There is no evil...?

[Laird]

So I read the published paper...surprise, nothing but anecdotes and speculation.

So, I predicted it: denial.

Your argument-against-anecdote is more honestly a refusal to countenance evidence which challenges your preconceptions. Why would a person reject "anecdotal" evidence out of hand? The only sensible reason is: because they believe it to be fabricated. But consistently applying this level of skepticism would lead us to reject all empirical evidence (mathematical and logical proofs are different of course). What is a scientific paper other than some scientist's "anecdote" of a study which s/he performed? How can we be sure that s/he has not fabricated that anecdote, either in whole or in part? What is a scientific textbook but an "anecdote" about the author's reading of other "anecdotes"? How can we be sure that the entire thing is not a fabrication based on other fabrications?

So, why would a film be any more valid as evidence for you? Special effects and acting make almost anything possible to represent on film as though it were genuine: even films are "anecdotal". I don't think that you are being honest, I think that if I were to have presented you with a film, you would have made exactly that claim.

The real question is not whether or not any given piece of evidence is "anecdotal", since, in the relevant sense, all empirical evidence received from others is "anecdotal", the real question is how trustworthy and reliable the source is. The paper I shared with you sources its evidence from many public figures, such as M. Scott Peck, whose reputations are at stake: they have no good reason to fabricate this evidence.

Now, you might argue that the difference between merely anecdotal evidence and scientific papers is that science is replicable. But so are observations of exorcisms: there are practising exorcists, and their ongoing exorcisms can be observed.

I get it, denying the reality of evil makes life more comfortable for you, but you've got no right to spread misinformation publicly.

 

[Laird]

Has it been tried and shown to fail?

I don't know, all I know is that the distinction is recognised by exorcists themselves, who ought to know. As the paper states:

No responsible exorcist or deliverance minister claims that all mental illness is caused by the presence of evil spirits. MacNutt, for example, reports that his wife, Judith, when counselling clients as a licensed psychotherapist, ‘‘ended up praying with [only] about a third of them to be freed from the influence of evil spirits’’ (MacNutt, 1995, p. 67). This suggests that in the other two-thirds, even a therapist as sensitive to the presence of oppressing spirits as his wife, diagnosed them in only a minority of cases. American clergy commonly distinguish between afflictions that are ‘‘purely emotional’’and those that are ‘‘spiritual.’’ This distinction prevails throughout the deliverance ministry.

 

[Selina]

Ah, yes, the "just anecdotes" hand-waving again. Tell you what, prove to me that experience, i.e. reality itself is something more than anecdotes.

Everything you perceive is through an individual consciousness. Your perception, your modeling of reality IS anecdote. Shared reality is nothing more than an agreement amongst individual perceptions. A reality, I might add, that millions upon millions have disagreed with throughout the ages. We call these people "crazy" or in our more PC age, "mentally ill". But are they? Do we know that for sure? Or could they be perceiving realities beyond what the rest of us are capable of perceiving?

That's so general you could apply it to anything. Maybe fairies are real. Maybe there's an elf in my cupboard. Maybe the cat is Satan. How do we know for sure?

That article had zero evidence. How bloody hard would it be to bring a video camera? If this incredible stuff like people levitating existed, why not film it?

I once OD'ed on a drug that caused me to have seizures. It also caused hallucinations that made me believe the nurses were trying to kill me and the hospital staff had a two-way mirror in my hospital room where they were all making fun of me. I was yelling at them while under the influence of the drug. At the time I believed it was really happening. When the drugs wore off, guess what? I realized the nurses were never trying to kill me, they weren't saying the things I was hallucinating they were saying, the hospital staff didn't all take a break to watch me through the mirror and say mean things. It was an hallucination. I was embarrassed by my behavior afterwards because I knew it wasn't real.

How do I know? Because of the FACTS. Facts are your friend.

My seizures were due to the drugs. If someone told me it was a possession, I'd laugh them out of existence. The examples given in that paper were pathetic and weak, but I should accept them because some people think being asked for evidence means they're "just like Galileo" and being persecuted, right? Sometimes people are called crazy because they are spouting ridiculous, superstitious nonsense, not because they're misunderstood.

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan


If you accept anything anyone tells you at face value, with no corroborating evidence, good luck to you.

 

[Selina]

So, I predicted it: denial.

Your argument-against-anecdote is more honestly a refusal to countenance evidence which challenges your preconceptions. Why would a person reject "anecdotal" evidence out of hand? The only sensible reason is: because they believe it to be fabricated. But consistently applying this level of skepticism would lead us to reject all empirical evidence (mathematical and logical proofs are different of course). What is a scientific paper other than some scientist's "anecdote" of a study which s/he performed? How can we be sure that s/he has not fabricated that anecdote, either in whole or in part? What is a scientific textbook but an "anecdote" about the author's reading of other "anecdotes"? How can we be sure that the entire thing is not a fabrication based on other fabrications?

So, why would a film be any more valid as evidence for you? Special effects and acting make almost anything possible to represent on film as though it were genuine: even films are "anecdotal". I don't think that you are being honest, I think that if I were to have presented you with a film, you would have made exactly that claim.

The real question is not whether or not any given piece of evidence is "anecdotal", since, in the relevant sense, all empirical evidence received from others is "anecdotal", the real question is how trustworthy and reliable the source is. The paper I shared with you sources its evidence from many public figures, such as M. Scott Peck, whose reputations are at stake: they have no good reason to fabricate this evidence.

Now, you might argue that the difference between merely anecdotal evidence and scientific papers is that science is replicable. But so are observations of exorcisms: there are practising exorcists, and their ongoing exorcisms can be observed.

I get it, denying the reality of evil makes life more comfortable for you, but you've got no right to spread misinformation publicly.

LOL, right. I'm in denial. I can't help you if you're threatened by people who don't believe in your fantasy world. You "predicted" it? Right. There is nothing of substance in that article, only a bunch of conjecture and a couple of stories from priests and Taoists (completely unbiased sources).

"I don't think that you are being honest, I think that if I were to have presented you with a film, you would have made exactly that claim." Oh please, go to hell.
Stop projecting your nonsense onto me and putting motivations on me I don't have. I'm open minded, I'd love to see evidence if it exists, but if you need to vilify me or anyone else who challenges your cherished beliefs, you have serious issues.

I have the right to my opinion, wow. How paranoid do you have to be to think anyone you come across who doesn't believe in demons is "spreading misinformation" publicly. That's pretty messed up. I thought this forum was called "Skeptiko" as in it welcomes healthy skepticism and differences of opinion.

 

[Selina]

"But consistently applying this level of skepticism would lead us to reject all empirical evidence (mathematical and logical proofs are different of course)."
No, that paper is just incredibly weak. But you can't see that because you're so emotionally attached to this subject. I don't think the people sharing these stories are necessarily lying, they probably saw someone having a severe epileptic fit and interpreted it according to their personal beliefs, to confirm their bias. As you seem to be doing.

 

[Laird]

they probably saw someone having a severe epileptic fit and interpreted it according to their personal beliefs, to confirm their bias

M. Scott Peck is a psychiatrist. Are you? He was there. You were not.

He started off convinced that he was going to finally prove to his scientific satisfaction that there was no such thing as evil. The opposite happened.

I think it's "probably" fair to say that he has a better handle on the reality of the situations he observed than you do, including whether "epilepsy" is a plausible diagnosis. He also risked his reputation to make his knowledge public.

But his experiences are only two amongst a pretty much universal recognition amongst all human cultures of possession, and only two out of the several cases canvassed in the paper I linked to.

If you really were "open minded" as you claim to be, your reaction would not have been the utterly dismissive "nothing but anecdotes and speculation". It would have been something more like, "Hmm, that's curious. At first glance, these sound like genuine cases of possession. But can we trust these accounts? Who are these people reporting them, and what do we know about their integrity? Do they have any reason to lie? Let me check into this more".

 

[David Bailey]

Heh, Doom 27.0 made me chuckle ;)
You are truly right there, I do not deny that. But up until now neuroscience brought us a lot of understanding how the brain works, what parts play a role in e.g. in the visual or olfactory system. That impairments of certain brain areas lead to dysfunctions or change of personality as happens after a lobotomy surgery. Due to neuroscience many things that we once attributed to a kind of soul, could be explained rationally. That anger, love and other feelings are a result of complex chemical workings in the body. I couldn't even name one thing that I would attach to the idea of a soul, something that might live on. And that is why I think that "evil" is as natural as everything else and that some people, i.e. those with a mental/chemical dysfunction, have no real choice being good or bad.

I think neuroscience has discovered stuff relating to the preprocessing of sensory input - visual and auditory. However preprocessing isn't really consciousness - it just happens.

When it comes to conscious things - such as love or anger, neuroscience can localise it to some extent, but as I discussed already, what does that tell us fundamentally? I mean it might explain some symptoms in people with damaged brains, but that is not the same as understanding how the brain works. It is rather the same when it comes to chemicals. I mean adrenaline, for example, binds to a receptor in the brain and causes nerves to fire, but can you use that as an 'explanation' of love or anger?

It is also worth mentioning that some of this 'understanding' seems to have been driven by the pharmaceutical industry. Thus, prozac, which increases the amount of serotonin in the brain, was supposed to be very effective in drug trials last century, but now trials only show it to be as good as a placebo! There is also evidence that prozac pushes some people into suicide! Thus the traditional understanding that more serotonin=better mood, can't be reproduced!

This is one reason I harp on about bad science - because I think we get sold a highly sanitised glossy version of the modern scientific truth.

Clearly it is a fact that brains can be damaged in a way that changes personality. However what that means, is very hard to figure out. If you slightly damage the skates of an ice skater, you mat ruin her performance, but does that ability at ice skating is located in the skates?

David

 

[David Bailey]

LOL, right. I'm in denial. I can't help you if you're threatened by people who don't believe in your fantasy world. You "predicted" it? Right. There is nothing of substance in that article, only a bunch of conjecture and a couple of stories from priests and Taoists (completely unbiased sources).

It would really help if you could keep this discussion free of personal remarks. We want you here to discuss your point of view, but once discussions get acrimonious, people end up being banned for the good of the forum!

I want to come back to the substance of what you have written, but you might want to start by reading my discussion with Illusion in this thread.

I used to think roughly as you do, so I can empathise with what you say, even though I disagree with it.

I am about to go out, but I will write more later.

David

 

[Laird]

It would really help if you could keep this discussion free of personal remarks.

In fairness, some of my own remarks might be interpreted as "personal" too. On the other hand, I tried to keep them in proportion, and I didn't think I projected the sort of hostility-defiance-mockery that I got back. But, as one of the participants, I'm not in a good position to judge. In any case, I appreciate your intervention, David.

 

[Illusion]

This is just bullshit. Neural correlates =\ causation.

Patricia Churchland, is that you?

Somtimes I like being called names. Usually I am in a different mood then, though. :)
But thanks for the warm bullshit welcome, always happy to meet polite people.

 

[Illusion]

Science has proven to be unbelievably successful at explaining certain aspects of nature, but has been dreadfully unsuccessful at elucidating consciousness. In other words, it hasn't revealed much at all about what it means to be human. It hasn't elucidated much at all regarding our mental or spiritual nature, whether you believe those to be one and the same or not.

I see this a lot, that technology is confused with science. Because of our technological progress, we somehow believe this equates with progress in understanding the mind. The two are not the same. We are not really all that much different from any human that existed before us. The only thing that separates us from the ancients (or pre-20th century humans) are our toys.

Science has nothing to say about the nature of "good" or the nature of "evil". It has little worthwhile to say about what makes us conscious, why are we conscious? What is the nature of love or hate? What causes me to take up arms against one, while I embrace another? Humans are still very much like we've always been. We're still killing each other over land masses and the riches they provide. We still "fall in love" but we don't know why or how. Only our technology, not our science, separates us from humans past. And don't forget, each civilization has thought itself to be the pinnacle of human evolution. We are no different.

Science has nothing to say about why we are alive, how we are alive or what any of this means. Materialism is a cop out expounded by unimaginative minds that are so afraid of what their dreams may hold, that they dare not dream at all.

Materialism is not the domain of the courageous, it's the domain of the fearful. When you cannot explain that which you do not understand, you fear it. So materialism conveniently disposes of all things we fear because we cannot explain them. As a materialist/atheist, you don't have to worry about what goes bump in the night, or the long term ramifications of your life decisions. It doesn't worry about what it all means, because they've deemed everything outside of the five senses impossible and life as meaningless.

There has hardly been a philosophy more devoid of critical thought, than that of materialism.

We will never be sure about anything. That is why there are beliefs and for me, science has the stronger arguments regarding certain directions. And of course, all can change with new findings and developments. We, for ourselves, can only interpret what is, supposedly, known today.

 

[Illusion]

I think neuroscience has discovered stuff relating to the preprocessing of sensory input - visual and auditory. However preprocessing isn't really consciousness - it just happens.

When it comes to conscious things - such as love or anger, neuroscience can localise it to some extent, but as I discussed already, what does that tell us fundamentally? I mean it might explain some symptoms in people with damaged brains, but that is not the same as understanding how the brain works. It is rather the same when it comes to chemicals. I mean adrenaline, for example, binds to a receptor in the brain and causes nerves to fire, but can you use that as an 'explanation' of love or anger?

It is also worth mentioning that some of this 'understanding' seems to have been driven by the pharmaceutical industry. Thus, prozac, which increases the amount of serotonin in the brain, was supposed to be very effective in drug trials last century, but now trials only show it to be as good as a placebo! There is also evidence that prozac pushes some people into suicide! Thus the traditional understanding that more serotonin=better mood, can't be reproduced!

This is one reason I harp on about bad science - because I think we get sold a highly sanitised glossy version of the modern scientific truth.

Clearly it is a fact that brains can be damaged in a way that changes personality. However what that means, is very hard to figure out. If you slightly damage the skates of an ice skater, you mat ruin her performance, but does that ability at ice skating is located in the skates?

David

But you cannot deny that we are some hundred if not thousand steps farther than we were 100 years ago regarding our understanding of the functioning of the brain. And thank god so, because if we weren't, we would still have lots of troubles helping people with certain diseases. And yes, you always have to keep in mind the greedy industry, especially the pharmaceutical. I myself have been a victim of a terrible reaction to legal medicine. I know how it feels when your nervous system turns upside down due to a change in chemical balance. So I trust them as far as I can throw an elephant. But neuroscience is something different.
You definitely can induce anger and a loss of empathy with chemicals. Even if we do not know in the end, how it really works, for me it is sufficient that we can manipulate close to every state in the human body, be it thoughts or feelings. I see nothing that might transcent into something else after death. But that of course does not mean, that it isn't so, though I just see no evidence/tendency for it at the moment.

So if we can manipulate brain states from the outside that lead to behavioural changes in a person, the conclusion that certain brain states, like no sense of empathy, can exist without manipulation is not far. And we already know they exist, i.e. psycho- and sociopaths. Did they choose to be like they are? No, the did not. But still, many of them are what we would call evil. It is natural.

 

[David Bailey]

LOL, right. I'm in denial. I can't help you if you're threatened by people who don't believe in your fantasy world. You "predicted" it? Right. There is nothing of substance in that article, only a bunch of conjecture and a couple of stories from priests and Taoists (completely unbiased sources).

I am yet to read that paper, but the big problem here is that it is very hard to know what would count as evidence for demonic posession, nor how to go about collecting it!

Certainly it doesn't seem as though conventional medicine is particularly good at treating schizophrenia, so I suppose the most interesting approach would be to do a randomly controlled trial in which some patients got conventional therapy, and some were treated for demonic possession. My guess is that even if the second group did a lot better, this would not settle the problem!

"I don't think that you are being honest, I think that if I were to have presented you with a film, you would have made exactly that claim." Oh please, go to hell.
Stop projecting your nonsense onto me and putting motivations on me I don't have. I'm open minded, I'd love to see evidence if it exists, but if you need to vilify me or anyone else who challenges your cherished beliefs, you have serious issues.

I have the right to my opinion, wow. How paranoid do you have to be to think anyone you come across who doesn't believe in demons is "spreading misinformation" publicly. That's pretty messed up. I thought this forum was called "Skeptiko" as in it welcomes healthy skepticism and differences of opinion.

Yes, we do welcome differences of opinion, but it is vital to remember that you will encounter many widely different views here, and it is important to keep discussion calm - nobody thinks well once the adrenaline is flowing!

I first assumed from your post that you held completely materialist views (which would be fine - they are also welcome here), but judging from some of your other posts, it would seem that you hold a more interesting position. You described how you reached a certain point when you rejected the concept of the devil, and suddenly found that your view of the word expanded. This is something I agree with - the conventional religions - particularly Christianity and Islam - have cultivated a very negative attitude to life and what it has to offer. I myself rejected Christianity at university, and have not been religious since in any conventional sense.

However, if the concept that consciousness is not confined to the brain, and may continue after death has any truth, then we have to ask how it is that the brain remains 'tuned' to one consciousness throughout life. Whatever that mechanism is, it is not unreasonable to assume that some people have brains that do not hold their tuning that well, and other 'stations' break in. Whether or not such other 'stations' (i.e. conscious entities) are intrinsically evil, they could obviously create havoc in people's lives. This means that belief in some sort of possession should not be thought of as equivalent to belief in a conventional devil.

Extra thought added later.

I don't know if you are familiar with the extraordinary story of the mathematician Ramanujan. If not, it might be worth looking him up. He claimed that his best mathematical ideas were communicated to him in dreams by an Indian goddess! His ideas were particularly novel, and some have only been proved fairly recently. This sounds a bit like possession of a more positive kind.

David

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I am yet to read that paper, but the big problem here is that it is very hard to know what would count as evidence for demonic posession, nor how to go about collecting it!

Certainly it doesn't seem as though conventional medicine is particularly good at treating schizophrenia, so I suppose the most interesting approach would be to do a randomly controlled trial in which some patients got conventional therapy, and some were treated for demonic possession. My guess is that even if the second group did a lot better, this would not settle the problem!

Yeah, this is what I was trying to say though my language got muddled.

In the Transmitter/Filter Resources thread I posted an essay examining different models of the Mind, many of which suggest centers of consciousness within our consciousness. If we consider a possible softening of the demarcation between subjects/objects & mind/matter...can we have something that is both (or somewhere between) a locus of negative thought (say, the shaming voice anorexics hear) and a demon?

Or, to look at it another way, to separate the core-Self, the "I", from the wave of negative thought does it help to visualize the negative thought-stream as an entity?

And once we have this pseudo-entity - which in fact may be an independent evil agent - does it become susceptible to banishment ritual and/or exorcism?

To give an example from a shamanic healing account, a woman successfully (at least the time of report) treated for anxiety entered a vision space where she found & brushed away a red spider that was hiding out in her clothing. Additionally in The Doctrine of Subtle Worlds it's suggested that we discipline/understand ourselves so we can distinguish the core-Self from spirit influence - but this seems helpful for the anorexic who needs to separate the "I" from their mental illness.

On the flip side, more conventional psychotherapy can potentially strengthen the core-Self and make it stronger and better able to push off or prevent negative spirit influence. Possession - whatever one thinks is really going on - seems like a more complicated case.

 

[Vault313]

That's so general you could apply it to anything. Maybe fairies are real. Maybe there's an elf in my cupboard. Maybe the cat is Satan. How do we know for sure?

Yes, maybe fairies are real. I have no proof that they are, but likewise I have no proof that they aren't. And seeing as I've never been to your house, much less inventoried your cupboards, I cannot say one way or the other whether there is an elf taking up residence there. As for "the cat" being Satan, what cat? I don't have a pet cat, so it's obviously not mine, but yours? Is your cat Satan? I don't know. I don't know if you even have a cat, much less whether or not it displays behaviors that could be considered to be that of some sort of evil anti-deity.

I think probably none of the above is true, but considering I have but one body and one limited mind, I cannot say for sure those things don't exist.

"How do I know? Because of the FACTS. Facts are your friend."

And what are "facts" anyway? TEMPORARY, useful models for navigating a certain reality. Facts change, often.

"you accept anything anyone tells you at face value, with no corroborating evidence, good luck to you."

Nope, I sure don't. But I don't dismiss them out of hand either. In most cases, there is no definitive proof either way, therefore it would be ignorant to issue any kind of judgement. I may hold certain, loose, temporary beliefs regarding a certain issue, but I am always open to the idea that everything I think I know could be wrong. History has proven over and over and over again just how wrong we often are. And there are no experts, really. No one on this planet knows any better than anyone else. They might temporarily know a little bit more about a certain subject than most, but that knowledge is temporary, soon to be upended by "more proofs" or "more evidence" or different evidence all together.

 

[Vault313]

Somtimes I like being called names. Usually I am in a different mood then, though. :)
But thanks for the warm bullshit welcome, always happy to meet polite people.

I don't see how that was calling names. I was pointing out that A) the correlation as causation argument is old, tiresome and inaccurate and B) you are essentially taking everything that Patricia Churchland espouses and merely repeating it. As if repetition will make it true.

 

[Vault313]

We will never be sure about anything.

Bingo!

That is why there are beliefs and for me, science has the stronger arguments regarding certain directions. And of course, all can change with new findings and developments. We, for ourselves, can only interpret what is, supposedly, known today.

I agree, however, my own personal philosophy is that one should never adhere too strongly to any given belief. The moment you do, you form an ideology, and ideologies are problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that ideologies rarely (if ever) lead you to the truth (if there is such a thing). So, believe away, by all means. But interestingly enough, it seems your beliefs (as stated here) are causing you distress. If we cannot be sure about anything and beliefs are temporary and changeable, why "believe" a philosophy that leaves you feeling sad and empty? Our beliefs should at the very least serve our needs. If it doesn't, I don't really understand why it's a belief worth having. It is, after all, just an option among many. Just because you believe scientism to hold the (most likely) truths, doesn't make it so. Are you afraid of believing in something "stupid" like fairies or perhaps God, and being made to look stupid? Is it the fear of looking the fool? If so, why?

 

[Vault313]

I am yet to read that paper, but the big problem here is that it is very hard to know what would count as evidence for demonic posession, nor how to go about collecting it!

This is my thinking as well. He/she stated above that it would be simple to video tape it, but would that really provide sufficient evidence for someone who has already determined the phenomenon to be impossible?

If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then do "impossible" claims require impossible evidence? And where does that leave us? Who determines what's extraordinary? Who determines what's impossible?

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Yeah, this is what I was trying to say though my language got muddled.

In the Transmitter/Filter Resources thread I posted an essay examining different models of the Mind, many of which suggest centers of consciousness within our consciousness. If we consider a possible softening of the demarcation between subjects/objects & mind/matter...can we have something that is both (or somewhere between) a locus of negative thought (say, the shaming voice anorexics hear) and a demon?

Or, to look at it another way, to separate the core-Self, the "I", from the wave of negative thought does it help to visualize the negative thought-stream as an entity?

And once we have this pseudo-entity - which in fact may be an independent evil agent - does it become susceptible to banishment ritual and/or exorcism?

Pollux brought up something akin to this from the Buddhist perspective in the Hell Thread.

The Buddhist Book of The Dead has it own "version" of Hell, were they say that you are fighting against your own inner demons - and until you understand that, and not see them as "external demons" you are looked in that struggle indefinitely.

The part about that starts around 22min into the video

I'm going to see what my immaterialist psychologist friends think about this, and if they've already heard of someone trying an idea like banishment as a means to drive away negative thought streams...

 

[Vault313]

Pollux brought up something akin to this from the Buddhist perspective in the Hell Thread.



I'm going to see what my immaterialist psychologist friends think about this, and if they've already heard of someone trying an idea like banishment as a means to drive away negative thought streams...

I guess I am one of those "hell deniers", at least in the traditional "fire and brimstone" sense. The Buddhist perspective makes the most sense for me personally, plus you have to add into that the idea that "evil" and "hell" have been given highly anthropomorphic characteristics. Much like Mythology, there is a certain value in anthropromorphizing these concepts because they made the idea accessible to everyone, not just religious scholars or spiritual gurus.

With that being said, I think exercising a certain amount of mental restraint in believing these characters or settings to be material is called for. I wouldn't rule out there being some actual physical aspect to these things, but then that kind of ties back into the idea that thought itself holds the power to create worlds, so that which we believe to be real, even in the physical sense, is true because we have determined it to be so. I know, it's a circular logic, but allows for hell, demons and evil to be both in a sense very real and physical, yet "just" a manifestation of our own shadow side.

You brought up Carl Jung in the referenced thread, and I really like his idea of the shadow self. That by moving into and through our shadow side, we come through more evolved, happier, more understanding of our own motivations and that of others.

He purportedly also had a theory that the next phase of human evolution, expounded upon by Drunvalo Melchizedek, involves the addition of two more chromosomes, so 46+2, which would evolve us out of a currently disharmonious state into a harmonious one.

On Tools Aenima album there is a track titled "Forty Six & 2" dealing with this concept.

My shadow’s

Shedding skin and
I’ve been picking
Scabs again.
I’m down
Digging through
My old muscles
Looking for a clue.

I’ve been crawling on my belly
Clearing out what could’ve been.
I’ve been wallowing in my own confused,
insecure delusions
For a piece to cross me over
Or a word to guide me in.
I wanna feel the changes coming down.
I wanna know what I’ve been hiding in

My shadow.
Change is coming through my shadow.
My shadow’s shedding skin
I’ve been picking
My scabs again.

I’ve been crawling on my belly
Clearing out what could’ve been.
I’ve been wallowing in my own chaotic,
insecure delusions.

I wanna feel the change consume me,
Feel the outside turning in.
I wanna feel the metamorphosis and
Cleansing I’ve endured within

My shadow
Change is coming.
Now is my time.
Listen to my muscle memory.
Contemplate what I’ve been clinging to.
Forty-six and two ahead of me.

I choose to live and to
Grow, take and give and to
Move, learn and love and to
Cry, kill and die and to
Be paranoid and to
Lie, hate and fear and to
Do what it takes to move through.

I choose to live and to
Lie, kill and give and to
Die, learn and love and to
Do what it takes to step through.

See my shadow changing,
Stretching up and over me.
Soften this old armor.
Hoping I can clear the way
By stepping through my shadow,
Coming out the other side.
Step into the shadow.
Forty six and two are just ahead of me.