Luis Jimenez, UFO Threats |551|
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
Alex
Administrator
It seems we're going around in circles. I mean, if you're going to play the role of scientific / neuroscience materialist, then you got to Play Your Part :) you can't allow for extended Realms of Consciousness were angels and demons and God might exist.
J Randall Murphy
New
The reason we're going in circles is because you seem to be missing that the issue of whether or not consciousness is a "brain phenomena" or not is irrelevant to the point of the discussion.
I'm not playing that part. It seems like you're either not reading or not understanding my posts.
Whether or not there are "extended realms of Consciousness were angels and demons and God might exist" isn't relevant to the issue of sensing the presence of good and evil. All we need to do is accept that whatever the case is with consciousness, it facilitates our sensory experience of whatever "realm" we're in ( whatever its fundamental nature is is ).
In other words, even if existence is all some subjective idealist hallucination, it doesn't explain why we'd hallucinate the presence of good or evil. Conversely, if existence is all some version of the material or physical, it also doesn't answer the question of sensing good or evil. All that matters is that we agree that, we are conscious beings with both intellect and sensory abilities.
From there we can breakout of this loop.
Last edited:
Nelson
Member
Not really. You keep ignoring evidence from e.g. Radin, Sheldrake etc.
So no progress is made in the discussion.
J Randall Murphy
New
Nelson, you're still missing the point I'm trying to make. Whether Radin and/or Sheldrake's theories about the outcomes of their experiments are true or false makes no difference to whether or not we have both an intellectual understanding of things and a consciousness with an awareness of sensory experiences.
We could be entirely subjective hallucinations of some overmind, we could be some sort of simulation, or we could be material beings that evolved the ability to consciously sense the physical world around us, or we could be some combination of all that, or something else altogether. Whatever that case is makes no difference to the difference between intellectually addressing the question of good and evil and sensing its presence non-intellectually.
K9!
New
In this lecture by Joe McMoneagle, he says that you can't block remote viewers, you can only hide something from remote viewing by placing it within a lot of the same thing. He specifically mentions using fake aliens to hide the real one.
Nelson
Member
Your approach is completely different to mine (and from Alex's). We are following data, seeing where that leads us. You are creating logic constructs in your mind and saying that the evidence has to fit into your logic categories.
No headway is possible until you simply follow the evidence without saying what it can or cannot mean beforehand
J Randall Murphy
New
You're not correct. You're not even on in the same discussion. The discussion is about good and evil — not the nature of consciousness. @Alex keeps trying to take it there, and now so are you. But the nature of consciousness is an entirely different subject that is irrelevant to the nature of good and evil.
The roadblock in the discussion has nothing to do with whatever evidence for the nature of consciousness you're referring to. It's like me saying that aerodynamics requires an atmosphere for the principles to apply, and you responding by saying that I'm not looking at the evidence for continental drift. When you guys get that figured out, let me know — then maybe we can make some headway.
Nelson
Member
That's a strawman
The question of morality is inextricably linked with consciousness, because what we are is crucial regarding the question of what's right and wrong to do.
It amazes me that an obviously intelligent person such as yourself, who understands so much of the world, nevertheless has this roadblock re just following the evidence re consciousness research.
I'm guessing it's because you're formally trained in philosophy. In some ways this is actually a massive hindrance to just letting go...
Letting go of separated logic categories and instead just following evidence wherever it leads
J Randall Murphy
New
No it's not a strawman. It's an analogy. If you you don't see it. That's okay. I'm going to move along to another topic for now.
Alex
Administrator
If there are no extended Consciousness realms then you can't "sense" anything from them.
J Randall Murphy
New
Now we're getting someplace. I'm not entirely sure where that someplace is yet, but at least we've got a toe hold.
NOTE: I'll insert here before I begin, that "evidence" or "data" is useless without an interpretation, so @Nelson, please stop with the devaluing of the interpretive side of the investigative process as if it has no relevance to the discussion. It's fine if you'd like to present some sort of data, but please don't presume I haven't already considered it, or that I've ignored or offhandedly dismissed it ( I don't do that ).
Now, with respect to the "evidence" from my own personal experiences, whenever I've had an unusually intense sensory experience of good or evil, it's been right here in this realm while I'm alive. So whatever the nature of that experience is, it has been in the same "realm" that my sensory systems reside in, otherwise it wouldn't have been detectable by those senses. It's important that you get that part. If you don't, then take some time to reflect on it.
Assuming you're with me so far, it's perfectly safe to extend that rationale to others who have had the same sort of sensory experiences. This means that it's unlikely that my personal experiences are unique in nature. I don't personally know other people who have had experiences like mine, but I have read other accounts and talked remotely with a few people. So I'm confident that the experience of sensing good and evil isn't unique to me.
At this stage, we can now say something about what you ( Alex ) calls the "extended consciousness realm". What we're talking about better fits the description of extended sensory perception. The idea of it being a "realm" can be looked at metaphorically. So for the time being, unless you actually mean it's literally someplace else, that's how I'll look at it.
If you do literally mean that the "extended consciousness realm" is someplace else, then you'd have to explain how it's also detectable here in this realm, and that quickly resolves into both realms being one in the same, where some people are more sensitive to various aspects of it than others, which in turn resolves into the experience being one of extended sensory perception. If you don't agree with that, then I invite your explanation as to why.
Also, even if we accept that there is some other place ( realm ) where people have sensory experiences of good and evil, the problem of the nature of good and evil remains the same. in other words, for spirit world Bob, there's no better explanation for good and evil than there was before he magically appeared in the afterlife. That's why I've been saying that the issue of the nature of consciousness isn't relevant to the problem at hand.
Either way, we're still left wondering what exactly it is that we're sensing when we have the feeling that something good or evil is in the air, regardless of whatever realm we might happen to ne in at the time. Are you still with me? Assigning some hypothetical "extended realm" as an explanation, doesn't actually explain anything. At best, it just kicks the can further down the road.
Last edited:
Nelson
Member
I think you make some decent points.
'before he magically appeared in the afterlife'
Sounds like a strawman, but your overall point is taken
My way of seeing morality is aristocratic, based on the principle of as above, so below
I don't think it's a coincidence or a false impression that hierarchy is repeatedly reported in NDEs. Likewise in the mundane world. Hierarchy in everything: strength, intelligence, beauty. In other words, true nobility
The essence of evil is to destroy true nobility
That's what I see the Marxists doing. They are purposefully trying to destroy everything elevating, everything naturally above them.
Nelson
Member
In other words, evil is an inversion, a perversion of natural hierarchy - a rebellion against nature itself
I think this envy and hatred of the truly noble, the attempt to destroy natural order, is the essence of evil: to pervert the youth, to destroy the differences between men and women, to destroy beauty
That is what these creeps are trying to do. It explains so much, including their visceral hatred of Russia
I think this envy and hatred of the truly noble, the attempt to destroy natural order, is the essence of evil: to pervert the youth, to destroy the differences between men and women, to destroy beauty
That is what these creeps are trying to do. It explains so much, including their visceral hatred of Russia
J Randall Murphy
New
Those points of view are perfectly reasonable, and we can certainly have a number of interesting discussions on that side of the investigation. What I'm trying to see if we can get more of a grip on is the other side of the investigation — the sensory perception of goodness or evilness. It's sometimes described as a feeling in the air. It has nothing to do with any intellectualization of the concepts. Some people are more sensitive to it than others. Do you know what I mean?
Nelson
Member
Yes, I have a sense somewhat like you described. I feel it physiologically too, within my body.
I think there's good vs bad energy and we can potentially sense this around us
I am hesitant to trust this sense so much though, because I'm aware what conditioning can do to people. It's disturbing to see how people can be trained through conditioning
Nelson
Member
I will now say something that might trigger people but might show something radical about the nature of reality:
Have you noticed how few women are contributing on the forum and in interviews about deep questions of existence, morality, etc. ... unless tendentially they're paid to do it as part of their career / hustle... and even then they tend not to be groundbreaking but weak, such as Patricia Churchland, Trish Macgregor, Martha Nussbaum, etc.
I see extremely little female participation. And with extremely few exceptions the contributions are weak, even absurd
In general, I've found that unless a woman is influenced in that direction by a male role model, that women aren't even interested in the nature of reality or morality.
According to evolutionary psychology, women tend to be solopsistic in order to maximise their survival and reproductive strategy. Men, on the other hand, tend to be interested in what is true, because accurate information about the wider world tends to help us
In other words, how much of our striving after truth and the good is merely our evolutionary/genetic conditioning that's programmed us to be this way?.....
I.e. how much is a spiritual, multi-incarnation learning process vs merely our physiology.........
Have you noticed how few women are contributing on the forum and in interviews about deep questions of existence, morality, etc. ... unless tendentially they're paid to do it as part of their career / hustle... and even then they tend not to be groundbreaking but weak, such as Patricia Churchland, Trish Macgregor, Martha Nussbaum, etc.
I see extremely little female participation. And with extremely few exceptions the contributions are weak, even absurd
In general, I've found that unless a woman is influenced in that direction by a male role model, that women aren't even interested in the nature of reality or morality.
According to evolutionary psychology, women tend to be solopsistic in order to maximise their survival and reproductive strategy. Men, on the other hand, tend to be interested in what is true, because accurate information about the wider world tends to help us
In other words, how much of our striving after truth and the good is merely our evolutionary/genetic conditioning that's programmed us to be this way?.....
I.e. how much is a spiritual, multi-incarnation learning process vs merely our physiology.........
Last edited:
Silence
Member
This might speak more to your experience with women than anything objectively true about the female gender?
Nelson
Member
Some of it is based on personal experience. Partly on evolutionary psychology. Partly on just looking at Skeptiko: male host and overwhelmingly male guests. Likewise with similar podcasts, such as Brothers of the Serpent. One female listener wrote in saying BOTS is "sexist", because so few females appear on the show... Really?
Of course not. The more parsimonious explanation is that women are different than men, and in highly significant ways. Brainwashed wokesters don't want to hear this. But most of the other people around the world know men and women are fundamentally different and enjoy these differences (as I do too)
Alex
Administrator
Come on, more arm-waving. if your Neuroscience Dogma... your mind=brain paradigm... has been falsified, then we have to start there.
what do you think Stephen Hawking meant when he said “Philosophy is dead?”