to watch old films of Bogart and Steve McQueen etc. and listen to musical compositions by Hendrix and Cobain even though they are all long dead; but imagine such films and records taking on a life of their own and interacting with their viewers and listeners, via some kind of feedback mechanism. So say you are listening to an old Hendrix or Miles Davis recording (or whoever) and you start to jam to it with your own guitar, and then the record you are listening to literally changes its tune and responds accordingly to your own jamming; or you are watching an old John Wayne movie and shout at the screen to Wayne to dodge the cowboy hiding behind the bar who has his gun aimed at Wayne, Wayne dodges the guy (but not in the original movie say) and says thanks to you for giving him the warning, from the screen.

Now you may object that how is such an hypothesis different from spirit survival? There is a difference, but there is no way to tell the difference! Or at least it becomes very difficult. So according to such a hypothesis, and carrying my analogies further, an interaction in the present day by a living person with say long dead actors and musicians in an old movie or musical recording does not mean those actors and musicians are still surviving spirits, it's just that their personalities and the latters' talents live on, through the mediums in which they were recorded in the first place, even if we don't have a clue how. The actual spirits of Jimi Hendrix and John Wayne are however elsewhere, wherever and however they are. Reincarnated or whatever. What you, a living person, are interacting with, namely some long dead actor or musician (yes this does not happen in real life, I mean in my analogy) via some weird feedback, is their 'shell personalities' which take on a life of their own after death, as some kind of living interactive recording in the collective unconscious. The souls (for lack of a better term) of these long dead actors and musicians are however elsewhere, wherever they are. What you are communicating with is the shell, which follows a logic of that domain or level. These shells are actually animated by the energy and minds of the living. Now this idea exists in variations among some Oriental mystical and occult traditions and also in some primitive societies and elsewhere, even among Western thinkers. Who knows?

The thing is we get into weird conundrums here, but these are fundamental to the subject at hand. Problems of time and space and how the human mind is enmeshed in the former, and how do we separate one mind from another, are we as distinct as we think we are? Does anything truly die, do not dead bacteria, dead animals and plants not just take on life in new form? As science demonstrates, as farming demonstrates. And then why should we think humans are different, maybe as the organs, tissues and cells of our dead bodies are absorbed and recycled by the earth, so our minds/souls are likewise, but exactly how and in what way we don't really have a clue.
 

Alex

Administrator
#59
Just diverting a bit, getting back to the super-psi vs discarnate spirit thing, must admit I take the super-psi hypothesis seriously. That doesn't mean I discount the discarnate intelligence/spirit hypothesis. There is an idea that both may be true, that they represent 2 sides of the same coin, and that ultimately the truth of what is going on is simply beyond our comprehension, our language even.
great point! I never thought of it quite that way but now that I do you're absolutely right. both must exist... both must be true. it's really impossible to read the evidence any other way. I have a ton of respect for steve but he should have seen this long ago. it seems to me that he's created some unnecessary impediments to the disincarnate spirit research.
 

Alex

Administrator
#60
Now you may object that how is such an hypothesis different from spirit survival? There is a difference, but there is no way to tell the difference!
nice. it seems to me that this is the problem with trying to jam our limited understanding of extended consciousness back into our dated model of reason, logic and scientism. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try and find a way to move forward, I'm just saying that I think we need some real deep thinking about what we think we know and how it relates to extended consciousness research
 
Top