Dean Radin, Quantum Consciousness Experiments |545|

Thanks for your refutation. I learned some cool stuff about Russian Orthodox.

Thank you, it's my pleasure

¡To specify, I don't think clothing should be used to give the illusion that any man his in a higher place spiritually than another.
HUH? Who ever implied that religious garb wearer is on the higher spiritual plane than anybody else? The garb is simply a uniform, like any other, and denotes one's belonging to a certain body, be it the army, the police or the church.

Sounds like your church has this mostly figured out... Except (back to the weird outfits) for the dude who wears the white had which obviously represents a phalic head with two balls hanging/drooping down his shoulders. Google "russian orthodox preist" it's one of the first results.

The people who try to make this weak ad hoc argument about the "weird outfits" don't realise that the garb of a priest comes from the era in human history where this style of clothing was normal in most social classes. As to "weirdness", look up the common clothing styles of, say, Henry VIII times. They, from today's point of view, are weirder than anything any priest ever wore.
As to your "phallic" allegation, it's on you if you see it as phallic, take it up with your therapist; I don't see it any more but rather less phallic than the headgear of British Beafeaters who guard the Royal Palace, or the French or Spanish Palace guards' headgear. But I'm sure THOSE headgear never invoked any phallic analogies in your head. Why is that, I wonder?

Jesus spent his time with the sinners.

So does every pries I know. And the ones I don't. Practically all of them work in jails, drug and prostitution rehab centers. In other words, they spend most of their time with sinners.

The purpose of adapting Pagan rituals was to help form structure, especially being that they had no printing press, let alone internet.. But once you DO get a printing press and/or internet, it's time to be upfront about what/where/when all the Pagan rituals are and stop pretending they're historical attributes of prophecy. AKA STOP Celebrating/associating Jesus's birthday and murder with farming holidays and/or astrology. That shit's temporal. Once we got the internet we had to stop claiming that Bruce Lee's hands can't be seen on camera, or that Frank Dux punched through bullet proof glass. Same should follow for the idea that the Pagan rituals magically lined up with biblical events. They didn't. They were adapted for convenience of storytelling.

Just a bunch of groundless conjectures presented with an admirable self-assuredness and unbreakable conviction. . Even if some pagan rituals coincide with Christian holidays, that fact, per se, is meaningless. We can always argue that said rituals are precursors of the Christian holidays, given that all spirituality is related in one way or another.

This is the first I've heard of the Orthodox churches efforts. I'll concede that once and glad to hear it, my family's church definitely caved.

Most so-called "Christian" churches caved. That's why I think the book of Apocalypse calls the Catholic Church of the last times "the great whore". I'm glad my Church didn't cave.

OK, I looked up RO stance on LGBTQ, and it seems very consistent. I'll concede that one. However in my defense I was referring to Christianity en mass.

Russian Orthodox Churches stand on family, marriage, "LGBT", traditional values, etc, is very clear uncompromised. A lot of "Christian" denominations went the other way. I find it very sad.

Again, was referring to Christianity en mass. Too often Christians say things like "If you want proof of God's existence just look around you". Which is bullshit.

I don't think it's bullshit at all. The Junkyard Tornado principle says more or less the same in different terms. Dr. Michael J. Behe says the same thing, only in scientific terms.

Again, Jesus hung out with the sinners. As such, if he comes back I hope he'll hang out with me, a sinner.

I already responded to that.

Awe, this would have been the one I hope most for you to answer. It gets dark when you peel it back.

Nobody in their sound mind associates the Sacraments with cannibalism. Rather, it's a metaphor for the ritual that signifies spiritual unity with God. This ritual has been around for 2000 years, and it never led to actual cannibalism. Quite the contrary, innumerable African, South American or Polynesian tribes gave up cannibalism as the result of their conversion to Christianity. As to us "worshipping the murder weapon" is a maliciously conceived ad hoc pseudo-argument devoid of any real meaning: to you, it's a murder weapon. To me, it's a symbol of Jesus' enormous sacrifice and the reminder of His suffering out of love for all of us, but also for everyone of us. In any case, I have no interest at all in proselytising; I'm an Orthodox Christian and it suits me just fine (by the way, I will clarify in advance, because I know it always comes up: I belong to the branch of the church that doesn't believe in eternal hell. So that we get it off the table a priori).

It would be less creepy if instead of crackers and wine they pass around a sharpened spear and a loaf of bread and everybody takes turns stabbing the side of the loaf of bread...
I'd like to see you perform the gymnastics to demonstrate why this is worse than 'symbolizing eating flesh and drinking blood.
Look up Sigil Magic real quick if you haven't already. It's the idea that if I can trick you into sinning in line with my desired outcome, then my sin against you is less karma against me. So, for instance, if I want to to make you a slave, I would trick you into enslaving someone below you first, so I'm not enslaving an innocent person. Therefore, if a blood drinking death cult wanted to relieve some of their karma, they would trick their victims into celebrating it.
I'm not insisting this is the case. Again just playing a major devils advocate, but also trying to force the big boy discussion on the topic.

EDIT:
And instead of a cross(aka murder weapon), OBVIOUSLY, the better symbol would either be:
-Knelt Jesus praying in the garden (put it on a necklace and at top of the building, everywhere where the cross is currently used).
or
-Tomb with the boulder rolled aside indicating the resurrection. Could be a square and a circle to the side, totally could go on a necklace or at top of a building..
No need to celebrate any murder weapons.
 
Last edited:
It would be less creepy if instead of crackers and wine they pass around a sharpened spear and a loaf of bread and everybody takes turns stabbing the side of the loaf of bread...
I'd like to see you perform the gymnastics to demonstrate why this is worse than 'symbolizing eating flesh and drinking blood.
Look up Sigil Magic real quick if you haven't already. It's the idea that if I can trick you into sinning in line with my desired outcome, then my sin against you is less karma against me. So, for instance, if I want to to make you a slave, I would trick you into enslaving someone below you first, so I'm not enslaving an innocent person. Therefore, if a blood drinking death cult wanted to relieve some of their karma, they would trick their victims into celebrating it.
If you are insinuating that Christianity "blood drinking death cult", at the same time calling yourself a Christian, there is really nothing to discuss, given the enormous contradictions, ergo, possible cognitive dissonance behind this. Besides, nothing you have written here actually responds to my post, it's just an assortment of ad hominems and despective epithets. My outlook on Christianity is diametrically opposed to yours. I find it enormously satisfying on spiritual level, it helped me through real tough and dangerous times. In my experience, true Christians are better people that those who are not. You are perfectly welcome to think and feel otherwise, I have not a scintilla of ambition to convert anybody or proselytise. I just will not let anybody attack me for being a Christian. Had enough of it in Godless USSR or in decadent, ani-Christian Europe. I ain't apologising for my faith.

And I fully agree with Father Joseph Gleason: https://www.pravmir.com/us-orthodox...en-move-to-russia-rostov-the-great-interview/
 
If you are insinuating that Christianity "blood drinking death cult", at the same time calling yourself a Christian, there is really nothing to discuss, given the enormous contradictions, ergo, possible cognitive dissonance behind this. Besides, nothing you have written here actually responds to my post, it's just an assortment of ad hominems and despective epithets. My outlook on Christianity is diametrically opposed to yours. I find it enormously satisfying on spiritual level, it helped me through real tough and dangerous times. In my experience, true Christians are better people that those who are not. You are perfectly welcome to think and feel otherwise, I have not a scintilla of ambition to convert anybody or proselytise. I just will not let anybody attack me for being a Christian. Had enough of it in Godless USSR or in decadent, ani-Christian Europe. I ain't apologising for my faith.

And I fully agree with Father Joseph Gleason: https://www.pravmir.com/us-orthodox...en-move-to-russia-rostov-the-great-interview/
I wasn't referring to Christianity as the blood drinking death cult. I was inferring that if such a death cult existed for 1000's of years (it does) and wanted to avoid some of the karma involved in those horrors they could use sigil magic to get someone else(Christians) to accept partial responsibility.
 
I wasn't referring to Christianity as the blood drinking death cult. I was inferring that if such a death cult existed for 1000's of years (it does) and wanted to avoid some of the karma involved in those horrors they could use sigil magic to get someone else(Christians) to accept partial responsibility.
Aaah, gotcha. Sorry I misunderstood you. I don't think so, though. The connotations of the ingestion of the Sacraments is entirely different. We ingest the Sacraments to unite through the Holy Spirit with the LOVE incarnated which is Christ.
 
Aaah, gotcha. Sorry I misunderstood you. I don't think so, though. The connotations of the ingestion of the Sacraments is entirely different. We ingest the Sacraments to unite through the Holy Spirit with the LOVE incarnated which is Christ.
If you found out one of the rituals was corrupted would you even be able personally to dispense with it?
Lets take for instance (for example only, not claiming) Fasting, or Sabbath, or Tithe. If you found out that one of these was added to the books after the fact by a bad actor, would you be able to dispense with it? Or would you insist continue to use it for worship with the excuse that it's purpose remains true?

The purpose of this exercise is to allow a level of introspect and retrospect most Christians will never review. We naturally lock on to the faith as divine, and then on the basis of that faith we afford benefit-of-the-doubt to anything that's shakey. I'm here to argue that it's our job to shake out the shakeouttable when we have the wherewithall.

Let's say your friend has terminal cancer and has offered to donate an organ to save your life knowing he would lose one full year of his life. Then upon agreement he sits you down for dinner, and says "I love you so much that I want this dinner to represent me giving my body to save yours. Let's eat to remember it.".. This theme immediately doesn't catch with sensibility. Even with retrospect of the previous 1000's of years of animal sacrifice. It's too close to Cannibalism. I must doubt it. It sounds like "Hey guys, I'm gonna be The Lamb from here on out.". I'm like, OK, but it doesn't follow that the remembrance would involve eating the body and drinking the blood. There's no significance for that jump of ingestion from Lamb to Human.
You might even say "Think about the the body/incarnation and bleeding to death to always remember it".. but you would never need to Eat It.
If I'm going to bend over backwards I could possibly stretch myself to say OK MAYBE he (the savior) says "Guys, please get together and have special dinners to remember that I gave my blood and body for you." But still I see ZERO cause for the jump to Eat Me/Drink my Blood. ZERO. I'm gonna doubt that was original/happened. I'll go out on the sketchy limb and say I'm suspicious that part was added. And God forgive me if I'm blaspheming, but it(Eat Me/Drink my Blood) sounds like something a death cult would slip in if they had control of the books for a dark period. If you don't believe me, look at what the Pope is doing today(Cheerleeding: Vax, NWO, LGBTQ, and proabably Transhumansim next) and defy me that evil could make it's way into the permanent holy record. And assuming you wouldn't defy this, why would we assume the church today is any different than in the past when the books were being assembled?
 
To specify, I don't think clothing should be used to give the illusion that any man his in a higher place spiritually than another.
Sounds like your church has this mostly figured out... Except (back to the weird outfits) for the dude who wears the white had which obviously represents a phalic head with two balls hanging/drooping down his shoulders. Google "russian orthodox preist" it's one of the first results.
Jesus spent his time with the sinners.
The purpose of adapting Pagan rituals was to help form structure, especially being that they had no printing press, let alone internet.. But once you DO get a printing press and/or internet, it's time to be upfront about what/where/when all the Pagan rituals are and stop pretending they're historical attributes of prophecy. AKA STOP Celebrating/associating Jesus's birthday and murder with farming holidays and/or astrology. That shit's temporal.
Once we got the internet we had to stop claiming that Bruce Lee's hands can't be seen on camera, or that Frank Dux punched through bullet proof glass. Same should follow for the idea that the Pagan rituals magically lined up with biblical events. They didn't. They were adapted for convenience of storytelling.
This is the first I've heard of the Orthodox churches efforts. I'll concede that once and glad to hear it, my family's church definitely caved.
OK, I looked up RO stance on LGBTQ, and it seems very consistent. I'll concede that one. However in my defense I was referring to Christianity en mass.
Again, was referring to Christianity en mass. Too often Christians say things like "If you want proof of God's existence just look around you". Which is bullshit. You can admire what you believe all day, but if you discover proof, then faith no longer exists.
Again, Jesus hung out with the sinners. As such, if he comes back I hope he'll hang out with me, a sinner.
Awe, this would have been the one I hope most for you to answer. It gets dark when you peel it back.

My answers above should refute the idea that any of my criticism carries any hatred. Perhaps some disgust, but it's from a constructive/flip-over-the-money-changers-tables-in-the-temple place - the tables being a metaphor for history, and the temple being metaphor for current gospel.

Thanks for your refutation. I learned some cool stuff about Russian Orthodox.
To specify, I don't think clothing should be used to give the illusion that any man his in a higher place spiritually than another.
Sounds like your church has this mostly figured out... Except (back to the weird outfits) for the dude who wears the white had which obviously represents a phalic head with two balls hanging/drooping down his shoulders. Google "russian orthodox preist" it's one of the first results.
Jesus spent his time with the sinners.
The purpose of adapting Pagan rituals was to help form structure, especially being that they had no printing press, let alone internet.. But once you DO get a printing press and/or internet, it's time to be upfront about what/where/when all the Pagan rituals are and stop pretending they're historical attributes of prophecy. AKA STOP Celebrating/associating Jesus's birthday and murder with farming holidays and/or astrology. That shit's temporal.

good points... agreed. it seems to me like we've been conditioned to think that "religious" beliefs deserve special treatment. I don't see the logic in it. moreover, I think it contributes to the PC/wokeness/all-opinion-are-equally-valid silliness.
 
If you found out one of the rituals was corrupted would you even be able personally to dispense with it?
Lets take for instance (for example only, not claiming) Fasting, or Sabbath, or Tithe. If you found out that one of these was added to the books after the fact by a bad actor, would you be able to dispense with it? Or would you insist continue to use it for worship with the excuse that it's purpose remains true?

The purpose of this exercise is to allow a level of introspect and retrospect most Christians will never review. We naturally lock on to the faith as divine, and then on the basis of that faith we afford benefit-of-the-doubt to anything that's shakey. I'm here to argue that it's our job to shake out the shakeouttable when we have the wherewithall.

Let's say your friend has terminal cancer and has offered to donate an organ to save your life knowing he would lose one full year of his life. Then upon agreement he sits you down for dinner, and says "I love you so much that I want this dinner to represent me giving my body to save yours. Let's eat to remember it.".. This theme immediately doesn't catch with sensibility. Even with retrospect of the previous 1000's of years of animal sacrifice. It's too close to Cannibalism. I must doubt it. It sounds like "Hey guys, I'm gonna be The Lamb from here on out.". I'm like, OK, but it doesn't follow that the remembrance would involve eating the body and drinking the blood. There's no significance for that jump of ingestion from Lamb to Human.
You might even say "Think about the the body/incarnation and bleeding to death to always remember it".. but you would never need to Eat It.
If I'm going to bend over backwards I could possibly stretch myself to say OK MAYBE he (the savior) says "Guys, please get together and have special dinners to remember that I gave my blood and body for you." But still I see ZERO cause for the jump to Eat Me/Drink my Blood. ZERO. I'm gonna doubt that was original/happened. I'll go out on the sketchy limb and say I'm suspicious that part was added. And God forgive me if I'm blaspheming, but it(Eat Me/Drink my Blood) sounds like something a death cult would slip in if they had control of the books for a dark period. If you don't believe me, look at what the Pope is doing today(Cheerleeding: Vax, NWO, LGBTQ, and proabably Transhumansim next) and defy me that evil could make it's way into the permanent holy record. And assuming you wouldn't defy this, why would we assume the church today is any different than in the past when the books were being assembled?
This is probably the lest interaction on the subject by yours truly. People argue on internet to either reaffirm their own beliefs or to change the beliefs of others. I'm not interested in either. You don't like Christianity with all of its attributes, be it the Cross, the Sacraments, etc,? Fine by me. You find Sacraments appalling? OK, nobody forces you to take them. Only it's seems peculiar to me that the people who constantly dump on Christianity don't seem to be "scandalised" or "appalled" by aberrations abundantly present in other religions, Abrahamic or otherwise. I am convinced that the wave of hatred toward Christianity, particularly in Western societies is not just a gratuitous, random social tendency, it's a well orchestrated campaign, coordinated with the advancement of the satanic forces in the world, with the Plandemic, with its ritualistic shame muzzles, "anti-Sacraments" in the form of venomous jabs, etc, digital slavery, Great Reset... The Book of Revelations describes it pretty accurately. Sometimes it reads as if it were yesterday's newspaper. There is a reason why the satanic scum like Schwab, Gates, Fink, Soros and company hate Christianity: it's the only religion where the individual and his free will is the most important thing. It's the only religion where a person has individual relationship with his Creator, and it's the only religion where Logos became flesh and suffered and died out of His love for His creations, each and every one of them. This is why all this scum were perfectly comfortable with God-less communist USSR for 80years (in fact, the communist takeover and genocide in Russia was conceived and financed by Wall Street magnates), but, as soon as Russia started getting back to its Christian, Orthodox roots, the hatred toward that country exploded like never before: they know that with Christian, conservative Russia the NWO is doomed. Larry Fink admitted that much in a letter to his shareholders a couple of weeks ago.
In conclusion: I'm surprised you cite here the anti-pope, this satan's little helper: first, I'm not catholic, second, the Catholic Church was corrupted and destroyed by jesuits more than a century ago, third, this "pope" was imposed in a coup perpetrated by the globalists, he is as Christian as Anton Szandor LaVey. He is one of the reasons Sedevacantism is gaining so much popularity. In any case, I consider true Christianity the only effective weapon against the satanic NWO that is about to devour us.
As I said, I'm not going to engage anymore on the subject of Christianity, everyone can and should do their own thing.
 
Last edited:
This is probably the lest interaction on the subject by yours truly. People argue on internet to either reaffirm their own beliefs or to change the beliefs of others. I'm not interested in either. You don't like Christianity with all of its attributes, be it the Cross, the Sacraments, etc,? Fine by me. You find Sacraments appalling? OK, nobody forces you to take them. Only it's seems peculiar to me that the people who constantly dump on Christianity don't seem to be "scandalised" or "appalled" by aberrations abundantly present in other religions, Abrahamic or otherwise. I am convinced that the wave of hatred toward Christianity, particularly in Western societies is not just a gratuitous, random social tendency, it's a well orchestrated campaign, coordinated with the advancement of the satanic forces in the world, with the Plandemic, with its ritualistic shame muzzles, "anti-Sacraments" in the form of venomous jabs, etc, digital slavery, Great Reset... The Book of Revelations describes it pretty accurately. Sometimes it reads as if it were yesterday's newspaper. There is a reason why the satanic scum like Schwab, Gates, Fink, Soros and company hate Christianity: it's the only religion where the individual and his free will is the most important thing. It's the only religion where a person has individual relationship with his Creator, and it's the only religion where Logos became flesh and suffered and died out of His love for His creations, each and every one of them. This is why all this scum were perfectly comfortable with God-less communist USSR for 80years (in fact, the communist takeover and genocide in Russia was conceived and financed by Wall Street magnates), but, as soon as Russia started getting back to its Christian, Orthodox roots, the hatred toward that country exploded like never before: they know that with Christian, conservative Russia the NWO is doomed. Larry Fink admitted that much in a letter to his shareholders a couple of weeks ago.
In conclusion: I'm surprised you cite here the anti-pope, this satan's little helper: first, I'm not catholic, second, the Catholic Church was corrupted and destroyed by jesuits more than a century ago, third, this "pope" was imposed in a coup perpetrated by the globalists, he is as Christian as Anton Szandor LaVey. He is one of the reasons Sedevacantism is gaining so much popularity. In any case, I consider true Christianity the only effective weapon against the satanic NWO that is about to devour us.
As I said, I'm not going to engage anymore on the subject of Christianity, everyone can and should do their own thing.
Beautifully put. Believe it or not, I believe the same as you. What I was attempting to dish out there was a master class. Regardless whether our rituals are 100% accurate, what matters is if they allow us to amplify Truth and Gods Love. But how Lovely is it to know your faith can be scrutinized, flipped upside down, twisted and examined every which way, and come out cleaner than it started. As I said earlier, most Christians won’t allow their faith to be tested like that. And nothing wrong with that, but I think you gotta go hard core Skeptiko.
And there’s plenty more in the Bible to be tested which almost all Christians give benefit of the doubt with zero thought:
-Giants
-Nephilim
-Human/Angel hybrids
-Virgin Birth
-Legit Magic
-Etc. Not important to list it all.
I believe Christianity (as in belief in Christ, not any given sect) will withstand all those tests and come out cleaner. And I hope to see it. We don’t need our rituals to be baby blankets or pacifiers.
 
Beautifully put. Believe it or not, I believe the same as you. What I was attempting to dish out there was a master class. Regardless whether our rituals are 100% accurate, what matters is if they allow us to amplify Truth and Gods Love. But how Lovely is it to know your faith can be scrutinized, flipped upside down, twisted and examined every which way, and come out cleaner than it started. As I said earlier, most Christians won’t allow their faith to be tested like that. And nothing wrong with that, but I think you gotta go hard core Skeptiko.
And there’s plenty more in the Bible to be tested which almost all Christians give benefit of the doubt with zero thought:
-Giants
-Nephilim
-Human/Angel hybrids
-Virgin Birth
-Legit Magic
-Etc. Not important to list it all.
I believe Christianity (as in belief in Christ, not any given sect) will withstand all those tests and come out cleaner. And I hope to see it. We don’t need our rituals to be baby blankets or pacifiers.
Well, I, personally, feel no need to scrutinise my faith, dissecting it like a frog in biology class. I recognise that there are things that I can't understand while being on this plane, I'll find out about them when I cross. As to rituals, I love those of the Orthodox church, particularly in my church which is Russian Orthodox. In general, every Orthodox Church, be it Greek, Armenian, Serbian, Georgian, Coptic, etc, serves their peoples, so, by definition, it's a nationalistic, conservative Church, that doesn't have the statehood like the Vatican or the common hierarchy, unlike the globalist and uniform Catholic Church. There is no Pope-like figure; yes, every Church has its Patriarch, but he's not considered an infallible, authoritarian leader. A Patriarch is officially denominated "the first of the bishops". Also, I think it's cool that the Orthodox Church considers its body consist of not only the clergy, but the parishioners, too, whereas the Catholic Church only counts its clergy as the body of the Church. Anyway, I love our Russian Orthodox Liturgy, the warmth and coziness of our churches, the beautiful icons of our Saints, the choir, the smell of the incense, I love our bearded, warmhearted and kindly priests, with their usually numerous and happy families with multitude of children, I love the conservative, patriotic, family-oriented ethical values that the Church promotes.... I feel fine there. If I see that the Church abandons these values and turns into something similar to the modern Catholic Church, I'll get out of there; my most important and eternal Church is Jesus (there you and I both feel the same way, I guess). This is how I feel, brother. Not very different from you, as it appears to me. :)
 
Last edited:
What I like about Radin is that he gets out there and does the experiments that he thinks will provide evidence for his hypotheses. The other thing I like is that his attitude takes critical thinking to a depth that most people don't dive to. It's very challenging. I've wondered now and then if because he knows this, he wishes he'd get more consideration when looking for funding. After all, quantum physicists have been milking that cow for years to the tune of billions of dollars, and his investigations are no less important.

That being said, I would caution those who want to interpret Radin's work as evidence for afterlives against mapping their own biases onto his work. I could be wrong, but Radin himself appears to have recognized this as well, and to his credit, has applied it over the years to his own assumptions. With respect to some of the show's content, I would say that the concept of materialism allows for a lot more wiggle room than was suggested. It's not really as binary as it was made to sound.

The reason is because there is no consensus among philosophers as to what exactly constitutes materialism. Some see it synonymous with physicalism, in which case, all of Radin's experiments at the quantum level are material, and therefore, whatever they they provide evidence for, are by extension, also material.

When he got into his comments on mRNA, there was some messy logic going on involving an allusion to utilitarianism, and what sounded to me like a bias in favor of continuing to use the general public as research subjects, but I'd need to have a longer conversation with him about that before knowing how far he'd go in that direction.

Given that he seems to apply so much significance to his own small statistical anomalies, one would think that given at least one study that has utilized multiple vaccine injury databases and concluded that the mRNA vaccines are statistically much more prone to causing serious injury and death, that he'd be willing to take that evidence much more seriously — but he seemed to be happier to deflect it. I wonder if any of his funding is coming from big pharma or its funders?
I agree that Radin's comments on mRNA need at least more exploring. They left me skeptical about my trusting Radin as a policy influencer.
 
I agree that Radin's comments on mRNA need at least more exploring. They left me skeptical about my trusting Radin as a policy influencer.
I am very distrustful of the scientific community b/c of the seemingly endless examples of their willingness to falsify data, create suspect ways of controlling who gets published (the vaulted "peer reviewed" publication), &, of course, the most famous & dangerous medical fraud of all time, bar none, the plandemic based on virology's well-documented grifting techniques exposed by Stefan Lanka & others. Radin is probably sick of doing the hard work of excellent scientific investigation, but he remains poor by some standards. Nothing corrupts like a promise of The Big Money.
He didn't appear on the forum to answer questions.
 
Wow!! I have to hand it to Dean Radin. He's got a very calm & clear way of expressing himself that adds to his integrity & credibility. Speaking of remote viewing, aka clairvoyance & optimism, here's a winner of an interview w/ Stephan A. Schwartz about "Remote Viewing the Future." Take it from me, it's a real antidote to the negativity that's so common today about humanity's survival chances.
 
Wow!! I have to hand it to Dean Radin. He's got a very calm & clear way of expressing himself that adds to his integrity & credibility. Speaking of remote viewing, aka clairvoyance & optimism, here's a winner of an interview w/ Stephan A. Schwartz about "Remote Viewing the Future." Take it from me, it's a real antidote to the negativity that's so common today about humanity's survival chances.

I don't think remote viewing reflects any objective reality except tangentially or by coincidence. It's a purely subjective experience created by the minds of the viewers — and minds are very powerful, so we should expect that whatever experiences they generate will be in some way correlated with their experiences of the world. In other words, seeing a house during a remote viewing session certainly means that houses exist, but it doesn't mean that the house that is seen by the remote viewer corresponds to a house that exists outside the mind of the remote viewer.

Also, reincarnation as most people think of it is impossible. Same with typical notions of afterlives. So what the "data" says cannot possibly support the hypothesis — In other words if there is anomalous data, it doesn't mean that there isn't an anomaly. It means that people's assumptions that there is a connection between their pet hypothesis and the data, must be faulty — the cause has to be something else. Virtually every example in the interview is explainable as a combination of extrapolation through intelligence and imagination.
 
Last edited:
Also, reincarnation as most people think of it is impossible.
So what do you think most people's notion of reincarnation is? And why would that be impossible, exactly? You seem to hint that some other notion of reincarnation might be possible. If so, what would that be?
Same with typical notions of afterlives.
I can ask analogous questions about afterlives.
So what the "data" says cannot possibly support the hypothesis
You're going to have to do better than that, and rather than simple assertion, provide some evidence.
In other words if there is anomalous data, it doesn't mean that there isn't an anomaly. It means that people's assumptions that there is a connection between their pet hypothesis and the data, must be faulty — the cause has to be something else.
This doesn't make sense to me -- especially the italicised bit -- as a piece of grammar, I mean. If there were to be anomalous data, it would seem to mean there was at least a possibility there was an anomaly. Maybe you accidentally slipped in a double negative? And what follows seems, again, just an assertion. Are all pet hypotheses wrong? Or are only yours right?
Virtually every example in the interview is explainable as a combination of extrapolation through intelligence and imagination.
Again, an assertion. Please give some examples and provide the alternative explanations. I'm not here to agree/disagree by the way -- I'm rather just bemused by the unfounded haughtiness. Nobody will believe you simply because you assert it's so from a (tacitly claimed), unassailable postion of authority. They'll only do so if you provide convincing argument, and evidence to back it up.
 
So what do you think most people's notion of reincarnation is?
In my experience most people's view of reincarnation, at least here in the West, is the idea that upon the death of a person's body — or more accurately, their brain-body system; that person is reborn into another human body, usually some newborn. In Eastern culture it's probably more common to think that the person is born into some other living thing. For example a person might be reincarnated as a fish or a bird.
And why would that be impossible, exactly?
Those notions are typically framed in the idea that you as a person will go on living in some other body. However personhood is in every measurable sense intimately tied to a person's existing brain-body system in ways that cannot be separated from it without it ceasing to exist. Consequently, it cannot be the case that some ethereal element of "you" ( e.g. a "spirit" ) can carry on as you after the death of your body.

Upon closer examination, if that ethereal thing even exists, the best it can be is a really good copy, or its role isn't very relevant to who you are as a person. We might as well count the decay of a person's body and the transformation of its nutrients into other life as reincarnation. But that's not considered to be equivalent. Typical notions of reincarnation all rely on some notion about the continuity of personhood following the death of the brain-body system.
You seem to hint that some other notion of reincarnation might be possible. If so, what would that be?
One loophole might be in the idea that we as persons are the constructs of a vastly powerful system capable of buffering all the original data in its raw form that constitutes us as persons over time, and can reconstitute that at any time. In theory, that could allow for exact replicas of us as persons at an earlier time to take over for us upon the death of their originals. Such persons would not be able to tell without assistance, that they aren't the originals, plus they'd be made out of the original data ( or material/energy or whatever it is ), and therefore can be legitimately thought of as a sort of continuity of the original person — maybe ( perhaps something to explore ).
I can ask analogous questions about afterlives.
The same logic applies.
You're going to have to do better than that, and rather than simple assertion, provide some evidence.
If you understand the logic, no further evidence is required. Conclusions are only valid if they follow an unbroken chain of logic from their initial premise. If there is a break in that chain consisting of an unproven ( or impossible ) assumption ( like afterlives ), then the conclusion cannot be accurate. However that doesn't mean the data is insignificant. Something very important may be behind it.
This doesn't make sense to me -- especially the italicised bit -- as a piece of grammar, I mean. If there were to be anomalous data, it would seem to mean there was at least a possibility there was an anomaly. Maybe you accidentally slipped in a double negative? And what follows seems, again, just an assertion. Are all pet hypotheses wrong? Or are only yours right?
I explained that in the previous segment.
Again, an assertion. Please give some examples and provide the alternative explanations. I'm not here to agree/disagree by the way -- I'm rather just bemused by the unfounded haughtiness. Nobody will believe you simply because you assert it's so from a (tacitly claimed), unassailable postion of authority. They'll only do so if you provide convincing argument, and evidence to back it up.
Rather than me posting example after example after example of what can be explained by a combination of intelligence and imagination, how about if you post an example that cannot be explained by a combination of intelligence and imagination?

On the judgement of "haughtiness", I would argue that I'm only making logical observations and analyses. They don't carry with them any implied personal "superiority" , and there is no "condescension". Any such evaluations are a personal reaction on your part — In other words they don't reflect anything I feel or intended to express in my statements. So please try to keep your judgements about my character out of the issues. It's not relevant.

What might be more relevant is to understand why it is the case that if your comment is a genuine reaction, then what specifically is it a reaction to? I must have said something. So which words in particular? Let's hash it out with some unambiguous evidence, and trust me — I know what that evidence would look like because when I'm expressing a "Bad Attitude", I don't make it vague.
 
Last edited:
I don't think remote viewing reflects any objective reality except tangentially or by coincidence. It's a purely subjective experience created by the minds of the viewers — and minds are very powerful, so we should expect that whatever experiences they generate will be in some way correlated with their experiences of the world. In other words, seeing a house during a remote viewing session certainly means that houses exist, but it doesn't mean that the house that is seen by the remote viewer corresponds to a house that exists outside the mind of the remote viewer.

Also, reincarnation as most people think of it is impossible. Same with typical notions of afterlives. So what the "data" says cannot possibly support the hypothesis — In other words if there is anomalous data, it doesn't mean that there isn't an anomaly. It means that people's assumptions that there is a connection between their pet hypothesis and the data, must be faulty — the cause has to be something else. Virtually every example in the interview is explainable as a combination of extrapolation through intelligence and imagination.
Have you watched RVing the Future? Then you'd know Mr. Schwartz combined viewing data from thousands of RVers. I'm aware that the future is a pretty fluid state, so that's why I liked the input from so many viewers.
In re: to rebirth, the data is overwhelming. Over 2,000 verified cases of detailed experiences from past lives recounted by children. There are adult cases as well, but these have not been as systematically studied as the kids'. The unverified cases are probably in the thousands as well, so to some extent the data can just be said to be incomplete.
Rebirth, to me, is the most profoundly fair & loving way to ease living beings along on their individual journeys. It, like near-death experiences, teach us that the Almighty forgives & loves always, our choices are our own, & we learn at different rates. Admittedly, there are some strange, unexplained things, but that is there to keep our lives & wonder active.
The after life or the in-between life offers even profounder mysteries, but far too many exalted beings have gone to great trouble to reassure their commoner spirit-brothers & sisters that they are watched over, forever guided, & eternally loved. Love & wisdom is the guiding Light in the vast darkness.
You might get some fascinating info from Walter Semkiw, MD, on rebirth, just for a start. You can find him on UTube & w/ Jeffrey Mishlove's New Thinking Allowed. There's an anthropologist whose name escapes me now, but he's on Mishlove's list as well. I'll let you know if I find it. Good Journeying to U!
 
I would argue that I'm only making logical observations and analyses. They don't carry with them any implied personal "superiority" , and there is no "condescension".
You have landed on the smallest possible range potentials simply because it can’t be “proven” otherwise.
For all you know each human could have 100,000,000 persons within in it who all go separate ways when the body dies. Your assumption that the answer is 0 is no less a speculation.
 
You have landed on the smallest possible range potentials simply because it can’t be “proven” otherwise. For all you know each human could have 100,000,000 persons within in it who all go separate ways when the body dies. Your assumption that the answer is 0 is no less a speculation.

My premise rests on what seem to be typical notions of personhood and afterlives. The idea that each of us has a hundred million persons within us is far from what I'd call a typical belief. In fact I've never heard it suggested before — ever. So if that happens to be the case, then it still means that my initial premise is true. What people typically think afterlives are cannot be the case.

That being said, I would also argue that the word person is singular — not plural, and therefore changing the parameters of my claim to nullify it is not valid counterpoint. If you want to claim that we are each more that one person at any given time, then you'd have to make that case, and we'd have to evaluate it accordingly. On it's own, it doesn't constitute an argument for or against anything.
 
Back
Top