Luis Jimenez, UFO Threats |551|

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.........

Women tend to be more agreeable. It's not an absolute, because some women are less agreeable than some men.

It's not that women aren't interested in the nature of reality or morality. They just don't typically want to argue about it.

 
Come on, more arm-waving.
Now you're doing the waving — hands or arms or both.
if your Neuroscience Dogma... your mind=brain paradigm... has been falsified, then we have to start there.
And your attempting to shift the topic of discussion.
what do you think Stephen Hawking meant when he said “Philosophy is dead?”
Apparently Hawking's statement that philosophy is dead was meant to convey the message that philosophers have not taken science sufficiently seriously, and so Philosophy is no longer relevant to knowledge claims. He is wrong of course. If philosophy dies, science dies along with it. The statement is also grandiose example of hand waving.
 
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
Okay, that's another tiny step forward in the discussion. We've lost @Alex altogether.
I am hesitant to trust this sense so much though, because I'm aware what conditioning can do to people.
You're right to be hesitant. I read one account of a study on the accuracy of "gut feelings" and it turned out that they were wrong bout 40% of the time. However that implies that they're also right about 60% of the time. So for me, when it's not a particularly intense experience that is accompanied by an immediate physical threat, I take the feeling into account, apply caution, and investigate on a physical and intellectual level.

With that being said, there have been some cases where the sensory perception is beyond a "gut feeling" — beyond just "intuition". It's as powerful as seeing a person's aura. There's just no mistaking it. This suggests to me that while I have some sensitivity to these phenomena, there are others who are far more sensitive than I am.

I can't confirm to you who these "sensitives" are, just like I can't verify many people's UFO experiences — but I certainly believe that I can't be the only one on the planet who is telling the truth. I may have been accused of having a big ego — but even mine isn't that inflated. The ability to sense good and evil is IMO ( and personal experience ) — very real.
It's disturbing to see how people can be trained through conditioning
Indeed. We touched on that in our exchange about how ancient Roman culture played a significant role in entrenching mononormative conditioning — a practice that continues to this day. However, let's not digress there again just now. The sensory detection of good and evil is of particular interest to me because it goes beyond the intellectualization of the subject matter.

Seeing auras, sensing good and evil, having various types of telepathic connections, clairvoyance, clairaudience, and such, are to many people, highly controversial, but I cannot offhandedly dismiss them — and that makes me wonder what their true nature is. People like Jung tried to make some sense of them. He succeeded in mapping out some descriptive relationships — but any explanation still eludes us.

Yet, if we as part of the natural world are experiencing them, then they must be part of the natural world, and our ability to perceive them on a conscious level should count as empirical evidence. So there must be some sort of an explanation someplace. This is about as far down this path as I've gotten. I cannot explain the ultimate nature of these phenomena any more than I can explain the fundamental nature of gravity or consciousness.

So I invite any insights that might allow us to make some further progress on this avenue of investigation. Perhaps, along with consciousness, these ESP type phenomena also fall under the umbrella of mysterianism? I don't really want to shift this back into the realm of intellectualizing the phenomena, but I suppose that at some point it can't be avoided. Perhaps the answer lies more in the experiences themselves than in what we think about them?
 
Last edited:
philosophers have not taken science sufficiently seriously

I kind of agree with you regarding Hawking. I think he was kind of right and kind of wrong. but I think he's pointing to the same thing I'm pointing at.

in this case, we have to examine / understand /agree on the science surrounding whether or not there is an extended Consciousness realm from which we could "sense" something. otherwise we have a " dead" discussion.
 
I kind of agree with you regarding Hawking. I think he was kind of right and kind of wrong.
Hawking's comment is nothing more than a dismissive offhanded and unsubstantiated opinion. Any relevance it has is not in the context that he put it. If we go outside that context, we can find examples where philosophy has evolved, and classical notions of such things as materialism are now obsolete. But that doesn't make philosophy "dead".
... but I think he's pointing to the same thing I'm pointing at.
Okay let's have a closer look at that.
In this case, we have to examine / understand /agree on the science surrounding whether or not there is an extended Consciousness realm from which we could "sense" something. otherwise we have a " dead" discussion.
If by an "extended consciousness realm" you mean the same thing as extra sensory perception, then we'd have to agree that ESP exists before we can acknowledge the validity of the problem. On the other hand, if by an "extended consciousness realm", you mean a place, e.g. an afterworld, or some other universe, or any location ( real or hypothetical ), then that's entirely beside the point.

In other words, the problem isn't which realm we're sensing good and evil coming from. The problem is that regardless of where it's coming from, what exactly are we sensing? Our more familiar senses are transforming things like photons, pressure, and chemical compounds into vision, touch, sound, taste, and smell.

However when a person sees an aura, I don't know what the stimulus is, but whatever it is, it's not in another "realm". It's right here in this one surrounding the person with it — and you can see it plain as day.

Similarly, when we sense good or evil in the air, it not someplace else. It's right there in the room with you. But again, what exactly that stimulus is, I don't know, and assigning an external "realm" ( location ), doesn't get us any closer to answering that question. It just kicks the can further down the road — do you see what I'm saying now? There's no more of an explanation for why we'd sense evil in some other realm than we do in this one.
 
Last edited:
If by an "extended consciousness realm" you mean the same thing as extra sensory perception, then we'd have to agree that ESP exists before we can acknowledge the validity of the problem. On the other hand, if by an "extended consciousness realm", you mean a place, e.g. an afterworld, or some other universe, or any location ( real or hypothetical ), then that's entirely beside the point.

In other words, the problem isn't which realm we're sensing good and evil coming from. The problem is that regardless of where it's coming from, what exactly are we sensing? Our more familiar senses are transforming things like photons, pressure, and chemical compounds into vision, touch, sound, taste, and smell.

However when a person sees an aura, I don't know what the stimulus is, but whatever it is, it's not in another "realm". It's right here in this one surrounding the person with it — and you can see it plain as day.

Similarly, when we sense good or evil in the air, it not someplace else. It's right there in the room with you. But again, what exactly that stimulus is, I don't know, and assigning an external "realm" ( location ), doesn't get us any closer to answering that question. It just kicks the can further down the road — do you see what I'm saying now? There's no more of an explanation for why we'd sense evil in some other realm than we do in this one.

Yes, I mean ESP... which kind of feels like trolling since I got about 200 shows on parapsychology. I'm done ok
 
Yes, I mean ESP... which kind of feels like trolling since I got about 200 shows on parapsychology. I'm done ok
That's major progress — so now is the worst time to be done. Thank you for your patience!

Now we can ask, when we sense the presence of good or evil, what is the stimulus for this extended perception composed of?

@Nelson says he can feel it — sometimes more intensely than others, but that we need to be careful that we're not projecting some kind of psychological expectation on the situation that stems from our cultural programming.

He alluded to it as some kind of "energy". I imagine that while we would all agree that some kind of "energy" conveys what we're looking for, that we'd also agree that it's rather vague. In science, energy is the capacity for a system to do work. But this type of "energy" isn't like that — or is it?

With our senses, there is the capacity of photons, and pressure, and chemical reactions to do work. That's how our sensory systems are able to function. But when we see an aura, is the stimulus photons? A photon detector doesn't pick it up ( I don't think ). But it looks like light. So if it's not photons, what is it?

With good and evil, it certainly affects us in a way that we can feel, so it must be something that carries some kind of energy, otherwise it would have no effect on us. So maybe if we look at this spiritual energy ( for lack of a better term ) in that way, we might be able to inch forward a little? Any ideas on how?
 
Okay, that's another tiny step forward in the discussion. We've lost @Alex altogether.

You're right to be hesitant. I read one account of a study on the accuracy of "gut feelings" and it turned out that they were wrong bout 40% of the time. However that implies that they're also right about 60% of the time. So for me, when it's not a particularly intense experience that is accompanied by an immediate physical threat, I take the feeling into account, apply caution, and investigate on a physical and intellectual level.

With that being said, there have been some cases where the sensory perception is beyond a "gut feeling" — beyond just "intuition". It's as powerful as seeing a person's aura. There's just no mistaking it. This suggests to me that while I have some sensitivity to these phenomena, there are others who are far more sensitive than I am.

I can't confirm to you who these "sensitives" are, just like I can't verify many people's UFO experiences — but I certainly believe that I can't be the only one on the planet who is telling the truth. I may have been accused of having a big ego — but even mine isn't that inflated. The ability to sense good and evil is IMO ( and personal experience ) — very real.

Indeed. We touched on that in our exchange about how ancient Roman culture played a significant role in entrenching mononormative conditioning — a practice that continues to this day. However, let's not digress there again just now. The sensory detection of good and evil is of particular interest to me because it goes beyond the intellectualization of the subject matter.

Seeing auras, sensing good and evil, having various types of telepathic connections, clairvoyance, clairaudience, and such, are to many people, highly controversial, but I cannot offhandedly dismiss them — and that makes me wonder what their true nature is. People like Jung tried to make some sense of them. He succeeded in mapping out some descriptive relationships — but any explanation still eludes us.

Yet, if we as part of the natural world are experiencing them, then they must be part of the natural world, and our ability to perceive them on a conscious level should count as empirical evidence. So there must be some sort of an explanation someplace. This is about as far down this path as I've gotten. I cannot explain the ultimate nature of these phenomena any more than I can explain the fundamental nature of gravity or consciousness.

So I invite any insights that might allow us to make some further progress on this avenue of investigation. Perhaps, along with consciousness, these ESP type phenomena also fall under the umbrella of mysterianism? I don't really want to shift this back into the realm of intellectualizing the phenomena, but I suppose that at some point it can't be avoided. Perhaps the answer lies more in the experiences themselves than in what we think about them?

Excellent post!
I do think we're making some progress with the discussion.

'if we as part of the natural world are experiencing them, then they must be part of the natural world, and our ability to perceive them on a conscious level should count as empirical evidence. So there must be some sort of an explanation someplace'

That's the position I have too. I find it utterly defeatist to say things like "we'll never know" / "we can't possibly know". But we don't know if it's possible to ever know; if we believe we can't, we've no chance from the beginning.

And I still think we're at the beginning of this. E.g. systematic NDE research is still relatively young. Researchers have been limiting perhaps highly significant content in their research, e.g. DJ Kardajian omitting the NDEs with UFO beings in his study.
 
'if we as part of the natural world are experiencing them, then they must be part of the natural world, and our ability to perceive them on a conscious level should count as empirical evidence. So there must be some sort of an explanation someplace'
My only niggle with the above is the use of "natural". I think the statement would convey the concept better if 'natural' were just removed. (Has too much baggage in terms of 'isms in my view) So:

If we, as part of the world, are experiencing them then they must be part of the world, and our ability to perceive them on a conscious level should count as empirical evidence. So there must be some sort of an explanation someplace.
 
@Randall I do think it'd be best to just tenuously accept using the term 'extended consciousness realm' as a convenient placeholder until we know more about the topic
 
@Randall I do think it'd be best to just tenuously accept using the term 'extended consciousness realm' as a convenient placeholder until we know more about the topic
The issue of what constitutes an extended consciousness realm has now been resolved. @Alex has confirmed that it's synonymous with extra sensory perception, as opposed to some other place or spatial dimension. So we can all now move forward on the same page — which is no minor achievement.

One suggestion is that if we look at the phenomena the way you put it ( as some kind of energy ) and we apply the standard scientific definition of "energy" to the problem, then we're looking at a stimulus that has the ability to perform physical work. With respect to our senses, that work takes the form of affecting our sensory systems in various physical ways that in theory should be measurable.

So perhaps one way forward would be for some psychic researcher out there to team up with a medical scientist to look for the physical changes that correspond to the sensory experience. In theory, those changes should have some sort of measurable causal influence. We might not have any idea exactly what that causal influence is, but I cannot think of a better idea ( at the moment anyway ).

Given that we don't have any medical scientists in the forum, the best we might be able to do here is hypothesize about what sort of energies we're dealing with by considering the processes involved with similar senses e.g. danger or love — senses that are visceral as opposed to visual or auditory. Some people say they've sensed certain smells or temperature changes. Maybe those are clues?
 
Last edited:
The issue of what constitutes an extended consciousness realm has now been resolved. @Alex has confirmed that it's synonymous with extra sensory perception, as opposed to some other place or spatial dimension. So we can all now move forward on the same page — which is no minor achievement.

One suggestion is that if we look at the phenomena the way you put it ( as some kind of energy ) and we apply the standard scientific definition of "energy" to the problem, then we're looking at a stimulus that has the ability to perform physical work. With respect to our senses, that work takes the form of affecting our sensory systems in various physical ways that in theory should be measurable.

So perhaps one way forward would be for some psychic researcher out there to team up with a medical scientist to look for the physical changes that correspond to the sensory experience. In theory, those changes should have some sort of measurable causal influence. We might not have any idea exactly what that causal influence is, but I cannot think of a better idea ( at the moment anyway ).

Given that we don't have any medical scientists in the forum, the best we might be able to do here is hypothesize about what sort of energies we're dealing with by considering the processes involved with similar senses e.g. danger or love — senses that are visceral as opposed to visual or auditory. Some people say they've sensed certain smells or temperature changes. Maybe those are clues?
Those seem like constructive ideas for an experiment. I don't think ESP is positively defined though, as it's rather saying what it's not... I keep repeating: we need more data and more specific analysis!

I'm reminded that you didn't go to the trouble of trying to organise an interview with a researcher on the Cherylee Black phenomena. That was was a golden opportunity that Alex asked you to follow up on.

Others here have put in the leg work on different topics, organising interviews with various researchers. You, admittedly, don't have the time for this. And yet, you continue to put massive amounts of time into posting about how progress could be made. It's time to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

Until you actually provide some specific progress I'm also out of this discussion.
 
Those seem like constructive ideas for an experiment. I don't think ESP is positively defined though, as it's rather saying what it's not... I keep repeating: we need more data and more specific analysis!
Agreed on both accounts.
I'm reminded that you didn't go to the trouble of trying to organise an interview with a researcher on the Cherylee Black phenomena. That was was a golden opportunity that Alex asked you to follow up on.
Hey — I'm sure I'm not the only one in the forum that could have taken the honor upon themselves [[cb]]
Others here have put in the leg work on different topics, organising interviews with various researchers. You, admittedly, don't have the time for this. And yet, you continue to put massive amounts of time into posting about how progress could be made. It's time to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
If I really needed that job I wouldn't have quit doing it for Gene. That's why I made a point of asking @Alex what his position on vaccine mandates is before spending much time here. It's difficult to explain in detail, but I just don't want to put myself back into that role. I just wanna be another annoying discussion forum participant.
Until you actually provide some specific progress ...
That's what I've been trying to do — starting with finding us some common ground and a possible way forward. If you guys have a better idea, I'm sure the fans would be delighted to hear your insights.
... I'm also out of this discussion.
Eye roll — What-ever ( lol ) — I think I'll go transplant my aloe vera.
 
The issue of what constitutes an extended consciousness realm has now been resolved. @Alex has confirmed that it's synonymous with extra sensory perception, as opposed to some other place or spatial dimension.

JRM... you're either being a little cheeky or downright disingenuous. You've offered us a lot of excellent posts so I will give you the benefit of the doubt [[p]]

What I have "confirmed" is more along the lines of:
-- when talking to someone who is so close-minded as to repeatedly ignore the massive evidence falsifying the "you are a biological robot in a meaningless universe" paradigm, it's best to call it ESP and move on.
 
JRM... you're either being a little cheeky or downright disingenuous. You've offered us a lot of excellent posts so I will give you the benefit of the doubt [[p]]

What I have "confirmed" is more along the lines of:
-- when talking to someone who is so close-minded as to repeatedly ignore the massive evidence falsifying the "you are a biological robot in a meaningless universe" paradigm, it's best to call it ESP and move on.

So first you humor me with a misleading answer, then call me disingenuous? Then you decide to insult me by calling me closed minded, as if I haven't made an effort to understand your position or consider the evidence? What a great way to start my day. Normally I would suggest that you back-up and try giving me an honest answer with some substance, but today isn't one of those days.
 
part 1 was very useful in my convo w/ Bernardo. thx.

Stephen Greer talks about the effect that counter intelligence operatives had on Tom Delonge at 1:32:45 .

He got intercepted by some folks who had brainwashed him with the alien threat narrative, General McCaskell at Wright Patterson and other people and he got led by his nose down that primrose path and then of course he had all kinds of dark players like Elizondo and Semivan,... Jim Sevivan who is CIA, and other people kind of circle around him and I think he just got used, abused and then dumped which I had predicted would happen, It was unfortunate. but it's the problem with having a little bit of knowledge in this area, it's very easy to get manipulated by these sort of professional counter intelligence operatives.

 
Back
Top