Dr. Robert Davis, Consciousness Connection |563|

[J Randall Murphy]

Randall, as other long-time commenters have already noticed, you are wasting people's time by not showing up to the table with enough data. They were right to block you. I'm doing the same over the next weeks.

What they ( and you ) are failing to appreciate is that all the data in the world doesn't make a faulty explanation true, and if you think it does, you're just deluding yourselves — but have it your way. So once again, here we are in Skeptiko — Where we explore controversial science and spirituality with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics — but if you're one of the critics, you'll get ignored.

 

[Michael Larkin]

Randall, you can call it hand-waving all you want. But you either talk about the NDE data (regardless of placeholder terminology) or I'm going to ignore you.

Why not click on his posting icon and select ignore? Then you won't see his posts. You can always come back later and unignore him to see if he's changed his tune...

 

[David Bailey]

Why not click on his posting icon and select ignore? Then you won't see his posts. You can always come back later and unignore him to see if he's changed his tune...

I've had him on ignore ever since you showed us that logic page he had posted without any explanation. Let's all just forget him.

David

 

[J Randall Murphy]

I've had him on ignore ever since you showed us that logic page he had posted without any explanation. Let's all just forget him.

Sure — you guys all just forget about logic, look at the "data", jump to your illogical conclusions, and ignore anyone who points out flaws — perfect. I'm sure Alex will be really impressed with that approach ( not ) !

 

[Alex]

Sure — you guys all just forget about logic, look at the "data", jump to your illogical conclusions, and ignore anyone who points out flaws — perfect. I'm sure Alex will be really impressed with that approach ( not ) !

I agree with Nelson's point about litmus tests. I continue to learn a lot from this forum, but don't spend as much time with folks who don't pass my litmus tests.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

I agree with Nelson's point about litmus tests. I continue to learn a lot from this forum, but don't spend as much time with folks who don't pass my litmus tests.

Let's have a closer look at that.

If we're to translate the associated metaphors of a "litmus test" into the variables of a discussion, it seems to me that from an unbiased perspective, sound logic works out to the equivalent of neutral PH, because it represents neither an "acidic" ( judgmental ) nor "alkaline" ( uncritical ) position. So if we're not going to value a neutral logical approach, what is the preference?

IMO, just the fact that logic is subjected to the "ignore button" speaks volumes about the button pusher's desire not to disrupt their biases with anything that might upset them. Maybe that type of "litmus test" ought to count for something too? After all, if logic ( which is neutral ), is considered "acidic" relative to someone's position, then what does that say about their own PH?

But what-ever, let them go off into their little corner and talk all about how the "data" ( their cherry picked preferred data ) fits their preferred paradigms. In the meantime, I just finished watching No Safe Spaces, which chronicles some of the cancel culture in academia and social media.

 

[Nelson]

I agree with Nelson's point about litmus tests. I continue to learn a lot from this forum, but don't spend as much time with folks who don't pass my litmus tests.

Btw, I sent you some posts on our conversation thread. I've been working full-on with the historical research

 

[Robbedigital]

IMO, just the fact that logic is subjected to the "ignore button" speaks volumes about the button pusher's desire not to disrupt their biases with anything that might upset them. Maybe that type of "litmus test"

Did you just infer/refer to yourself as ”logic”?
That statement proves it’s own perspective failed. I bet if you disperse with the presumption that your logic is infallible/extra-human, the ignores will follow.

 

[Robbedigital]

I'd be interested in hearing your take on it — can you please elaborate a bit to help me get my bearings?

What would you say constitutes a "higher" or "lower" rank in consciousness ( not to be conflated with perception ). In other words, simply seeing farther isn't the same as "extending consciousness" — it's amplifying perception. We tried to dig into this before and stalled-out.

Woke up thinking about this. Notes (spitballing:
It’s NARRATIVE.
As above so below.
“God” rules the above, whereas, “Evil” has rule of this realm.
Rule=power over the narrative?
Obviously an atheist would have to translate all this to Atheist conception, but the energy-yin/yang applies.
AGENCY
Free will is the Theme of the Theist story of This Existence.
let’s have a look at “free will” through this as-above-so-below lens..
Above (“God”) engineers This Existence as training ground for baby gods utilizing Agency to for growth.
Below (“evil”) rejects Agency.
Therefore the Narrative Below must be that Agency (Free Will) is false. so it would follow that Power below would ceaselessly aim to remove it.
Likewise it must be that The Above ceaselessly aim to build up Agency… so much so (was battling/thinking this this morning) that Agency is the answer to the question “why must terrible things happen?”

Back to Narrative,
I’m going to see if it can be falsified that “Narrative” could be interchangeable with “Heirarchy” as it relates to consciousness.

EDIT: should have said
I’m going to see if it can be falsified that “Narrative” could be interchangeable with “Consciousness” as it relates to hierarchy.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Woke up thinking about this. Notes (spitballing: It’s NARRATIVE ... As above so below. “God” rules the above, whereas, “Evil” has rule of this realm.

There's no question that there's a religious hierarchy. However Nelson was talking about an hierarchy of consciousness ( very different ).

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Did you just infer/refer to yourself as ”logic”?

No, I didn't refer to myself as logic. It was a reference to where I was advocating for the use of logic in defining the parameters of the issues at hand, and where that approach was deemed unworthy of attention by @Nelson who threatened ( or did ) put me on ignore because of my insistence on it's validity.

That statement proves it’s own perspective failed.

You said it — not me. So don't project that onto me.

I bet if you disperse with the presumption that your logic is infallible/extra-human, the ignores will follow.

There's no such thing as "your logic". It's like people who use the phrase "your truth". Logic and truth aren't the equivalent of personal opinions. They are universals. Those who don't get that, and want to protect their personal opinions will be more prone to ignoring any logic or truth that contradicts it.

But so what? I'm not going to sacrifice logic or truth for group acceptance ( that to me is laughable ). It would also be laughable to anyone who knows me longer than the bunch here.

 

[Nelson]

@David, for what it's worth, here's the excerpt from Bob Lazar about the claim that the UFO was from an archaeological dig:
6:15 timestamp

 

[Michael Larkin]

Hi again Nelson -- I said I'd keep my eye open for anything where Bernardo speaks about hierarchies of consciousness (which I think includes things like ET, angels and demons, fairies, etc.) If you have time, take a look at this video:

 

[Nelson]

Hi again Nelson -- I said I'd keep my eye open for anything where Bernardo speaks about hierarchies of consciousness (which I think includes things like ET, angels and demons, fairies, etc.) If you have time, take a look at this video:

Thanks. That was quite interesting. I think Bernardo goes too far though, to assume the example from Vallee's book Passport to Magonia, with the report of the ufo beings cooking pancakes, was not literally true but "metaphorical".

Bernardo isn't leaving open the possibility that it's literally true. I think that's a big mistake

 

[Alex]

IMO, just the fact that logic is subjected to the "ignore button" speaks volumes about the button pusher's desire not to disrupt their biases with anything that might upset them.

This might be a minor point... then again maybe not... but I never use the ignore button. I want to see what people say. and there is such a thing as skimming :)

I've read your post about near-death experience, the nature of consciousness, and some of the other topics that have generated a lot of back and forth. I engaged with you on these a while back. I didn't find much new to talk about... all stuff that I've hammered on for years.

 

[Michael Larkin]

Thanks. That was quite interesting. I think Bernardo goes too far though, to assume the example from Vallee's book Passport to Magonia, with the report of the ufo beings cooking pancakes, was not literally true but "metaphorical".

Bernardo isn't leaving open the possibility that it's literally true. I think that's a big mistake

Well, in extremis, if his conjecture about logic is true, it's possible that it's both literally and only symbolically true...

 

[Alex]

Woke up thinking about this. Notes (spitballing:
It’s NARRATIVE.
As above so below.
“God” rules the above, whereas, “Evil” has rule of this realm.
Rule=power over the narrative?
Obviously an atheist would have to translate all this to Atheist conception, but the energy-yin/yang applies.
AGENCY
Free will is the Theme of the Theist story of This Existence.
let’s have a look at “free will” through this as-above-so-below lens..
Above (“God”) engineers This Existence as training ground for baby gods utilizing Agency to for growth.
Below (“evil”) rejects Agency.
Therefore the Narrative Below must be that Agency (Free Will) is false. so it would follow that Power below would ceaselessly aim to remove it.
Likewise it must be that The Above ceaselessly aim to build up Agency… so much so (was battling/thinking this this morning) that Agency is the answer to the question “why must terrible things happen?”

Back to Narrative,
I’m going to see if it can be falsified that “Narrative” could be interchangeable with “Heirarchy” as it relates to consciousness.

EDIT: should have said
I’m going to see if it can be falsified that “Narrative” could be interchangeable with “Consciousness” as it relates to hierarchy.

Thanks. I think this is a really important topic... and I think it's more than philosophical musings. I get the sense that you're trying to connect the different data sets that we are bumping to do the paradigm.

That said, I lean more towards the " as below so above" and " there's plenty of room at the top" :) I'm not an evil person and I try not to do too many evil things, but I can't honestly say that the concept is foreign to me. I feel like I could be evil... worse yet, I look at some of the things that I've done... some of them are kind of evil. I think we're right in the middle of this... we're in the soup... we are co-creators of the hierarchy. less about rules.. more like "guidelines"

 

[Robbedigital]

This brought an interesting image to mind.
Picture a criminal in a police station jail cell. The criminal is need of long term rehabilitation before he could be safe for the public, like if he were accidentally let out, he would immediately burglarize and or kill.
Now picture the inverse: A good person trapped in a bad place. (aka Shawshank Redemption)
The image I got is the difference in their angst.
The good person is struggling to get out so he can go on and participate in being decent and valuable to a community because it's in his programming to do so. He will do so while in the bad place, but nonetheless he's out of place.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

This might be a minor point... then again maybe not... but I never use the ignore button. I want to see what people say. and there is such a thing as skimming :)

I've read your post about near-death experience, the nature of consciousness, and some of the other topics that have generated a lot of back and forth. I engaged with you on these a while back. I didn't find much new to talk about... all stuff that I've hammered on for years.

Same goes for me. I haven't found anything ( of substance ) new ( for me ) here either. But my thinking is that we're not the only ones here, and that there might be some others here, or who wander in, who I can either provide food for thought for, or learn something new from. Isn't that the point of this? Or is it just a promotional tool to further existing products, ideas, and agendas?

BTW — I haven't seen anyone else challenge the concepts here the way I have, so if it's not new, maybe you can point to the other people who have? Maybe you can also point me to where there is some valid counterpoint that will help me evolve past this particular block? Because I don't see it here anywhere. I've listened to lots of the shows and been in this myself for years, and nobody I've encountered has provided a solution.

So by all means, if you think you've got it all figured out. Please enlighten me. I've been searching for it for a long time.

 

[Alex]

Same goes for me. I haven't found anything ( of substance ) new ( for me ) here either. But my thinking is that we're not the only ones here, and that there might be some others here, or who wander in, who I can either provide food for thought for, or learn something new from. Isn't that the point of this? Or is it just a promotional tool to further existing products, ideas, and agendas?

BTW — I haven't seen anyone else challenge the concepts here the way I have, so if it's not new, maybe you can point to the other people who have? Maybe you can also point me to where there is some valid counterpoint that will help me evolve past this particular block? Because I don't see it here anywhere. I've listened to lots of the shows and been in this myself for years, and nobody I've encountered has provided a solution.

So by all means, if you think you've got it all figured out. Please enlighten me. I've been searching for it for a long time.

Ok I went ahead and dug something up... I posted it here with hopes that you will respond in that thread so we don't mix up the lines of thought:
https://www.skeptiko-forum.com/thre...es-lead-to-psychokinesis-548.4817/post-164672

But I'll repost it here:

J Randall Murphy said:
I checked-out some other Egely Wheel videos and it looks to me like the movement is simply due to air convection moving a small very low-friction wheel with vanes that catch the air like a mini-windmill. This device could work via the same principle even under glass. I couldn't find any examples of such a wheel used in an experiment where it's inside a vacuum.

Alex: Regarding why I may have skimmed some of your posts, I guess we could start here. the notion that trained professional scientists, who make it their living to study this kind of stuff, could make this kind of blunder seems very flat-earthy to me.