If you thought I needed to be proved wrong, then I did. If my tone intimidated you in any way, then I was wrong. That was not my intension. What I intended was to present ‘information’ from the skeptical point of view of science.




Yes – the tapping is one of the things that pushed others to further the research. My mother was a subject to EMDR. It seemed to be the only thing that worked for her for many years. Unfortunately, she received the treatment while she was living with me. She discontinued it when she moved back home and suffered a complete set back. To me this is just another reason to continue the research. It does help, but why, how much is needed and would it work for everyone?




There is not real need for dreaming, there is just a need for REM sleep. Very simply, what happens in this stage of sleep is that the eyes begin to move. This automatically causes a chemical reaction in the brain – to prepare for incoming stimulation. You see when the eyes move in this fashion, they are ‘normally’ awake and seeing. So the brain expects to see something. When there is nothing to see the part of the brain that feeds the information to the epicenter, has to provide something soooooo.. it takes bits and pieces of memory and uploads that to the part of the brain that wants to determine what is happening.

We can’t possibly know what bits and pieces are chosen, however, some fairly recent studies indicated that most of the memories used are the most recent one. A pencil may be a memory bit chosen, the other choices seem to be an attempt at creating a story. Apparently it gets close enough, because many people remember their dreams as a series of events that were telling a story. We tend to fill in the blank based on what we are most influenced by at the time.




So there is at least one purpose – there may be others, and as long as this one purpose is not proven through adequate testing to be sound, then we should look for others.

Personally, I’m skeptical to the max of all things that resemble paranormal or spiritual, as I don’t believe in the mysticism of either. Just my belief and that’s why I may tend to sound like I need to be proved wrong.

I think that topics are meant to flow into other topics. That's how natural conversation flows. When great minds get together in think tanks, they don't insist on absolutely staying "on topic". They bounce new ideas off of one another and flow into even more discovery, using everyone's input.

I welcome the natural progression of topics shifting anywhere they need to go.

Double Post

Thanks for responding, Red.

A part of me wishes to continue to push an agenda, convincing you there's so much more to this. I could go into great depth explaining my own experience and end up feeling frustrated with myself for having "failed" at communicating the experience effectively (enough to have you see it through my eyes). This, more than likely, would be impossible.

So, for now, I will refrain from the thousands of words I know I could spew and again, thank you for participating with me.

Red:



As I'm typing, I notice my own reaction in the words with which I respond and gather that there's somehow something "wrong" in my response and in me.

I notice this struggle to either place myself above or below another... all the while, forgetting the great possibility of EQUAL.

Double Post Again!

Sorry

Our god's the FUN god! Our god's the SUN god! Ra! Ra! Ra!

Redyceulous said:
Would it be possible for you to explain WHY you are skeptical? Is there a reason for your skepticism? Is there something in your experience or makup that is the foundation of your skepticism? (All the same question really.)

(Note: Your statement - "I'm skeptical ... as I don't believe..." - is not a reason, it is an identity. That is, "don't believe" is the very definition of "skeptical".)

So much mystery in the world, so many spiritual things that can't be easily explained.

So what does a skeptic think about these things? Do they think a large part of the population of the world are delusional and superstitious?

Do they think there must be a logical explanation for every strange thing? Or do they just ignore the strange things that are going on?

Do they think that they are the only sane people and everyone else is delusional?

Do they really think that two drunk Irishmen with two-by-fours and ropes created those huge and complicated crop circles of computer chips and mayan calander codes?

Do they think people who have seen UFO's are delusional... ---thousands of them?

I can be a skeptic. I used to be one anyway. But I can also consider all possibilities. Be a skeptic but don't disbelieve in anything imagined. All that is imagined exists somewhere within the universal mind worlds..... somewhere.

(I have noticed that in movies about vampires the people who refuse to consider the possibility that they exist, always get killed by one first. And they forgot to wear their garlic necklace and carry their wooden steak too.

You can be a skeptic,(on a vampire hunt) but carry a wooden steak just in case. LOL

red


Sky


Let me use the questions JB included to formulate my response.



I think it’s unfortunate that so many people allow themselves to be held hostage to certain delusions of the supernatural. Superstitions for example; I know many people who ‘fear’ the consequences of ignoring a superstition. I know people who believe in omens and are constantly trying to determine if something is a sign or just … ‘something’!

How do you think these kinds of behaviors limit the life and the choices, in life, of that person? Do you think it would be better if that person believed there was an explanation, we just don’t know it? In that way, they would be released from the responsibility of living within the confines of the limitations those superstitions held.



I think there IS a logical or at least a rational explanation for everything, but I also think evolution is not complete yet. I have no illusions of human capabilities; of knowing and understanding the complexities of all the universe has to share. We learn what and when we are able to comprehend.

In the meantime, I am skeptical about what passes for theory and what is contrive from the imagination.



Sanity is a relative term that often has a great emphasis in the cultural norms of a population. In some populations, I would have to question my own sanity, if I were being honest. So I’m skeptical about what is “normal” and what is “sane”.



How old do ya think those two Irishmen are anyway? I can’t believe there’s only two of them.

Mmm let’s see, complicated crop circles of computer chips and mayan calander codes. To me, this sounds like the same kind of “exacting science” that it takes for a creation scientist to look at ancient wall art and see people living with dinosaurs. How do we know the creatures weren’t dragons? Maybe what we see is not a complete picture. Maybe to make it complete people add whatever they like.

Certainly anyone can do this, but being the skeptic I am, I want science to back it up. Barring a complicated series of tests based on scientific methodology, I would consider and compare the information with all other possibilities. If nothing else, to rule out what I think it can not include.




That statement can be one of many such statements like:

All that is imagined has already been imagined in the mind of God.
All that is imagined is the physical world, our mission is to deny it and our body to surpass it.
All that is imagined exists in another consciousness and there is nothing in the creative mind of man that has not pre-existed the physical world.

You see, the way one views the physical and non-physical, the body and the mental, heaven and the spiritual, will ultimately influence everything else in their life.

I’m too skeptical to allow that kind of interference in me life, therefore, I accept the simplest and most obvious explanations first.



When in Rome….
The human mind is still quite a mystery. If a person believes they drank poison, they could actually die. If, while at the bedside of a very sick person, those around me want to join hands and pray, I will do so.
Sometimes an illusion, can keep the delusional, from their own worst fears. In this case, if the person gets better, do I believe it was God? Do I believe it was the power of prayer? Or do I believe it was the power of the mind?

What do you believe? What is the simplest and most likely? I’ll bet the answers will depend on the believe system of the person answering….

red

I gather from the rest of your post that the reason for your skepticism could be summed up something like this: You have seen many premises put forth that fail the test of “workability”, and the common denominator of those premises is that they have not been validated by science. Thus, the conclusion that future premises that have not been validated by science will most likely follow the same pattern of “unworkability”. Is that about right?

Yes, however, there is a quite a bit more. For example; reading the statement above will be processed in various different ways by every person who reads in.

There are some who do not trust science, or even those who work or study in that field. Their reasons are many but, for them, the thought that science is worthy of being considered the highest authority is ludicrous.

It’s my bet that every single person who takes that frame of mind, has faith in some creation theory or another, or at the very least encompasses some kind of pantheistic view. Although I will admit that, most, pantheists, today, embrace the sciences.

To all of these people there is but one source of knowledge, the original and supreme source and no human, even with science, can know, or ever will know all that is known by the supreme source.

But they have made some crucial errors. First, that science claims to have all the answers; it does not. Second, because science can not give them an answer, science is unworthy of being trusted. Third, they often believe that science and scientists don’t give any credence to the ideas of the paranormal, the supernatural, the metaphysical, or to extravagantly held views of interplanetary populations and how their believe systems are similar to our own. (In the last, one must understand that science agrees that other intelligent life undoubtedly exists – beyond that science cannot delve into every possibility, for there is no basis for confirmation)

In all of these they are wrong. Why, you ask? Because all of these claims have been reviewed, some to great extents, others are considered but in light of some basic scientific postulates they are simply passed off. In some areas we are not capable of using known scientific methods to validate the claims. Sometimes, when science attempts to make validations of some of these claims; their actions are ridiculed.

Why? because those who made the claims don’t want their creative ideas destroyed by fitting them into the confines of some natural order of things, natural laws. They want THEIR theory proven but their theory includes that which can only be accepted on “individual” faith. Individual faith differs greatly from the scientific postulates (assumptions) that are used. One person’s assumption is not a valid enough premise from which to begin a scientific exploration, when there is nothing more to go on.

You must understand this in order for the rest of this to make sense.

Sky, you suggest, in one of the threads, maybe this one, the possibility of ‘other law’; one that is not strictly tied to the logical laws of physical nature. You even suggest that this ‘other’ law may not seem rational or follow any rules that we can discern. But even that notion has it limiting factors, philosophically speaking.

In a nut shell, that kind of chaos would necessarily have to be attributable. In other words, it becomes yet another way to bring an “almighty” creative being into existence. It would have to be intelligent, and that kind of intelligence would also require awareness of self and outside of self. It would need this information, awareness, in order to create both realms of reality. But here’s the rub, what existed before the intelligence created all that exists? And if such an intelligence exists, why only two possible realms, why not more? Then come the questions of why? What other realms could there be? And on and on.

Do you see that the premise of such logic begins with an assumption as the base. That assumption is that there is another kind of law that extends to the non-physical and was created by a godly intelligence. How would you expect science to proceed on that?

Is it open minded to say that science sucks because it can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is something to this theory or any the millions of theories attributable to other creative minds?

You see, these are not things science CAN EVER ANSWER. That is not the nature of science. Science examines and questions the knowable, not that which can only be taken on faith.

It makes sense to keep our minds focused on what we CAN know and not what we can never prove, or hope to control. In this, there are answers to be found, answers that directly and controllably have effects on our lives. Not answers that are made up from some creative and, dare I say, limited human source; an individuals creative ability.

If one desires to make up possibilities, outside and away from the “universal laws” that science attempts to isolate, through scientific method, than all that person is doing is creating philosophy at best and fantasy at worst. I happen to enjoy fantasy and I love philosophy, but there is a substantial line between them.

While fantasy is not outside the possibility of being invited into philosophy, one has to remember that philosophy is not just make-believe. Philosophy also has its postulates, those areas of knowledge that are ‘assumed’. Fantasy must pass certain tests, even, to be considered acceptable food for the philosophic table.

Philosophy opened the scientific door. All science begins as a philosophy. Where the two differ has to do with the limitations each has set for the discipline. Science has presented the world with the opportunity to advance, on the evolutionary scale, by advancing our knowledge and our minds. Philosophy is the love of wisdom and the search for it. Science is often the proof of that wisdom, for the very reason people dislike it; the value it places on its strict “unbiased” methodology.

Think about that – strict unbiased methodology. Exactly what creation scientists don’t have.
Why don’t they? – because they MUST fit all of reality into the confines of their belief system; that is their methodology.

Therein, lies the answer to being skeptical. Beginning any search for answers with pure skepticism, means questioning your own beliefs. How many people can do that?
Furthermore, how many of our own questions are answered (by us) using the validation of a scientific method – that strict unbiased methodology?

Not many but what comes of these questions are the great creative efforts that give us fantasy, and philosophy.

So you see, I am open minded, but I’m not a scientist and for that reason I MUST remain skeptical, it’s the only way we have of preventing our bias from interfering with “knowledge”.

THANK-YOU, for reading all of this. In the future I’ll try asking more questions and allow others to make the observations. Instead of attempting to show what I think should be obvious.

Redy/just di

Anyone can if they truly seek truth.

I think anyone searching for the truth of the nature of reality (which is what I search for) should be skeptical and open minded at the same time. I mean skeptical of everything equally.

I don't understand the intricacies of science or mathematics and to become engulfed in either of these studies too deeply may have a tendency to entrap a person's mind into a certain paradigm and the big picture could be lost.

If you look at all imagined possibilities (there are many so you may find yourself skimming over them) there are bound to be a few that seem to ring true in certain areas. That is when I stop and take a closer look.

What I do is suspend my beliefs. Of course I have beliefs, and I may find them changing according to the information I have ingested. I am sure many of them are inaccurate, but as long as they loosely seem to fit somewhere they are not rejected completely. I may hold onto them as "possible."

Beliefs are not who you are and they are certainly not permanent unless you decide to make them permanent. My beliefs are always temporary conclusions with different varying strengths and weaknesses.

You cannot cling to your beliefs so stubbornly that you would die for them if you truly want truth. Beliefs are not worth dieing for. They are not even worth arguing or fighting about. They are temporary perceptions being held for further evaluation.

jb

'The more I want to know... the less I need to know.'

Yes, I suggested that there are non-physical things, and that the very fact of those things being non-physical indicates that they are not bound by physical laws. But I never intended to suggest that any other laws are in any way “irrational” or “do not follow any rules that we can discern”. (That may have arisen from a misunderstanding of my suggestion that there are things that cannot be detected by any physical means.)

I do agree that it would have to be attributable. But the rest of that’s got quite a bit of “spin” on it that I can’t really agree with. It doesn’t seem chaotic to me at all, unless you mean strictly what it would do to modern science if accepted. And the next sentence is just a condescending dismissal. So I would rephrase it something like this: It opens the door to a way of explaining all the paranormal phenomena that have never been fully explained by science.

No arguments there at all.

I started trying to answer these individually, but I decided to address them all this way: Whatever the answers to those questions are, they are decided by the intelligence(s). And they are no more pertinent to the understanding of other laws than they would be to the understanding of physical laws.

Well of course there is an assumption at the base, just as there is with the physical sciences. But I never made the assumption that non-physical laws were “created by a godly intelligence”. (Although I would consider “agreed upon by intelligences” as being fairly accurate. But that’s neither here nor there.)

Well, a science that is based on the assumption that there is nothing outside of the physical, cannot proceed on it, else it would not be that science. So I don’t expect science, in it’s current state, to proceed on it at all.

DI asked:


Sky:




Exactly.

Those darn {quote}s



Definition: “non-physical” = “that which cannot be detected by any physical means”

I don’t think of the non-physical as being a “realm”. Nothing like “another dimension” or “a parallel universe”. There is no “non-physical space”. There are only non-physical “entities”. These entities are not “part of the physical universe”– although they may “assume a location” within it.

An analogy might be a man in a submarine. The man is the non-physical entity, the submarine is his physical body, and the water is the physical universe. He can drive the submarine around in the water. He can communicate with other submariners through the medium of the water. He can create waves in the water. He move things around in the water using the submarine’s robot arms. He can be move around and locate himself anywhere within the water. And he can either be inside the submarine, or outside the submarine.

But he is not in any way “dependent on” either the water or the submarine for his existence.


The analogy breaks down here because there is nothing in the theory that corresponds to the analogy’s “outside the water” (i.e. there is no “non-physical space”). But the man is “real” so the exact answer to the question is “Yes”.

I gotcha. We’ll continue.


OK, I let myself propagate the use of a word (“intelligences”) that I never would have used on my own. So I’ll substitute “being” and go from there. I would say that the defining quality of a being is “the ability to make self-determined decisions”. And the definition of “a being” is (here comes the circular definition) “ that which has the ability to make self determined decisions”.


Well obviously, the basic postulate regarding the non-physical is that it cannot be detected buy any physical means. So we can’t build a device to look at a non-physical being. However, in the same way that the effects of magnetism can be perceived by human senses but the force itself cannot, things can be inferred about the non-physical entity based on effects which can be detected. So if science were to actually pursue this, I would expect existing researches (like PEAR) to be expanded a thousand fold. I think some astounding progress could be made if the budget for this were on the same order of magnitude as the Large Hadron Collider.

As to how to proceed: I guess the basic approach would have to be similar to how PEAR did it – gather a whole lot of data under as strict a set of controls as possible, then calculate the odds of all the positive results being chance.

I think most mainstream scientists are afraid to go there, or have and did not get very far.

But let's suppose a group of serious scientists had unlimited funding and support for the project of proving whether or not a person had a soul that could exist after the death of the body.

Now these would probably be very gruesome experiments so they would have to fall to the level of black operations as it would probably involve killing some people.

(If you have ever read the book "Entity" or seen the movie, you may have heard that this was a true story. The entity in question was a non-physical creature who consistently attacked and raped this woman. It was captured temporarily with extreme cold, but they could not hold it.)

Okay given that, if a soul exists, scientist would have to discover a way to capture it, hold it and maybe transfer it from one place to another after a person dies. If they could hold it, they would want to study it.

I call this "dark science." (I think it probably exists, you just don't hear about it.)

This is where I imagine "dark science" is going:

1.) Creating Clones of any species including human.
2.) Cross breeedng species including humans with animals.
3.) Soul capture and transfer operations
4.) Extreme mind control techniques, creating biological robots.
5.) Pineal gland experiments and other brain surgery.
6.) Computer/human interfaces. (Human-like borg stuff)

jb