Dean Radin, Quantum Consciousness Experiments |545|

As his night job (!), Radin co-founded a cognigenics org last year: see
At 30:00 he discusses its relation to his psi work, mentions the ethical issues, and even says they are still asking if they should be doing this. Yikes.
It all started with the invention of the printing press..
Or, maybe it all started with the invention of etching on cave walls... those fuckers.
 
Merci buckets, Alex. I look forward to having the time to listen to Matt's interview. Meanwhile I am still confused after re-listening to the Radin segments you cited.: You made the statement in the forum that "psi experiments... falsified the long-standing claim that morals can never be more than a social construct." My query is which psi experiments are you referring to here?

just the ones that falsify the claim that mind can never, ever, under any circumstances, be more than an epiphenomenon of the brain... oh, wait a minute, that's all of them

from Why Science is Wrong
=======

The Dopey Science Creed:

1. I maintain that my life has no purpose and no meaning. The same is true for the entire universe. There is no purpose to anything.
I affirm that my morals come from my genes and my con-ditioning, not from decisions I make. Free will is an illusion. My personal identity is an illusion.

2. There are no “good” deeds, or “good people.” There is no “bad,” “evil,” or “wrong” either.

3. Every report of encounters with spirits, angels, ghosts, and supernatural beings is bunk. The credibility or number of witnesses doesn’t matter—it’s all bunk.

4. I am my physical brain and nothing more. The death of my body is the death of me.

Most of us are rightfully put off by at least some parts of this creed. Even the most scientifically-minded parent can’t look their son or daughter in the eye and tell them they are a meaningless il-lusion. But while you might feel uneasy with the Dopey Science Creed, science-as-we-know-it doesn’t allow for wiggle room on these points.

Take the first element of the creed, “Life has no purpose or mean-ing.” Although the claim sounds harsh, it’s not as though science is trying to tell us we’re meaningless peons. The problem is science has cornered itself into a position that allows for nothing else. If life has meaning, then what is the meaning of life? Who determines life’s meaning? How do we measure it?

To suggest anything in the universe has “meaning,” other than illusions of meaning we ascribe with our robot brain, is blasphe-



26​

UNCORRECTED PROOF -- DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
Wrong about Science… And Its Dopey Creed…​

mous to science because it’s an admission there’s more to life than science is able to measure.

And then there’s the question of bodily death. Even though sci-ence-as-we-know-it is totally incapable of explaining how that little voice inside your head (i.e. consciousness) got started, they’re sure about one thing—when you die it’s gone for good. Again, it can’t be otherwise for science because you, they claim, are your brain. The end of your brain has to mean the end of you.

But this assumption creates another “meaning” problem for sci-ence. If your physical death is the end of you, then what possible meaning could there be to your life. Why love? Why care? Why do anything? If everything is going to disappear when you die, then why live? It’s an impossible question. And, if you think the future of your children can get you out of this mess, they can’t. Why pass along your genes if only to perpetuate an absurd illusion of exis-tence? What possible purpose could there be in this meaningless universe science has postulated? Death, it would appear, is the great teacher science chooses to ignore.

Matt Dillahunty

The Dopey Science Creed has become inseparable from main-stream science. It’s the framework for everything science could know about life. It’s also the lens through which atheists see the world. Modern-day atheists sometimes referred to as “New Athe-ists,” use this brand of science as the basis for their belief system. On Skeptiko, I’ve managed to incorporate elements of the Dopey Science Creed into a number of my dialogues, but never more di-rectly than during this short email interview with public speaker, internet personality, and former president of the Atheist Community of Austin, Texas, Matt Dillahunty.

In response to point #1 of the Dopey Science Creed (There is no purpose to anything), he replied:

Matt Dillahunty: I see no reason to accept assertions that there





27​

UNCORRECTED PROOF -- DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
Why Science is Wrong

is some externally imposed, agent-guided purpose to life. My life has plenty of meaning and purpose—we imbue things with meaning and purpose. We even specifically create things with an intended pur-pose in mind—so it’s hyperbolic, at best and simply false, at worst to claim, “There is no purpose to anything.” It’s sloppy wording that attempts to straw man the actual position, which is: The assertion that life has an externally-imposed, agent-guided purpose has not met its burden of proof.

Me: Ok, but that is logically inconsistent... that’s why [Tufts University Professor, and well known thinker in the New Atheism movement] Daniel Dennett asserts that “consciousness is an illu-sion.” Either the meaning and purpose you give life is an illusion, or it’s not.

Moreover, this is nonsense because no one lives their life like this. No one thinks the love they have for their family, their children, their closest friends is all a trick of the mind. In fact, anyone who really believes this would have no reason to live... why perpetuate an absurd illusion?

In response to point #2 (There is no “right” or “wrong”), he re-plied:

Dillahunty: This is a mess of combining issues. Free will may be an illusion, depending on how it is defined—but that might be irrel-evant to issues of morality. I’ve lectured on the superiority of secu-lar morality many times (there are several different talks online) and I not only advocate for right and wrong (not as extant things but as non-subjective values) but also moral absolutes (with the caveat that each situation is considered independently) and I make no ap-peal to genes or conditioning or claim that there is no “me.” I have consistently and repeatedly rejected moral relativism...as has Sam Harris.

Me: Well, you might have to lecture us one more time because “secular morality” doesn’t make any sense in a meaningless uni-verse. The fact that you and others have bought into [neuroscientist




28​

UNCORRECTED PROOF -- DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
Wrong about Science… And Its Dopey Creed…​

and best-selling author on atheism] Sam Harris’s sleight of hand doesn’t make it any more defensible.
In response to point #3 (There are no “good/bad people”), he replied:

Dillahunty: This is another mess of combining issues. What does “good people” mean? If I had to guess, I think I’ll accept the no-tion that people, generally speaking, aren’t wholly good or bad...or intrinsically good or bad, but instead there are people who do good things and people who do bad things. There are certainly people for whom the quality or quantity of good or bad things they’ve done is most easily summarized by calling them “good” or “bad”...but that’s a shortcut generalization that is more colloquial than philo-sophical.

There are most definitely people who have been labeled mystics, sages, prophets and saints. Whether or not the abilities attributed to them are real, or not, is a separate question. But I don’t (and most skeptical atheists I’ve met wouldn’t) assert that these claims are false...merely that these claims haven’t met their burden of proof and can’t rationally be considered to be true.

Me: Again we’re hashing over the same issue... if there is no “meaning” then there’s no objective reality to such ideas as “good” and “bad”... forget about your notions of “wholly good or bad” there’s not even “somewhat good or bad.”

Your buddy Sam Harris (Skeptiko #189 and #192) tries to get around this problem by appealing to neuroscience and claiming that we know enough about the brain and its relationship to the physical world so as to allow a new “scientific mapping of good and bad.” This is silly on a number of levels, but most importantly for our dis-cussion it is rigidly wed to the idea that mind equals brain. If there’s any case where mind is not equal to brain, then his idea crumbles.

In response to point #4 (Encounters with spirits, angles, ghosts and supernatural beings are bunk), he replied:

Dillahunty: The response here is the same as for the last one. I




29​

UNCORRECTED PROOF -- DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
Why Science is Wrong

don’t believe the claims are true. That doesn’t mean that I believe the claims are false. The truth of a claim isn’t in any way impacted by the number of people who accept it, nor by their apparent credibil-ity, nor by the sincerity or degree of their conviction. But pointing out that a claim hasn’t met its burden of proof and cannot rationally be considered “true” is NOT the same as claiming that the claim is false.

You’ve constructed a straw man that equates “I don’t believe this is true” with “I believe this is false”...which is simply false.

Me: Well, thank goodness for scientific methods, and peer re-view and all that stuff or we’d just have an endless chain of “straw man” charges by those who claim to be standard bearers for the “burden of proof.”

In response to point #5 (I am my brain. The death of my body is the death of me), he replied:

Dillahunty: In many ways, “I am my brain” is true. Is it ex-haustively true, in all contexts? Nope. But when talking about who I am, those aspects produced by my brain certainly have primacy. As far as we can tell, when my brain dies, I cease to exist. There’s no demonstrated mechanism for consciousness to persist beyond death. There are a lot of complicated discussions to be had about identity and self... but you gloss over that in the creed for a simple assertion followed by another exaggerated straw man. I do not assert that the claimed encounters people have had are ALL an illusion. I don’t propose an explanation for ALL of them. I don’t necessarily propose an explanation for ANY of them (though we can be reasonably con-fident that delusions do occur).

My position isn’t “All encounters with those who have died are an illusion.” It’s “No encounters with those who have died have been confirmed to actually be as claimed.”

There’s a big difference there—and it’s one you’ve repeatedly misrepresented in your creed.

But when talking about who I am, those aspects produced by my




30​

UNCORRECTED PROOF -- DO NOT DISTRIBUTE​

Wrong about Science… And Its Dopey Creed…​



brain certainly have primacy. As far as we can tell, when my brain dies, I cease to exist. There’s no demonstrated mechanism for con-sciousness to persist beyond death.

Me: Great....now we’re getting somewhere....tell me when mind-equals-brain is not true? Also, you say, “There’s no demonstrated mechanism for con-sciousness to persist beyond death.” What is the “demonstrated mechanism” for consciousness to exist before death?

Ok, Matt, this has been a great first round of dialogue...hope we can keep it going as I think we’re quickly moving into the issues we care most about on Skeptiko—what does consciousness science tells us about who we are?

I had planned on a lengthy point-by-point debate with Dillahunty when I created a thread on the Skeptiko forum for us. But Dillahunty, like so many of the atheists I’ve encountered, seemed to disappear when the conversation veered away from the talking points atheists usually lean on.

While Dillahunty isn’t a heavyweight scientist like some of the guests that have appeared on Skeptiko, he performed no worse when handling these tough questions in our email exchange. But he didn’t do very well either. Of course, it’s all not his fault. The materialist, science-as-we-know-it creed he’s following is contradictory and ab-surd. If life is meaningless, then why assert anything? Why defend anything? Why do anything?

Conversely, if you think your life does have meaning, where does that meaning come from? And, before you answer, remember you can’t say “you” give your life meaning because “you,” accord-ing to science-as-we-know-it, are an illusion.
 
just the ones that falsify the claim that mind can never, ever, under any circumstances, be more than an epiphenomenon of the brain... oh, wait a minute, that's all of them

Put another way... consider dean Radin's presentiment experiment. six sigma result. replicated 50+ times. replicated at multiple labs throughout the world.

Now consider the neurological model of consciousness. the model of who YOU are. the model that explains the voice inside your head. this model assumes this YOU is created by your brain. and it assumes that your brain (like everything else) is on a clock. the clock begins because you are alive and the clock ends when you die. there's no you without your brain. there is no you without the clock.

So, if you remember this experiment you will immediately realize it falsifies the clock. whatever it is that Radin is measuring is not obeying the clock. it falsifies the clock by showing that there's at least one instance where you (that voice inside your head) is not on the clock... and this changes everything cuz it exposes the assumption that you are a biological robot in a meaningless universe. this can no longer be true because experimentally (with a six sigma result replicated multiple times) we've shown that you are more. you are more than the clock.
 
Last edited:
I see a certain resemblance between Dean Radin, Bill Gates, and one or two other 'Hi Tech' entrepreneurs.

Dean and Bill moved into genetic technology late in life. They talk about the subject as if they were experts, and arrogantly assert 'facts' that may well be false. The Hi-tech world seems to encourage a false bravado that is quite weird. Dean talks about his work on genetic manipulation as his 'night job'. Maybe he is going off his head?

Dean seems unaware of the safety concerns around m-RNA vaccines. Just because the scheme looks neat on paper, it doesn't mean that it is safe.

Bill Gates has even fewer grounds to be talking as an expert on these vaccines.

David
 
just the ones that falsify the claim that mind can never, ever, under any circumstances, be more than an epiphenomenon of the brain... oh, wait a minute, that's all of them

from Why Science is Wrong
=======

The Dopey Science Creed:

1. I maintain that my life has no purpose and no meaning. The same is true for the entire universe. There is no purpose to anything.
I affirm that my morals come from my genes and my con-ditioning, not from decisions I make. Free will is an illusion. My personal identity is an illusion.

2. There are no “good” deeds, or “good people.” There is no “bad,” “evil,” or “wrong” either.

3. Every report of encounters with spirits, angels, ghosts, and supernatural beings is bunk. The credibility or number of witnesses doesn’t matter—it’s all bunk.

4. I am my physical brain and nothing more. The death of my body is the death of me.

Most of us are rightfully put off by at least some parts of this creed. Even the most scientifically-minded parent can’t look their son or daughter in the eye and tell them they are a meaningless il-lusion. But while you might feel uneasy with the Dopey Science Creed, science-as-we-know-it doesn’t allow for wiggle room on these points.

Take the first element of the creed, “Life has no purpose or mean-ing.” Although the claim sounds harsh, it’s not as though science is trying to tell us we’re meaningless peons. The problem is science has cornered itself into a position that allows for nothing else. If life has meaning, then what is the meaning of life? Who determines life’s meaning? How do we measure it?

To suggest anything in the universe has “meaning,” other than illusions of meaning we ascribe with our robot brain, is blasphe-



26​

UNCORRECTED PROOF -- DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
Wrong about Science… And Its Dopey Creed…​

mous to science because it’s an admission there’s more to life than science is able to measure.

And then there’s the question of bodily death. Even though sci-ence-as-we-know-it is totally incapable of explaining how that little voice inside your head (i.e. consciousness) got started, they’re sure about one thing—when you die it’s gone for good. Again, it can’t be otherwise for science because you, they claim, are your brain. The end of your brain has to mean the end of you.

But this assumption creates another “meaning” problem for sci-ence. If your physical death is the end of you, then what possible meaning could there be to your life. Why love? Why care? Why do anything? If everything is going to disappear when you die, then why live? It’s an impossible question. And, if you think the future of your children can get you out of this mess, they can’t. Why pass along your genes if only to perpetuate an absurd illusion of exis-tence? What possible purpose could there be in this meaningless universe science has postulated? Death, it would appear, is the great teacher science chooses to ignore.

Matt Dillahunty

The Dopey Science Creed has become inseparable from main-stream science. It’s the framework for everything science could know about life. It’s also the lens through which atheists see the world. Modern-day atheists sometimes referred to as “New Athe-ists,” use this brand of science as the basis for their belief system. On Skeptiko, I’ve managed to incorporate elements of the Dopey Science Creed into a number of my dialogues, but never more di-rectly than during this short email interview with public speaker, internet personality, and former president of the Atheist Community of Austin, Texas, Matt Dillahunty.

In response to point #1 of the Dopey Science Creed (There is no purpose to anything), he replied:

Matt Dillahunty: I see no reason to accept assertions that there





27​

UNCORRECTED PROOF -- DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
Why Science is Wrong

is some externally imposed, agent-guided purpose to life. My life has plenty of meaning and purpose—we imbue things with meaning and purpose. We even specifically create things with an intended pur-pose in mind—so it’s hyperbolic, at best and simply false, at worst to claim, “There is no purpose to anything.” It’s sloppy wording that attempts to straw man the actual position, which is: The assertion that life has an externally-imposed, agent-guided purpose has not met its burden of proof.

Me: Ok, but that is logically inconsistent... that’s why [Tufts University Professor, and well known thinker in the New Atheism movement] Daniel Dennett asserts that “consciousness is an illu-sion.” Either the meaning and purpose you give life is an illusion, or it’s not.

Moreover, this is nonsense because no one lives their life like this. No one thinks the love they have for their family, their children, their closest friends is all a trick of the mind. In fact, anyone who really believes this would have no reason to live... why perpetuate an absurd illusion?

In response to point #2 (There is no “right” or “wrong”), he re-plied:

Dillahunty: This is a mess of combining issues. Free will may be an illusion, depending on how it is defined—but that might be irrel-evant to issues of morality. I’ve lectured on the superiority of secu-lar morality many times (there are several different talks online) and I not only advocate for right and wrong (not as extant things but as non-subjective values) but also moral absolutes (with the caveat that each situation is considered independently) and I make no ap-peal to genes or conditioning or claim that there is no “me.” I have consistently and repeatedly rejected moral relativism...as has Sam Harris.

Me: Well, you might have to lecture us one more time because “secular morality” doesn’t make any sense in a meaningless uni-verse. The fact that you and others have bought into [neuroscientist




28​

UNCORRECTED PROOF -- DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
Wrong about Science… And Its Dopey Creed…​

and best-selling author on atheism] Sam Harris’s sleight of hand doesn’t make it any more defensible.
In response to point #3 (There are no “good/bad people”), he replied:

Dillahunty: This is another mess of combining issues. What does “good people” mean? If I had to guess, I think I’ll accept the no-tion that people, generally speaking, aren’t wholly good or bad...or intrinsically good or bad, but instead there are people who do good things and people who do bad things. There are certainly people for whom the quality or quantity of good or bad things they’ve done is most easily summarized by calling them “good” or “bad”...but that’s a shortcut generalization that is more colloquial than philo-sophical.

There are most definitely people who have been labeled mystics, sages, prophets and saints. Whether or not the abilities attributed to them are real, or not, is a separate question. But I don’t (and most skeptical atheists I’ve met wouldn’t) assert that these claims are false...merely that these claims haven’t met their burden of proof and can’t rationally be considered to be true.

Me: Again we’re hashing over the same issue... if there is no “meaning” then there’s no objective reality to such ideas as “good” and “bad”... forget about your notions of “wholly good or bad” there’s not even “somewhat good or bad.”

Your buddy Sam Harris (Skeptiko #189 and #192) tries to get around this problem by appealing to neuroscience and claiming that we know enough about the brain and its relationship to the physical world so as to allow a new “scientific mapping of good and bad.” This is silly on a number of levels, but most importantly for our dis-cussion it is rigidly wed to the idea that mind equals brain. If there’s any case where mind is not equal to brain, then his idea crumbles.

In response to point #4 (Encounters with spirits, angles, ghosts and supernatural beings are bunk), he replied:

Dillahunty: The response here is the same as for the last one. I




29​

UNCORRECTED PROOF -- DO NOT DISTRIBUTE
Why Science is Wrong

don’t believe the claims are true. That doesn’t mean that I believe the claims are false. The truth of a claim isn’t in any way impacted by the number of people who accept it, nor by their apparent credibil-ity, nor by the sincerity or degree of their conviction. But pointing out that a claim hasn’t met its burden of proof and cannot rationally be considered “true” is NOT the same as claiming that the claim is false.

You’ve constructed a straw man that equates “I don’t believe this is true” with “I believe this is false”...which is simply false.

Me: Well, thank goodness for scientific methods, and peer re-view and all that stuff or we’d just have an endless chain of “straw man” charges by those who claim to be standard bearers for the “burden of proof.”

In response to point #5 (I am my brain. The death of my body is the death of me), he replied:

Dillahunty: In many ways, “I am my brain” is true. Is it ex-haustively true, in all contexts? Nope. But when talking about who I am, those aspects produced by my brain certainly have primacy. As far as we can tell, when my brain dies, I cease to exist. There’s no demonstrated mechanism for consciousness to persist beyond death. There are a lot of complicated discussions to be had about identity and self... but you gloss over that in the creed for a simple assertion followed by another exaggerated straw man. I do not assert that the claimed encounters people have had are ALL an illusion. I don’t propose an explanation for ALL of them. I don’t necessarily propose an explanation for ANY of them (though we can be reasonably con-fident that delusions do occur).

My position isn’t “All encounters with those who have died are an illusion.” It’s “No encounters with those who have died have been confirmed to actually be as claimed.”

There’s a big difference there—and it’s one you’ve repeatedly misrepresented in your creed.

But when talking about who I am, those aspects produced by my




30​

UNCORRECTED PROOF -- DO NOT DISTRIBUTE​

Wrong about Science… And Its Dopey Creed…​



brain certainly have primacy. As far as we can tell, when my brain dies, I cease to exist. There’s no demonstrated mechanism for con-sciousness to persist beyond death.

Me: Great....now we’re getting somewhere....tell me when mind-equals-brain is not true? Also, you say, “There’s no demonstrated mechanism for con-sciousness to persist beyond death.” What is the “demonstrated mechanism” for consciousness to exist before death?

Ok, Matt, this has been a great first round of dialogue...hope we can keep it going as I think we’re quickly moving into the issues we care most about on Skeptiko—what does consciousness science tells us about who we are?

I had planned on a lengthy point-by-point debate with Dillahunty when I created a thread on the Skeptiko forum for us. But Dillahunty, like so many of the atheists I’ve encountered, seemed to disappear when the conversation veered away from the talking points atheists usually lean on.

While Dillahunty isn’t a heavyweight scientist like some of the guests that have appeared on Skeptiko, he performed no worse when handling these tough questions in our email exchange. But he didn’t do very well either. Of course, it’s all not his fault. The materialist, science-as-we-know-it creed he’s following is contradictory and ab-surd. If life is meaningless, then why assert anything? Why defend anything? Why do anything?

Conversely, if you think your life does have meaning, where does that meaning come from? And, before you answer, remember you can’t say “you” give your life meaning because “you,” accord-ing to science-as-we-know-it, are an illusion.
Thanks, Alex. At the Ivy League college I attended many moons ago secularism prevailed and moral relativism was taught by profs in my Philosophy
major. I had an emotional (I was crying) mtg with my Logic prof, a sweet man, in which I said, "do your really believe relativism?? How can you live your life with that belief?" He gave the answer of the existentialists: "we are free to decide our own meaning." Well Heidegger became a fascist and Sartre a violent terrorist.

BTW, the position of Dean Radin, as stated unabashedly in the YouTube interview I linked, (#80) is frightening:

~Covid is real.
~People are misled by disinfo re the vaccines and therefore refuse to "save themselves."...
~My cognigenics work re enhancing psi will benefit from the aid of bioethicists [OMG]
~my philosophy is it is better to know than not know, even re nuclear power [never mind its destruction of people and of our planet]

Radin is a man of gravitas, and his positions IMO will be influential. God help us all.
 
Last edited:
Can you pls elaborate for us? TY

Every step toward transhumanism has been a step too far. And I bet humans foresaw it every step of the way. There are cultures who reject technology strictly for this reason, we refer to them as primitive. Our embrace of technology is relative to the current step.
All this means is that we can't really act like it's a moral high-ground thing. Rather, it's a value judgement and consensus. We have to win the fight on that basis, otherwise the steps will just continue.
If we default to arguing it as-if from as a moral high-ground, we'll lose, because look at how it's worked out so far. We need to just nut up, and insist our values are better (if we know what they are), and fight to establish them.

30,000BC - "I'm okay with drawing pictures on cave wall, but writing names or stories is too far."
10,000-3,000BC - "I'm okay with stories on cave wall, but writing on tablet is too far."
1400AD - "I'm okay with books, but mass production is to far"
2000AD - "I'm okay with internet, but connecting it directly to the brain is too far"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kim
Thanks, Alex. At the Ivy League college I attended many moons ago secularism prevailed and moral relativism was taught by profs in my Philosophy
major. I had an emotional (I was crying) mtg with my Logic prof, a sweet man, in which I said, "do your really believe relativism?? How can you live your life with that belief?" He gave the answer of the existentialists: "we are free to decide our own meaning."

Philosophy is wonderful... but not sure this logic holds:

- if he means we and you as in yr internal conscious experience, he's contradicting the neurological model. and that's why nitwits like sam harris laugh at nitwits like your old professor. i.e. do you have no consciousness, only the illusion of consciousness... it's all just brain stuff. of course, the joke's on them because the mind= brain neurological model has been falsified.

- so that leaves the other interpretation... consciousness is fundamental... we have free will... and we can "do what thou wilt"... we can create better than the creator gods.

maybe, but as the song goes " you can wear your fur like a river on fire but you better be sure if you're making god a liar"


BTW, the position of Dean Radin, as stated unabashedly in the YouTube interview I linked, (#80) is frightening:
agreed. thx for sharing.[/QUOTE]
 
Just phases. Cycles.
I gather from many sources, but the celestial bodies is paramount. And we're in a new age.
Also Steiner, who only gave lectures and talked around and around, so it takes patience and fortitude to get to the essence. He was enamored with Goethe. Also an excellent reference.
I don't believe ALL the woo, but I've witnessed enough in life to see things for what they are. And trying to see the higher purpose or "good" even when it's not apparent.
ANYWAY.
We have all we need with nature. The Catholic church tried to sever that tie, but of course FAILED. Now, we shall be rediscovering that relationship.
As far as nothing broken... It's just our psyches and a bunch of self-destructive habits passed on or conditioned in. Collective PTSD that's easy for the vultures to manipulate and prey upon if they can keep us in fear mode. As humans, we don't just have fight or flight now, do we? We're "smarter" than that. I read some LRH Dianetics and Scientology stuff, got a little out of it. One of the hidden gems was this scenario of a black panther being on the landing of the stairs between you and the bedroom and the six options of action to deal with it. There could be even more actually...
I don't have it handy and the books are somewhat buried right now.
I think the intensity of everything going on right now, it's attempting to force awakening of higher faculties and dormant or suppressed abilities. Even just the simple ones that children have (being in theta) that we like to beat and condition out of them. They see through lies. They can tell when you're not being truthful. Plus taking things too seriously, not having more fun and games, letting shit go instead of holding on to it and carrying it around.
I honestly think they'll become our teachers and leaders into a better future. If we guide and support them.
Just an early ramble. No coffee yet. Crazy dreams and rough sleep.
We'll have to get more specific, if I missed whatever you were getting at.
As far as the larger system goes, it's going to have to become more globally harmonic.
I think, as population reaches certain heights, humanity becomes more unwieldy and needs to break the boundaries of the old. And the old methods of control are failing. Killing off huge numbers and relocation and cultural genocide won't work this time. Breaking down. All of it.
The Age of Aquarius is about the individual. We've learned the tribal and group stuff by now.
This will be SO EXCITING! Instead of what job do you want to chain yourself to, it will be about promoting individual traits and tendencies and learning and expression. Then bringing more of who we really are to the table and collaborating.
Not today, Klaus Schwab!
Ellyn Dye, an NDEr & astrologist, puts out an infrequent newsletter in which she predicted some lessening of the turmoil after December 2020, which involves a conjunction some astrologers say begins the A of A. Well, we did get rid of tRump, but the chaos hasn't lifted much. If you check out The Shift Network, there's a massive source of all kinds of healers, therapists, etc. that use sound, herbs, chanting, you name it, to bring about healthful change. If you never watched any of the David Gibson's Sound Healing videos, there are some remarkable stuff there as well. There's a free conference April 8 - 10th, so don't miss that. There's even more resources on NEO (New Earth One) Network.

So, I couldn't agree w/ you more about the chaos apparently being a necessary or an unavoidable passage into a feminine energy age, away from predatory male energies, as Dr. Alberto Villoldo puts it. He's got some fantastic guided meditations that accompanied by drumming. Drumming & Tibetan gongs & bowls vibrations are also popular w/ sound healers.
 
I basically agree - I really wanted to point out how awkward that interview must have been for Alex!

My only caveat is regarding the hive mind concept.

As you know, a lot of afterlife evidence suggests that people communicate telepathically, and that possibly they find it impossible to lie because their thoughts betray them. I suppose this could be called a hive mind - but we certainly do not want it enforced with regular injections, ignoring those who are maimed or die as a result!

David

I agree with you about how awkward the interview was for Alex, and I certainly felt that awkwardness. Also, yes, a lot of afterlife evidence does suggest that we communicate telepathically, but that is not my point of contention with Radin. Rather, this guy just doesn't want to address anything outside of what is funding him. That is what I mean when I say that he is bought and paid for, or paid for and bought.

One might say that all of his experiments are bunk because life doesn't take place in a laboratory. On the other hand, I would say that all of our lives have been turned into micro laboratories surrounded by four walls. His experiments are real and a beacon of some kind of truth, but toward what ends if this fucker is thinking just like all the other lunatics that want to own every one of your thoughts, every one of your experiences and desires, in the name of "SCIENCE"?

Let me reiterate, the dude fell flat on his face when Alex asked him about what he thinks concerning "transhumanism."

His pathetic response, "I don't know anything about that so I can't comment on it."

Again, how the fuck does this rodent faced mother fucker, who is writing a book about how wonderful it will be for you to join a hive mind, not now about transhumanism?
 
the dude fell flat on his face when Alex asked him about what he thinks concerning "transhumanism."

Thanks for continuing to pound on this. I think I wanted to let it slip by because it seemed so obvious that he's deep into transhumanism by virtue of what he revealed... but the more I think about it your point is super important.

He's completely dodging the issue to the point of borderline lying about it. I mean of course he understands his biotech firm is seen as being completely aligned with the transhumanist agenda. Dean is in the transhumanism business... whether he likes it or not.
 
Thanks for continuing to pound on this. I think I wanted to let it slip by because it seemed so obvious that he's deep into transhumanism by virtue of what he revealed... but the more I think about it your point is super important.

He's completely dodging the issue to the point of borderline lying about it. I mean of course he understands his biotech firm is seen as being completely aligned with the transhumanist agenda. Dean is in the transhumanism business... whether he likes it or not.
In the You Tube video I linked (#80) he uses what is known as an informal logical fallacy: "well, others are doing it." Others steal cars, therefore I'm ok morally if I do it. He also says consulting with bioethicists will help--are you kidding??? At one point he even says he and is colleagues are not even sure they should be doing cognigenics. What do y'all think is motivating him? Is it his obvious passion that "it is better to know."? Is it massive egoism / let's play God?
 
Last edited:
In the You Tube video I linked (#80) he uses what is known as an informal logical fallacy: "well, others are doing it." Others steal cars, therefore I'm ok morally if I do it. He also says consulting with bioethicists will help--are you kidding??? At one point he even says he and is colleagues are not even sure they should be doing cognigenics. What do y'all think is motivating him? Is it his obvious passion that "it is better to know."? Is it massive egoism / let's play God?

maybe it's money. you know radin was in silicon valley for a long time. he saw a lot of people make a ton of dough.
 
maybe it's money. you know radin was in silicon valley for a long time. he saw a lot of people make a ton of dough.
You know, I noticed that the acceptance or rejection of the transcendence of consciousness beyond physical death is hardly an ethical criterium. Take Francis Collins, for example: this guy claims that in the course of his work as the head of the Human Genome Project he, a militant atheist, came to believe in God, as a direct result of his research of the human DNE. He wrote a book on the subject, The Language of God, which I bought and devoured gratefully many years back. However, during the plandemic he turned out to be a truly cynical, psychotic scumbag; his modus operandi got him the nickname "likeable fascist". The bastard was pushing poisonous jab mandates, lockdowns, ritualistic shame muzzles and all that dystopian, nightmarish shit on the society with the exuberant enthusiasm of an aspiring dr. Mengele. How the heck somebody who claims to be spiritual can behave in this way is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
However, during the plandemic he turned out to be a truly cynical, psychotic scumbag; his modus operandi got him the nickname "likeable fascist". The bastard was pushing poisonous jab mandates, lockdowns, ritualistic shame muzzles and all that dystopian, nightmarish shit on the society with the exuberant enthusiasm of an aspiring dr. Mengele. How the heck somebody who claims to be spiritual can behave in this way is beyond me.
Spent a few minutes Googling to try and find references to Collins being labeled a "likeable fascist". Came up empty. Did find a few off the run articles/blog-posts from plandemic enthusiasts that weren't flattering, but (as is seemingly always the case) were light on evidence to justify their negative views.

Maybe he's still just the same guy that wrote the book you so loved who has a different view on COVID?
 
You know, I noticed that the acceptance or rejection of the transcendence of consciousness beyond physical death is hardly an ethical criterium. Take Francis Collins, for example: this guy claims that in the course of his work as the head of the Human Genome Project he, a militant atheist, came to believe in God, as a direct result of his research of the human DNE. He wrote a book on the subject, The Language of God, which I bought and devoured gratefully many years back. However, during the plandemic he turned out to be a truly cynical, psychotic scumbag; his modus operandi got him the nickname "likeable fascist". The bastard was pushing poisonous jab mandates, lockdowns, ritualistic shame muzzles and all that dystopian, nightmarish shit on the society with the exuberant enthusiasm of an aspiring dr. Mengele. How the heck somebody who claims to be spiritual can behave in this way is beyond me.
maybe he's just lost his critical thinking ability? I mean there are plenty of spiritual people who lack the discernment to see through this scammy medicine. do you think that might be happening here?
 
Thanks for continuing to pound on this. I think I wanted to let it slip by because it seemed so obvious that he's deep into transhumanism by virtue of what he revealed... but the more I think about it your point is super important.

He's completely dodging the issue to the point of borderline lying about it. I mean of course he understands his biotech firm is seen as being completely aligned with the transhumanist agenda. Dean is in the transhumanism business... whether he likes it or not.

Thanks, my brother. I am on a spiritual journey myself, and at many times, I fucking hate it. The spiritual journey was a choice I made in life at a very young age. This trek had nothing to do with people telling me what to believe in, or how to believe in it. It had to do with me being honest with myself.

To me, Dean Radin comes off as a pompous, absolute full of shit, do whatever the people who pull the strings tell him to do, liar. Maybe he wasn't at one point or another, but on your podcast, he cut off his coat tails and ran, then probably stitched them back on at the local dry cleaners.
 
maybe he's just lost his critical thinking ability? I mean there are plenty of spiritual people who lack the discernment to see through this scammy medicine. do you think that might be happening here?

I think that we might make excuses for people that we admire when they prove to be absolute fabrications whose sole desire is to collect money and continue as they are; even at the detriment of truth.
 
Spent a few minutes Googling to try and find references to Collins being labeled a "likeable fascist". Came up empty. Did find a few off the run articles/blog-posts from plandemic enthusiasts that weren't flattering, but (as is seemingly always the case) were light on evidence to justify their negative views.

Maybe he's still just the same guy that wrote the book you so loved who has a different view on COVID?

Good thing that you find your evidence from "googling," as that must be the ultimate proof of everything. "Googling" is the new bible. Silence.
 
Good thing that you find your evidence from "googling," as that must be the ultimate proof of everything. "Googling" is the new bible. Silence.
Where else does one find evidence to support the types of claims Enrique made? Are you suggesting I read a newspaper or start making phone calls?

You mentioned being honest with one's self in a recent post. I'm into honesty as well: its part of why I don't accept "just so" statements and ask for evidence. That's all I did here.
 
Back
Top