Derek Lambert, Mythicists, Atheists and True Believers |506|

#41
Right - I'm glad we cleared that up!

Yes, but why assume that what psychics say they do is actually something else? I mean typically this is the way materialists argue if (say) they want to argue that psychics use cold reading (maybe even fooling themselves). You could argue they have more justification for doing that - that step outside materialism is a very big one. So what is the huge step that you don't want to cross when it comes to psychics communicating with the dead?

I have come to really dislike the tendency to take reported facts and bend them any which way. We need to focus more on the best attested evidence


I'd say there is more evidence for souls communicating than there is for the AR.

David
I'm not really thinking in terms of " the huge step I don't want to take", though there are steps I can't begin to convince myself of, if what you say is true (briefly dealt with later).

I'm not saying that psychics don't actually experience something -- I'm sure they do, discounting the snake oil peddlers out to dupe people (which there are in all areas of life). All I question is whether they place the right interpretation on what they perceive. If we take what different kinds of psychics say literally, then that leads to all sorts of different psychic phenomena -- mediumship, clairvoyance, psychic readings, channelling and so on -- with no consistent hypothesis to underlie and tie them together.

Like BK, I place parsimony high on the list for a hypothesis that is likely to be nearer the truth. This is why I currently favour ideas like the Akashic Record and its link with Morphic Resonance. You may say, why not accept what different pyschic types say at face value? And my answer is that if I do, then I will have to accept that one communicates with the spirits of deceased people, another channels information from ET's, another from an ancient spiritual master, another is right that really the Abrahamic God is in reality a maleficent being, and other such things. IMHO, an AR enables one to bring a lot of things together more coherently.

It's also worth bearing in mind that although psychics may genuinely believe what they say, based on something they genuinely experience, that doesn't make it absolutely true. Who is to say that information is received in a complete and wholly accurate manner? The GIGO principle may apply here -- what you get out can be no better than what goes in, and some psychics may get better information than others. But regardless of that, a lot of them do personify the source of their information.

Speculatively, if one carries this to its logical conclusion, it kind of implies that ego, which in my view is inextricably bound up with personality, doesn't die at bodily death. So why have bodily death at all? Might as well live indefinitely, at least until one manages to achieve ego death while still alive ("die before you die" is an aphorism of the Sufis).

The most likely alternatives at death seem to me to be either complete annihilation of both ego and essence, or alternatively, annihilation of only ego, leaving open the possibility of reincarnation, where you get an opportunity once again to die before you die. Which, if Karma is a real thing, may not be any easier. But here we're off into even more metaphysical realms, so I'll leave it there.
 
#42
I'm not saying that psychics don't actually experience something -- I'm sure they do, discounting the snake oil peddlers out to dupe people (which there are in all areas of life). All I question is whether they place the right interpretation on what they perceive. If we take what different kinds of psychics say literally, then that leads to all sorts of different psychic phenomena -- mediumship, clairvoyance, psychic readings, channelling and so on -- with no consistent hypothesis to underlie and tie them together.
Yes but my point is that this is exactly the way materialists argue. They call it suffering an illusion - so they think they experience something, but their brain just makes it up, you say they aren't applying the right interpretation to what they experience - it all amounts to the same thing!

This philosophy means that we distrust the very people who clearly see something beyond materialism, and let someone else reinterpret what they say to fit in with their philosophy!

I mean, yes they might be wrong, but we don't have a better evidential source.

To be honest I also mistrust expressions like "ego death". What we all experience (in others and eventually ourselves) is death pure and simple, and those who have psychic abilities or visit a psychic report evidence that something goes on after death.

Reinterpreting all the evidence doesn't seem to me to be the way to make solid scientific progress.

David
 
#43
Speculatively, if one carries this to its logical conclusion, it kind of implies that ego, which in my view is inextricably bound up with personality, doesn't die at bodily death. So why have bodily death at all? Might as well live indefinitely, at least until one manages to achieve ego death while still alive ("die before you die" is an aphorism of the Sufis).

The most likely alternatives at death seem to me to be either complete annihilation of both ego and essence, or alternatively, annihilation of only ego, leaving open the possibility of reincarnation, where you get an opportunity once again to die before you die. Which, if Karma is a real thing, may not be any easier. But here we're off into even more metaphysical realms, so I'll leave it there.
You and David Bailey have fascinating dialogue. I think about the same kind of subject matter all the time regarding death and psychic phenomenon. Also, extreme paranormal activity, and by that I mean OBVIOUS paranormal activity: that means objects flying across the room without "anybody" tossing them, apparitions appearing in full form, and good Ol' E.T. with or without Reese's Pieces.

I think it is possible to die before you die. Also, I think that their is an infinite amount of confusion as to what the "ego" actually is; - probably just as much confusion regarding what God actually is. I like to think about life in terms of one's experiences in dream states, and compare life itself as just as much of a kind of dream state. I have vivid, catastrophic dreams often, but rarely realize that I am dreaming in the process. Sometimes I figure it out, and can ride the wave of the lucid dream. However, the dream realm still seems to have its own "laws." I might have the capacity to fly or levitate objects while lucid dreaming, but I don't have absolute control of the dream realm, just as I don't have absolute control of waking life.

Is ego the determination that one is the master of his/her own fate, along with the confidence to believe so? I would argue that ego, in this respect, is a good thing, and heavily dependent on faith in oneself, whether in the dream world or waking reality. Is death possible? We certainly see the evidence of it around us all the time, but life is everywhere. Do we really experience our own death? Did we really experience our own birth? It seems that this life has a similarity to not death, but dreams. You come in and out of various realities without not knowing the certain origin, and death or birth is the illusory caption that is necessary for the game to continue, but not contingent on its success.
 
#44
You and David Bailey have fascinating dialogue. I think about the same kind of subject matter all the time regarding death and psychic phenomenon. Also, extreme paranormal activity, and by that I mean OBVIOUS paranormal activity: that means objects flying across the room without "anybody" tossing them, apparitions appearing in full form, and good Ol' E.T. with or without Reese's Pieces.

I think it is possible to die before you die. Also, I think that their is an infinite amount of confusion as to what the "ego" actually is; - probably just as much confusion regarding what God actually is. I like to think about life in terms of one's experiences in dream states, and compare life itself as just as much of a kind of dream state. I have vivid, catastrophic dreams often, but rarely realize that I am dreaming in the process. Sometimes I figure it out, and can ride the wave of the lucid dream. However, the dream realm still seems to have its own "laws." I might have the capacity to fly or levitate objects while lucid dreaming, but I don't have absolute control of the dream realm, just as I don't have absolute control of waking life.

Is ego the determination that one is the master of his/her own fate, along with the confidence to believe so? I would argue that ego, in this respect, is a good thing, and heavily dependent on faith in oneself, whether in the dream world or waking reality. Is death possible? We certainly see the evidence of it around us all the time, but life is everywhere. Do we really experience our own death? Did we really experience our own birth? It seems that this life has a similarity to not death, but dreams. You come in and out of various realities without not knowing the certain origin, and death or birth is the illusory caption that is necessary for the game to continue, but not contingent on its success.
Although it might not seem like it, Michael and I see eye to eye on a lot of things, and we have both been on here for a long time.

We both agree that evolution does not happen - cannot have happened - by natural selection, and I think we both agree that some form of intelligence must have operated to create life in the first place, and also for evolution to occur. We both also agree that science has become awfully stuck in grooves - in particular the groove of materialism. I hope I have not trampled on Michael's current views in any way.

Michael has become keen on Bernardo Kastrup's version of Idealism. While I don't really deny that some form of Idealism probably lies at the root of everything, I feel that it is impossible to make sense of the world using Idealism in our present state of knowledge.

It seems to me that science at its best built very cautiously on its earlier ideas. Thus for example, Newton's ideas about mass force and energy matured for a long period of time, before Faraday and Maxwell introduced the fundamentally new idea of electromagnetism. The next phase - quantum mechanics and Einstein's theories built on a further layer.

I don't think that sequence of layers of science could have been collapsed into one gigantic Aha! moment, because as students on science courses discover, there is a lot of subtlety built into each of those layers, and indeed a lot of mathematical ideas had to mature to make each layer possible. Newton for example had to invent calculus (actually Liebnitz invented it at about the same time) without which his theory would have been impossible to apply.

Now clearly all of traditional science is based on materialism - ideas such as we are talking about require new concepts in science. A small step would be best - so that at least some scientists would take the idea seriously and test it - maybe Dean Radin's concept that conscious beings can access the near future. I'd love to see that idea tested to destruction. Dean has of course tested it pretty thoroughly himself and it has been replicated by a few other scientists too.

David
 
#45
Yes but my point is that this is exactly the way materialists argue. They call it suffering an illusion - so they think they experience something, but their brain just makes it up, you say they aren't applying the right interpretation to what they experience - it all amounts to the same thing!
I don't say that what genuine psychics experience is an illusion. I say it is real, but that they may misinterpret its origin. It doesn't amount to the same thing at all.
This philosophy means that we distrust the very people who clearly see something beyond materialism, and let someone else reinterpret what they say to fit in with their philosophy!
I don't know how I can say it any better -- yes, I believe genuine psychics are able to access information in a way that the materialist paradigm rules out entirely; I'm not a materialist, after all. It's not that I distrust their information; it's that I have my doubts that it's coming from a source with a personality.
I mean, yes they might be wrong, but we don't have a better evidential source.
I think that's a pretty specious argument. You seem to be saying, let's accept people's interpretation of sources because they're the only ones who are making it. I expect there may be people who don't claim that a deceased (or otherwise) personality transmitted information to them; they say they simply became aware of it or intuited it, and they don't know exactly how.
To be honest I also mistrust expressions like "ego death". What we all experience (in others and eventually ourselves) is death pure and simple, and those who have psychic abilities or visit a psychic report evidence that something goes on after death.
So - because you mistrust this expression, I'm supposed to think like you do; but when I "distrust" (not exactly how I'd put it) what genuine psychics say about their sources, then it's okay for you to think differently from me? Heads you win, tails I lose.

What is "death pure and simple?" When we die, do we or do we not lose our identification with ego? If we do, we must lose the personality we've conditioned ourselves with throughout life. If we don't, then we must continue with it. It has to be one or the other.

To explain the link between personality and ego, I'm sure you know that practically everyone develops an ego (or self-image), which influences behaviour and shapes the personality. It's not usually an entirely a bad thing, though in extreme cases it can become so. It's conditioned through life experience, both "consciously" and "unconsciously" (I prefer the terms self-reflectively and non-self-reflectively).

According to many NDEers, they experience a life-review in which they can see how their egos have influenced their behaviour throughout their lives, and not always in a good way. They lose a lot of their identification with ego, at least some of which loss can remain with them for the rest of their lives, and their personality often changes as a result. Why not trust them when they say that loss of identification with ego accompanies death?

How could personality persist after death if ego is lost? What then could survive? I'd posit essence, or the essential self, free of conditioning. Along with the apparent meat suit comes an inherent propensity to be preoccupied with it rather than one's essential nature, which can be seen in any newborn before experience begins to shape it. Babies by nature are completely innocent, have no ego to protect. I think they learn to develop an ego as soon as they begin to identify with the apparent meat suit, and to some extent that is necessary for survival, but it can get carried too far.

If you believe in reincarnation -- and I am inclined to -- then what happens to personality between lives? Why aren't we born with completely formed personalities from the get-go? One thinks about occasional cases of children who have "past-life memories". There are at least two possible explanations beyond the usual one.

First, they may be picking up on information (from the Akashic Record), that was associated in life with a completely different personality, and interpreting it as a person they used to be. But intriguingly, this doesn't rule out another possibility (which, along with the added factor of a violent death, may account for all such cases and explain why they're quite rare).

Namely, that they're picking up on information from the AR that was indeed associated with a previous personality their essential self "occupied" in the past, so to speak. IOW, what continues over different lives wouldn't be personality (and its related ego), but essence, which is devoid of personality/ego.

What could be responsible? Perhaps a kind of morphic resonance, which Sheldrake intimates gets stronger the closer is the association between things. In this instance, essence would be resonating with the personality it "occupied" when last incarnated. It may be that for some reason, this is more likely to happen when death is violent.

Along with essence, "Karma" (the result of intents and actions accumulated by essence over many reincarnations -- and maybe partially evidenced by the birthmarks of children who claim to be reincarnated), may persist. But I don't see Karma as being directly related to personality; I think it's much more subtle than that. You get the life that you have earned, and that may be a relatively benign-seeming one, involving wealth and power. But actually, in the bigger picture, this could be the last thing you need. Good Karma could entail quite a lot of suffering, who knows.
Reinterpreting all the evidence doesn't seem to me to be the way to make solid scientific progress.
So does "scientific progress" entail following standard interpretations and never venturing to advance alternative hypotheses? We might still be thinking we live in a geocentric solar system if that were the case...
 
#46
Although it might not seem like it, Michael and I see eye to eye on a lot of things, and we have both been on here for a long time.

We both agree that evolution does not happen - cannot have happened - by natural selection, and I think we both agree that some form of intelligence must have operated to create life in the first place, and also for evolution to occur. We both also agree that science has become awfully stuck in grooves - in particular the groove of materialism. I hope I have not trampled on Michael's current views in any way.

Michael has become keen on Bernardo Kastrup's version of Idealism. While I don't really deny that some form of Idealism probably lies at the root of everything, I feel that it is impossible to make sense of the world using Idealism in our present state of knowledge.

It seems to me that science at its best built very cautiously on its earlier ideas. Thus for example, Newton's ideas about mass force and energy matured for a long period of time, before Faraday and Maxwell introduced the fundamentally new idea of electromagnetism. The next phase - quantum mechanics and Einstein's theories built on a further layer.

I don't think that sequence of layers of science could have been collapsed into one gigantic Aha! moment, because as students on science courses discover, there is a lot of subtlety built into each of those layers, and indeed a lot of mathematical ideas had to mature to make each layer possible. Newton for example had to invent calculus (actually Liebnitz invented it at about the same time) without which his theory would have been impossible to apply.

Now clearly all of traditional science is based on materialism - ideas such as we are talking about require new concepts in science. A small step would be best - so that at least some scientists would take the idea seriously and test it - maybe Dean Radin's concept that conscious beings can access the near future. I'd love to see that idea tested to destruction. Dean has of course tested it pretty thoroughly himself and it has been replicated by a few other scientists too.

David
Sure, we agree on a lot of things, including the ones you mention, and I agree that Idealism is the main difference between us. I don't see it as making it impossible to make sense of the world; on the contrary, I see it as the best way I've come across of making that at all possible.

And since Scientific American publishes a good number of BK's articles, as indeed do other notable publications, it appears that we may be nearer a paradigm shift than you believe. Science has made remarkably little progress in the last 100 years or so. Sure, technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, but the theory behind most of what we think we know is generations old, and some that apparently isn't is speculation squared.

The establishment is beginning to creak at the seams. It won't take too much longer, I don't think, before it undergoes a seismic shift. I hope it happens before I pop my clogs, but I'm not banking on that.

Also, let's assume that there's no conspiracy behind Covid and the elites aren't out to reduce the world population, but nonetheless there is a gigantic clusterf*** in progress. The effects of that could become apparent over the next couple of years, and if so, that would probably accelerate disillusionment in the establishment even more, because many people, for the first time, would see how utterly arrogant and stupid materialistic scientists, government and media can sometimes be.

Everything could be set to change rapidly -- it's just a great pity that the price might turn out to be horrendously high; but what the heck can I do to stop the madness? Diddly squat. I would if I could, but all I can do is stand by and impotently watch a potential car crash in motion.
 
Last edited:
#47
And since Scientific American publishes a good number of BK's articles, as indeed do other notable publications, it appears that we may be nearer a paradigm shift than you believe. Science has made remarkably little progress in the last 100 years or so. Sure, technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, but the theory behind most of what we think we know is generations old, and some that apparently isn't is speculation squared.
Well you know BK's work a lot better than I do, so can you suggest any experiment that could be tried if Idealism were tentatively accepted as the way forward.

Searching for examples of consciousness being aware of (or affected by) the near future might be very productive.

David
 
#48
Although it might not seem like it, Michael and I see eye to eye on a lot of things, and we have both been on here for a long time.

We both agree that evolution does not happen - cannot have happened - by natural selection, and I think we both agree that some form of intelligence must have operated to create life in the first place, and also for evolution to occur. We both also agree that science has become awfully stuck in grooves - in particular the groove of materialism. I hope I have not trampled on Michael's current views in any way.

Michael has become keen on Bernardo Kastrup's version of Idealism. While I don't really deny that some form of Idealism probably lies at the root of everything, I feel that it is impossible to make sense of the world using Idealism in our present state of knowledge.

It seems to me that science at its best built very cautiously on its earlier ideas. Thus for example, Newton's ideas about mass force and energy matured for a long period of time, before Faraday and Maxwell introduced the fundamentally new idea of electromagnetism. The next phase - quantum mechanics and Einstein's theories built on a further layer.

I don't think that sequence of layers of science could have been collapsed into one gigantic Aha! moment, because as students on science courses discover, there is a lot of subtlety built into each of those layers, and indeed a lot of mathematical ideas had to mature to make each layer possible. Newton for example had to invent calculus (actually Liebnitz invented it at about the same time) without which his theory would have been impossible to apply.

Now clearly all of traditional science is based on materialism - ideas such as we are talking about require new concepts in science. A small step would be best - so that at least some scientists would take the idea seriously and test it - maybe Dean Radin's concept that conscious beings can access the near future. I'd love to see that idea tested to destruction. Dean has of course tested it pretty thoroughly himself and it has been replicated by a few other scientists too.

David
I see that the both of you have been here for a long time, and I certainly enjoy your dialogue. Skeptiko certainly is the fine wine of the philosophical world. How would you define materialism? Do you think it is a mechanistic understanding of reality, or a mathematical interpretation of reality? Furthermore, if we see it as a "mechanistic" understanding of reality, how is it that we come to know what mechanisms are and why they work as they do? To me, mathematics appears to only be the shorthand interpretation of experimentation. When people say that we have a "materialist" view of science, I only hear that they yearn for some kind of spiritual explanation of reality. If we were dealing with raw experimentation and not regurgitation of other's so called "facts," then we would see science as both, a spiritual and mechanical endeavor.

I like the important questions, such as: if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear it, does it really make a sound? If a tree falls on my neighbor in the suburbs, and nobody is there to witnesses it, does he really get crushed and die? Or rather, if a tree grows to 100 feet tall in a forest, and nobody measured it in the process since it was a seed, did it really grow, or was it 100 feet tall the entire time? - And my favorite one: if Confucius has a bowl of rice, and only one chopstick, does he really eat?
 
#50
Jack,

Since you are obviously interested in climate change, I do wish you would discuss the issue in a more sustained way, rather than simply post articles like the above.

I have shown you that the total claimed rise in earth's temperature in the last 140 years, is 1° C. All I ask is for you to stop and think - is that a satisfactory explanation for flowers dying in the desert?

The flowers are dying because there is a heat wave, and heat waves have always happened. I was on holiday in Nevada and California a few years back, and unusually there was some rain and flooding - I mean does varying weather need an explanation?

David
What strikes me as less strange is the anti-climate change crew are funded in the most part by Big Oil.
Universities only happen to be "state sanctioned" in the way that some of them provide state funding, but not ALL of them and yet ALL of them recognize with their scientists that climate change is as thing. How weird is that?

As for the explanation of Nevada and California. Please look up the different definitions of "weather" and "climate". They are a different of scale.
As John Stewart explained simply because it is night time in China doesn't mean we're suffering from global "dark".
What we notice are upward trends. Upward trends have been for the last decades is EVERY year gets hotter and hotter.
We know this by many indicators in Canada.
- Where I live barely gets any snow anymore in the last twenty years compared to the many decades up to more than a century before.
- Sea life is changing. We're getting deaths of many fish who can't maintain massive temperature changes in a short time
- We're gaining invasive plants and animals that never could have taken root/hold in our community even twenty years ago and are now doing so.
- The north is open for seaway traffic. In the history of the nation and in the history of the natives who live there, this has NEVER happened. That ice has melted so much that the Northern seas are now open for cruise ships is beyond imagining.
- British Columbia has registered the WORST air quality in the history of all our country this summer from endless forest fires. Once again, the level and frequency has NEVER BEEN SEEN
- The Great Lakes have been on a massive decline. This is both measurable and NEVER SEEN BEFORE.
I could go on and on. Does this help fit your narrative that I only post links? I'm a person who lives in this country, and all you have to do is go and ask a Forest Ranger who has decades under their belt watching their own park and they will come up with dozens of examples of how they say Global Warming. OR natives in the area who are operating with a collective knowledge that goes beyond the nations we both inhabit. Are they doing so on the behest of the government as well? How do you figure that? They fight the government for land treatises but knuckle under when it comes to Global Warming talk. Where's the logic in that?

These conversations feel like the scene of Erik the Viking where the island is sinking and they are denying it even as they drown.
J
 
#51
What strikes me as less strange is the anti-climate change crew are funded in the most part by Big Oil.
Who are these "anti-climate change crew" that are funded by big oil?

Universities only happen to be "state sanctioned" in the way that some of them provide state funding, but not ALL of them and yet ALL of them recognize with their scientists that climate change is as thing. How weird is that?
Everyone knows the climate changes. Not too long ago North America and Europe were buried deep under ice and the sea level was probably 400' lower. Things have warmed up a lot.

Here is what we are skeptical of:
  1. That measurements of global average temps are sufficiently accurate or on a sufficiently long enough time scale to reliably show or predict trends at the resolution that is claimed.
  2. That the scientists attempting to use complex statistics and various correction factors in an ever changing landscape and measurement environment to tease out an average temp are not susceptible to the pressures of group think and big grant money (think "hide the decline "scandal"). When you have very small effects, complex statistics, many correction factors, lots of moralizing / social pressure, group think, and billions of dollars at stake, that is a recipe for corruption and lying with statistics.
  3. That increasing CO2 will significantly impact global temps. We know CO2 absorbs heat radiated at a certain temperature, but most of the atmosphere is already opaque in the CO2 absorption band, so more CO2 will theoretically only slightly increase the altitude at which heat is re-radiated to space. No warming of the upper troposphere has been measured). The hypothesized effect of increasing CO2 is a logarithmic decline curve, but there may be other effects of increasing CO2 that are not accounted for... increasingly favorable environment for plants for example.
  4. That the theorized water vapor positive feedback loops the IPCC uses to model catastrophic increase are accurate.
  5. That the proposed solution: carbon credits and taxes are not a scam (not dissimilar from the Enron cap and trade scheme) designed to de-industrialize and limit freedoms. (Yes I know if all people were to use resources like Americans then we're in bad shape, so something has to be done, but perhaps something less scammy and less... anti-organic)
  6. That the sun and space weather might have orders of magnitude larger impacts on climate than anything we are doing.
 
#52
Who are these "anti-climate change crew" that are funded by big oil?



Everyone knows the climate changes. Not too long ago North America and Europe were buried deep under ice and the sea level was probably 400' lower. Things have warmed up a lot.

Here is what we are skeptical of:
  1. That measurements of global average temps are sufficiently accurate or on a sufficiently long enough time scale to reliably show or predict trends at the resolution that is claimed.
  2. That the scientists attempting to use complex statistics and various correction factors in an ever changing landscape and measurement environment to tease out an average temp are not susceptible to the pressures of group think and big grant money (think "hide the decline "scandal"). When you have very small effects, complex statistics, many correction factors, lots of moralizing / social pressure, group think, and billions of dollars at stake, that is a recipe for corruption and lying with statistics.
  3. That increasing CO2 will significantly impact global temps. We know CO2 absorbs heat radiated at a certain temperature, but most of the atmosphere is already opaque in the CO2 absorption band, so more CO2 will theoretically only slightly increase the altitude at which heat is re-radiated to space. No warming of the upper troposphere has been measured). The hypothesized effect of increasing CO2 is a logarithmic decline curve, but there may be other effects of increasing CO2 that are not accounted for... increasingly favorable environment for plants for example.
  4. That the theorized water vapor positive feedback loops the IPCC uses to model catastrophic increase are accurate.
  5. That the proposed solution: carbon credits and taxes are not a scam (not dissimilar from the Enron cap and trade scheme) designed to de-industrialize and limit freedoms. (Yes I know if all people were to use resources like Americans then we're in bad shape, so something has to be done, but perhaps something less scammy and less... anti-organic)
  6. That the sun and space weather might have orders of magnitude larger impacts on climate than anything we are doing.
Full disclosure, I work in manufacturing equipment for the oil and gas industry... ;-)
But I'm very small potatoes and I would gladly switch industries if it goes under.
 
#54
I like the important questions, such as: if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear it, does it really make a sound? If a tree falls on my neighbor in the suburbs, and nobody is there to witnesses it, does he really get crushed and die? Or rather, if a tree grows to 100 feet tall in a forest, and nobody measured it in the process since it was a seed, did it really grow, or was it 100 feet tall the entire time?
what do you reckon about the tree?
 
#55
There is another take; collective consciousness acts on the climate. I mention this because nobody else has.
If we are inundated with messages of a certain character, for example - were are in a drought, and we have a drought.
We are told the climate is warming up - so it warms up. And so on...

Did the Indian rain dance actually work?
The Jews in a two year drought got together and did and their version of it, and it flooded a few days there after.
We did a mental concentration excercise designed to produce rain with Art Bell to put out a forest fire in florida years a go, next day after the experiment rain put it out.

This simple extrapolation of the double slit experiment. Exactly where does consciousness cease to define action on energetic system. As to what scale?
Where does my consciousness end and somebody else start?
 
#56
This simple extrapolation of the double slit experiment. Exactly where does consciousness cease to define action on energetic system. As to what scale?
Where does my consciousness end and somebody else start?
That is it.

You have an entity with a unique ID - a hierarchy of feedback loops or a whirlpool of Will. And you have a mechanical system that has ambiguous boundaries subject to quantum uncertainty and non-local action upon which the UID can exert will and couple to influence the mechanical system.

What is the coupling constant?

Considering you, the entity with a UID, also have a stretchy boundary can you expand your definition of self like a macrophage and identify with the mechanical system that is the object of intended action and manipulate it as if it is merely a manipulation of your own thought process?

 
#57
What strikes me as less strange is the anti-climate change crew are funded in the most part by Big Oil.
Wow - tell me how to make a claim? The global warming myth is a product of corrupted science - but you must know that science can be corrupted - otherwise why waste time on a website devoted (mainly) to psychic things when 'science' tells you that materialism rules?

David
 
#59
Wow - tell me how to make a claim? The global warming myth is a product of corrupted science - but you must know that science can be corrupted - otherwise, why waste time on a website devoted (mainly) to psychic things when 'science' tells you that materialism rules?

David
Wait a minute. You're saying that EVERY university, in every state, province, country around the world who are making their OWN measurements of things have been engaged in a silent conspiracy to create global warming a thing- even THOUGH it doesn't benefit them personally to do this?
You're going to have to come up with more compelling arguments than a decade old leak of some climate professor misrepresenting the data to make that one stick.

It stuns me that we can just ignore the real perpetrators of hoaxsterism who have a financial gain for lying- that being Big Oil, ESPECIALLY after we've seen the same tactics done by BIG TOBACCO for decades, but somehow people with no financial gain from every possible governmental system is somehow IN on it.
That takes a level of cognitive dissonance that could replace fossil fuels if we could harness it!
J
 
Top