Well there is the case of telepathy. The problem here is the experiments are not done with the right conditions. Relationship is important and issues that are relevant, significant to the subject. The experiments are all double blinded, claiming “gold standard” and “objectivity”.
Double blinding is gold standard for drug trials not for every experiment done. To be scientific we only need to do a control experiment. And objectivity is not at issue. Does your doctor need to be double blinded in doing a diagnosis. Of course not.
Done properly we would see telepathy in no uncertain terms. It cannot be explain by any physical considerations.
Indeed they have done some experiments with related subjects in some laboratories, Noetic sciences is one I know of, but the majority are only trivially related so the results when added together are diluted.
Jesus as part of the Godhead is the big problem I have with Christianity. Jesus said “I and my Father are one”, yes this is the mark of enlightenment. Union with God. But it is taken to mean part of God. I see Jesus as a prophet.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
42
It’s all been done in the previous two centuries. There is no more basis for telepathy than there is for supernatural healing. Belief in them is folk belief, folk faith. That’s fine. It does net good in the main. In the absence of deconstruction and reconstruction, which takes immense resources.
I told a carpenter once what job I wanted done and went on to explain to him how to do it. He said “please leave it up to me. I want people to know that a carpenter has been and done the job.”
However in the case of the biologists, it doesn’t apply. Let me show you an instance where a goanna bit my thumb. My fault I thought to give it an egg out of the palm of my hand rather than put it on a plate. Then last minute I though strewth, maybe not a good idea. I pulled my hand back but it was determined for the egg.
I used a mental prescription to help heal the injury. It healed completely in 10 days. I had added a second mental prescription to make all marks disappear and I nearly lost all of my finger prints. You have to be careful what you ask for. Now my finger prints are super faint. lol.
Believing no telepathy based on “the science” is dangerous but you believe what you want.
In the case of supernatural healing I have seen and have been involved in helping others through “supernatural” means, i.e., mental suggestions together with empathy, spiritual connectedness. Hardly folklore.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
45
How is having absolute confidence in empiricism to detect telepathy or any other claim of phenomena dangerous?
Sorry, I didn’t word it very well.
The science claims no telepathy. This is dangerous because there is telepathy and it could mean you give away information if you don’t realize you are being mentally prompted by some idea.
I recall one occasion when I went to a fortune teller, who in the past hadn’t said anything much. One that day there had been a lot of problems at work for the last few weeks and I had been worried. I had a lot on my mind. She was able to perceive that I had some problem and she used telepathy to fish me for information. It was done precisely by mentally presenting words that prompted me.
For instance she realized that there was a man that was at the center of the problem. She presented me with words like “looks like” and being angry with this character I thought to my self, believing it was all my own thinking, “Oh he looks like an elephant, fat guy”. She then proceeded to say “Oh I can see him, yes, yes, I can see him, a bit overweight,… oh a lot overweight… fat!” That was very impressive at the time. Years later, when I found that telepathy was real and ideas presented to us, especially to fish for information, can cause us to give away information that is sensitive I realized there is DANGER.
When you offer untestable beliefs as scientific answers you will get pushback from physicists, and rightly so.
How do we scientifically test that hypothesis? If there is no possible test for your hypothesis then it isn’t scientific.
At the same time, something can be true and not be scientific. However, if you want to claim that your ideas are scientific then you need to adhere to the rules of science which would include testing your hypothesis.
Ah but, some of those physicists postulate a magical particle that has infinite speed and zero mass, and which can travel between the particles instantly so as to try and explain how the information gets from one particle to the other and thus entanglement. But I guess that’s okay because it’s all physical.
We can sure test the mind body problem and very simply in fact. We can use the real cause of an allergy, which is foul game play. I can explain this if you like, but you use a concealed threat PLUS an idea mentally presented and depending on the idea you get a result. so for instance creating an allergy or autoimmune response.
And we don’t need to use criminals Any danger that can be posed as for example a snake in an adjoining room with a remote controlled door opener. All that is needed is danger, the threat of harm, not the actual harm, in order to ignite fear.
I f the person believes the idea is their own thinking AND they are experiencing strong emotional charge at the same time, then they will appraise their emotional reactivity based on the idea AND they will react. The reaction is physiological so can be tested scientifically.
If the particle has infinite speed and zero mass then it defies the laws of physics. Even a photon, which is massless doesn’t have infinite speed. So it sounds like a magical particle. How can it be tested?
As for the second part we were talking about testing a hypothesis for the mind body problem. It can be tested because there are physiological changes that can be monitored and recorded.
Foul game play is immoral, but it has not evolved as such. Inhumane people are not a “species” that have evolved to be inhumane, as opposed to having evolved to be humane. Neither is due to evolution.
It is not that Mercury defies Newton’s Laws of Gravitation. It is that Newton’s theory came up short. It is explained by Einstein’s General Relativity. Einstein theory explain the stronger gravitational effects close to massive bodies.
I put forward a hypothesis not a theory. A hypothesis is not the result of studies and evidence as is a theory. The hypothesis will be tested and I will show you the results when it is all done. I have to find humane people in the general public to do these experiments because they won’t be done by scientists. No funder is going to fund themselves out of business.
Now the last bit. I said I can explain the concealed threat that is presented so as to coincide with the mentally presented ideas. You asked what it has to do with morality. I explained it is foul game play and immoral. However the fact of the matter is that, while inhumane people exist and play foul games, they have not evolved to do so. And this also applies to the humane people. They have not evolved to be humane.
The connection is the conscience and thus also empathy. saying that morality evolved would mean that a person’s conscience and love, because empathy is a form of love, have both evolved. If they evolved then there would be a genetic basis. There isn’t. My late, psychopathic husband had said that there are two steps that an inhumane person takes to deaden the conscience. First they hurt others until they feel nothing in doing so, feel indifference. The second step he had said is that they continue to hurt others until they get pleasure from seeing the pain and suffering of the victims.
Certainly there will be physiological effects but the fact of the matter is that it is not something physiological that happens to deaden the conscience. There has to be more than the physical for these steps to be taken at all.
Morality is dependent on:-
our spiritual nature, we are conscious beings and not simply a body (the embodiment, the garment we wear for a time).
there is connectivity between conscious beings. This we can say is the true nature of love.
the connectivity allows us to be aware of and have feelings for another life form.
These are the basic requirements for the person to have a conscience. And having a conscience will have a guiding light to act ethically, to be moral. If they act against their conscience then they will suffer guilt, a bad conscience and will want to regain a clean conscience. Hence they will acknowledge any wrong doing, have remorse and seek to make amends. None of this is genetic, hence could not have evolved.
We were created in God’s image, which means having awareness with knowledge (consciousness) and having love (spiritual connectedness). And these are the basis of morality, ethics. What garment we wear does not cause us to be moral or immoral. If it were then it would be the same as saying a car runs the red lights and cuts corners because of the make of sparkplugs or carburetor etc.
This is an “all your eggs in one basket” approach which is all but doomed. Scientists find one gene connected to conscience, love, and morality and everything you say falls to pieces. Impossible? Hardly. Already done – just google it. This is the problem with this antiquated Gnostic religion of dualism. It has been so shot full of holes by scientific research already that the slightest breath of rationality has it crumbling to dust.
To test the hypothesis I am looking for people who will be willing to take part in an experiment without full knowledge at the start for what they are signing up for. So we can mimic the foul game play and see an effect. And that will vary on the length of time that is needed. One can create an allergy inside of ten or fifteen minutes with lasting effects, enough to go to a doctor. With cancer for instance the time that the person is subjected to foul game play will be more along the lines of three or four weeks or more to get a mass large enough to be diagnosed.
So then when this is diagnosed by a doctor and confirmed, the second part of the experiment will take place for those subjects. They will become privy to the behind the scenes activities for the next group of subjects. They will thus realize that the medical problem was their reaction to ideas under certain conditions. Once they realize that, the medical problem resolves because they will no longer be reacting. Their physiology goes back to normal. Thus on their second visit to the doctor they are diagnosed with no evidence of disease.
So it can be shown that a person’s reaction to ideas, which they believe are their own and thus carrying their authority AND which they believe are true or real that are the problem. Disease is a nocebo effect. Their reaction is largely physiological thus gives rise to the problems involved, be they cancer, allergy, anxiety etc. And the benefit for the subjects is to gain full control over their health for the major diseases.
Is there a genetic basis for being inhumane?
Let’s forget those that are “born” inhumane because we would end up in arguments about genes verses actions in past incarnations that have lasting effects. Let’s rather look at the person becoming inhumane within their current lifetime. They deaden their conscience, which can be compared to say stealing. A person chooses to steal something. It is meaningless to say they have a genetic predisposition to stealing or that their genes made them steal. This is no different to taking a deliberate action to deaden their conscience. How can there be a genetic basis?
In considering the basis for morality we have to consider that empathy is a very important factor. How does that come about? If we are all simply meat robots with chemicals driving the show, then there is no way that empathy can be explained.
We have empathy because there is something that causes us to feel for another person suffering and wanting to help them. This is not simply between people that are known to each other, loved ones for instance. We see plenty of examples where a complete stranger moves to help another person overcome a danger and even risking their own life in the process. How do you figure that this can be explained?
My research sounds bonkers to you because you are convinced that we are meat robots and that disease is due to damage to or a malfunction in the machine.
There is plenty of evidence even in today’s drug trials that shows, that how a researcher/ doctor talks to the patients can have a dramatic effect. It is not uncommon to find people with the old drug in the control group displaying the side effects of the new drug. How can that happen if it is all about physiology and nothing else?
None of our experiences, intentions, action and thoughts can be explained by considering what the brain physically does. The brain only allows for a person to have physiological effects, most commonly emotions, which are complex body processes. These processes are initiated by stimuli from the brain, but they are not arbitrary. We can see that there are issues and thoughts pointing to those issues that give rise to emotions and even more so thoughts indicating a need to take some action.
So for instance the perception of danger will give rise to brain stimuli that ignite a fight or flight or freeze response in the body. This response enables the person to take some action as required. To fight or run away or even freeze in the spot. These actions are not due to brain chemistry, The very brain chemistry is ignited by what the person perceives is needed. That is they decide to run away or knock the offender’s lights out or freeze in the spot. I was walking along my corridor one night and I suddenly saw one of my house guests, a python I’ve named Estia on the floor coming in the other direction. I live in a forest and she tidies up the mice whenever they venture in and very efficiently so she is a welcomed house guest when she comes in.
I can distinctly remember thinking what do I do here? I cannot go forward any more. I was walking at a fair pace. My body stopped so dramatically I fell against the wall. The brain didn’t determine my action. My perception and thinking determined my action. My brain chemistry was in response to what I perceived was needed. I didn’t want to step on her and I didn’t want her alarmed.
The snake is in the same vein. One day I was battling to close one of my shutter style windows and I banged and banged it and cursed at it until it was closed. Then as I walked away I looked back momentarily and heard a hiss. I suddenly saw Estia above the window, on the window ledge. She would have been just inches away from my head. If she wanted to strike, she had ample chance. So even for the snake it is not simply brain chemistry that runs the show. Estia obviously didn’t want to attack me, but only saw me as an annoyance. Maybe I frightened a mouse away with all the banging.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
59
Science doesn’t claim no telepathy. It doesn’t make meaningless claims. There is no telepathy for it to claim no, just like there is no interventionist God, no supernatural healing, no ghosts, nothing that requires a non-rational explanation. Science does not have to answer any of these non-questions. Science only need answer how they arise, what is the story telling mechanism, which may help the margin of the massive majority who ask them to deconstruct and reconstruct their epistemology. Non-questions: questions that are syntactic but not semantic. They can be asked in the form of a question but bear no relation to reality, as in Lewis Carroll’s The Walrus and the Carpenter. They are meaningless. The problem is we have evolved as a story telling monkey and deconstructing those stories is still a work in progress for us all here.
Your fortune teller scientifically cold read your behaviour. Nothing more. Nothing less.
But getting the headspace to realise that there’s nothing going on but this is a big ask I realise.
Scientists have seen that relationship is vital for telepathy, but they continue to double blind. AND use non-issues like the number given by a random number generator, which has no relevance to the person perceiving. This is like asking a person to see a tiny drop of water fall somewhere around them. I have posted the diagram back in post 40 or 41 in answer to you.
So-called “cold reading” involves telepathy.
Ordinary people will eventually do the experiments and show the matter in no uncertain terms. It’s coming soon.
