This is an exercise taken from the mini-chapter "Tapping the Extradimensionality of the Soul" in Pete A. Sanders, Jr.'s You Are Psychic!, page 201. It's sort of a take on having an OBE. It's kind of wordy so I will truncate it a bit:
1. Breath slowly to relax yourself and get rid of tension.
2. Focus on your body and how it feels "from within." Ignore external stimuli.
3. Start at your feet, focusing on how they feel, then your calves, legs, etc. Leave the parts behind which you just sensed.
4. When you reach your head, watch your own mind, so to speak. What thoughts and memories are "you"?
5. Now focus your attention slightly above and behind your head. Note how you feel. Ageless? Expanseless? Able to go anywhere? This is the real you.
6. Play with it, meditate on how it feels. Then bring your awareness back to your head, and focus on your nose, your ear, your lips, anything on your head as you slowly come out of the trance by slowly moving your fingers, toes, etc.
It takes a few tries but when you get it....what a rush!
See ya.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Monday, April 29, 2013
A New Take on Libet's Experiment
I am not as big a fan of William Lane Craig as I once was, finding many problems with his theology. However, as a philosopher, I still find in his work a wealth of insight, such as this:
As I contemplated Libet’s results, it struck me forcefully, this is exactly what the dualist-interactionist would expect. The soul (or mind) does not act independently of the brain; rather, as the Nobel Prize-winning neurologist Sir John Eccles put it, the mind uses the brain as an instrument to think. So, of course, the soul’s decisions are not simultaneous with the conscious awareness of them. How could they be? Given the soul’s reliance upon the brain as an instrument of thought and the finite velocity of the transmission of neural signals, of course there is a time lag between the mind’s decisions and the awareness of them. In Libet’s experiment, since neural processes travel at finite velocities, of course it takes time for the mind’s decision to come to consciousness. This is exactly what we should expect on a dualist-interactionist view.
The German philosopher Uwe Meixner, himself a dualist-interactionist, makes precisely this point about the Libet experiments. He writes,
See ya.
As I contemplated Libet’s results, it struck me forcefully, this is exactly what the dualist-interactionist would expect. The soul (or mind) does not act independently of the brain; rather, as the Nobel Prize-winning neurologist Sir John Eccles put it, the mind uses the brain as an instrument to think. So, of course, the soul’s decisions are not simultaneous with the conscious awareness of them. How could they be? Given the soul’s reliance upon the brain as an instrument of thought and the finite velocity of the transmission of neural signals, of course there is a time lag between the mind’s decisions and the awareness of them. In Libet’s experiment, since neural processes travel at finite velocities, of course it takes time for the mind’s decision to come to consciousness. This is exactly what we should expect on a dualist-interactionist view.
The German philosopher Uwe Meixner, himself a dualist-interactionist, makes precisely this point about the Libet experiments. He writes,
For making an informed decision, the self needs to be conscious of the facts relevant to the decision prior to making the decision; but . . . the self certainly does not need to be conscious of making the decision at the very same time it makes it. . . . the consciousness of a state of affairs P being (presently) the case is always somewhat later than the actual fact of P’s being the case; it is hardly surprising that the consciousness of making a decision is no exception to this general rule, which is due to the dependence of consciousness on neurophysiology.3
See ya.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Skepticus Fascisticus
I think that's the scientific name....anyway! Here is an interesting piece which really takes an interesting look at the whole skeptical movement. The original here, the entire text copied below for your reading pleasure:
==================================================================
==================================================================
We have all encountered them. The men and women of 'reason'. The self-appointed guardians and vanguards of materialist dogma along with their absolute faith and belief in official government and corporate press releases. The debunker, the hardcore skeptic—how they love to compulsively ridicule and mock all they deem 'pseudoscience' and 'conspiracy theory'—while also declaring anyone who thinks outside the box or questions the prevailing orthodoxy, a "moron" and a "tard". Matters not how solid the evidence you present them with is, nor how flimsy their own state-sanctioned 'hard science' which they smugly offer up as their rebuttal; they are driven by a messianic compulsion to root out unscientific 'idiots' with all the zeal and fanaticism similar to that of a Dominican or Jesuit charging through southern France in the twelfth century seeking out 'heretics' for the burning. Irony does not even come into their myopic worldview—unless of course a government, corporate or university press office states this. Then it becomes an undisputed fact. Thanks to the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christoper Hitchens, these Internet-bound warriors of rationality see 'Creationists' and 'hidden Christians' around every corner and seek to root them out and expose them as part and parcel of their own peculiar secular witch hunt mentality.
The reality is that apart from their own kind—other self-proclaimed non-'idiots'—most people find such arrogant and obnoxious debunkers and hardcore skeptics to be strangely angry and boorish, and often confrontational to the point of hysterical. So many of them seem to lack basic social and behavioural skills when 'debating' with their 'kook' of choice. Their absolutism can be staggering at times. Yet, despite all this, they have somehow come to consider themselves 'cool' and even 'sexy' within the last decade. This is simply a lack of critical thinking on their behalf; a distorted worldview where only they are right and everyone else is an idiot.
However, when you strip down their whole mandate into its constituent parts, one soon finds that most of these 'scientifically' minded crusaders have no actual accredited scientific background, and the entire thrust of their endeavours remains nothing less than unconditional servitude and unquestioned devotion to authority figures and the status quo. They seek entrenched orthodoxy, not exploration and wonder. They see an open-minded individual as being akin to a brain being infected with a disease, or the mark of a witch. They act as if Creationists are a real danger to human survival, as if the US Bible Belt has extended beyond its absurd boundaries. Creationists are about as much danger to the advances made by scientists in the last two hundred years as Graneda was to Ronald Reagan back in the early 1980s.
It is only fair to point out that there are also healthy skeptics who genuinely do look at anomalies and unexplained phenomena within the natural and unseen cosmos with a cautious eye. They will at least indulge a novel or radical opinion and look at the evidence before taking a stance—often it is an arbitrary position—based on using the Scientific Method coupled with Carl Sagan's "extraordinary evidence". They are generally polite and only moderately condescending at worst.
The debunker and the hardcore skeptics, on the other hand, will even attack these open-minded Materialists, similar to how a flying saucer cult will have very public witch hunts of so-so members who have not shown their unconditional devotion to the messages sent from the 'space brothers'. The irony is that many of the open-minded skeptics that they attack often have a scientific or engineering background, and these folks are being attacked by debunkers whose sum total of their own quest for reason and logic rarely extends beyond procuring a 'Mythbusters' DVD box set or having a poster of Richard Dawkins on their wall. Any Reductionist fence-sitters will be treated with ridicule and contempt—even fascistic vitriol and vicious insults.
The reality is that apart from their own kind—other self-proclaimed non-'idiots'—most people find such arrogant and obnoxious debunkers and hardcore skeptics to be strangely angry and boorish, and often confrontational to the point of hysterical. So many of them seem to lack basic social and behavioural skills when 'debating' with their 'kook' of choice. Their absolutism can be staggering at times. Yet, despite all this, they have somehow come to consider themselves 'cool' and even 'sexy' within the last decade. This is simply a lack of critical thinking on their behalf; a distorted worldview where only they are right and everyone else is an idiot.
However, when you strip down their whole mandate into its constituent parts, one soon finds that most of these 'scientifically' minded crusaders have no actual accredited scientific background, and the entire thrust of their endeavours remains nothing less than unconditional servitude and unquestioned devotion to authority figures and the status quo. They seek entrenched orthodoxy, not exploration and wonder. They see an open-minded individual as being akin to a brain being infected with a disease, or the mark of a witch. They act as if Creationists are a real danger to human survival, as if the US Bible Belt has extended beyond its absurd boundaries. Creationists are about as much danger to the advances made by scientists in the last two hundred years as Graneda was to Ronald Reagan back in the early 1980s.
It is only fair to point out that there are also healthy skeptics who genuinely do look at anomalies and unexplained phenomena within the natural and unseen cosmos with a cautious eye. They will at least indulge a novel or radical opinion and look at the evidence before taking a stance—often it is an arbitrary position—based on using the Scientific Method coupled with Carl Sagan's "extraordinary evidence". They are generally polite and only moderately condescending at worst.
The debunker and the hardcore skeptics, on the other hand, will even attack these open-minded Materialists, similar to how a flying saucer cult will have very public witch hunts of so-so members who have not shown their unconditional devotion to the messages sent from the 'space brothers'. The irony is that many of the open-minded skeptics that they attack often have a scientific or engineering background, and these folks are being attacked by debunkers whose sum total of their own quest for reason and logic rarely extends beyond procuring a 'Mythbusters' DVD box set or having a poster of Richard Dawkins on their wall. Any Reductionist fence-sitters will be treated with ridicule and contempt—even fascistic vitriol and vicious insults.
There is simply no grey areas within the concrete consciousness of the debunker or the hardcore skeptic; instead, only a kind of scientific idealism—and idealism, both secular or otherwise, is really just a nice way of saying 'fascism'.
So what gives? How come they behave the way they do? A complete lack of social intelligence? An inability to debate, share interesting banter and listen to what another person is saying which might be at odds with their own beliefs? Surprisingly, their own beloved science might well provide the answer to these questions. It may well be an over-stimulation of the left hemisphere of their brains leading to a kind of self-induced schizophrenia whereby the right hemisphere of their brain has been switched off. Hence, why they place no value on other forms of non-lateral intelligence: noetic wisdom and intuition.
THE LEFT RIGHT BRAIN—MYTHOLOGY AND FACT
During the 1960's and well into the following two decades, a branch of pop psychology developed which began to make some very speculative assumptions about the specific roles the two hemispheres of our brain play in our cognitive awareness and functioning. The general understanding developed that the left hemisphere of the brain was essentially analytical and concerned with processes and quantitative evaluation, while the right hemisphere of the human brain was where the artists and dreamers resided. This is a very simplistic understanding; and in recent years, imaging research has shown that both hemispheres share more or less the same attributes, and both can equally process the same cognitive functionality. However, and this is crucial, there is a level of redundancy in both hemispheres.
The growing speculation for the need for two (asymmetrical) brain hemispheres is to perform two acts of awareness. The left brain is devoted to specific tasks and objectives, while the right brain acts as a kind of peripheral awareness. There has to be a kind of background seeing, as well as immediate attention to the task at hand. Think of an early human on the side of a riverbank trying to spear a salmon—the left brain would be devoted to this task. In order to maintain awareness of the environment and possible dangers therein, the right hemisphere of the human brain is 'looking' out for predators such as a saber-tooth tiger seeking an easy meal in the form of a prehistoric human who is completely concentrated on catching a fish. Hence, why the right brain is often associated with insight, intuition and noetic realisations. Which is why artists tend to have an ability to see changes in their environment and social conditions before the rest of the population. Their 'background vision' is more highly developed due to them using both hemispheres of their brain for the purpose they were intended.
The left brain, on the other hand, has been shown to be highly narcissistic and with an inflated sense of its own worth and status. The left hemisphere sees no problem with itself, and this has been shown in stroke patients who lost the use of the right hemisphere of their brain. Operating in left-brain mode only, they assumed they were perfectly fine until they attempted to get out of bed only to discover they were paralysed on one side.
So what gives? How come they behave the way they do? A complete lack of social intelligence? An inability to debate, share interesting banter and listen to what another person is saying which might be at odds with their own beliefs? Surprisingly, their own beloved science might well provide the answer to these questions. It may well be an over-stimulation of the left hemisphere of their brains leading to a kind of self-induced schizophrenia whereby the right hemisphere of their brain has been switched off. Hence, why they place no value on other forms of non-lateral intelligence: noetic wisdom and intuition.
THE LEFT RIGHT BRAIN—MYTHOLOGY AND FACT
During the 1960's and well into the following two decades, a branch of pop psychology developed which began to make some very speculative assumptions about the specific roles the two hemispheres of our brain play in our cognitive awareness and functioning. The general understanding developed that the left hemisphere of the brain was essentially analytical and concerned with processes and quantitative evaluation, while the right hemisphere of the human brain was where the artists and dreamers resided. This is a very simplistic understanding; and in recent years, imaging research has shown that both hemispheres share more or less the same attributes, and both can equally process the same cognitive functionality. However, and this is crucial, there is a level of redundancy in both hemispheres.
The growing speculation for the need for two (asymmetrical) brain hemispheres is to perform two acts of awareness. The left brain is devoted to specific tasks and objectives, while the right brain acts as a kind of peripheral awareness. There has to be a kind of background seeing, as well as immediate attention to the task at hand. Think of an early human on the side of a riverbank trying to spear a salmon—the left brain would be devoted to this task. In order to maintain awareness of the environment and possible dangers therein, the right hemisphere of the human brain is 'looking' out for predators such as a saber-tooth tiger seeking an easy meal in the form of a prehistoric human who is completely concentrated on catching a fish. Hence, why the right brain is often associated with insight, intuition and noetic realisations. Which is why artists tend to have an ability to see changes in their environment and social conditions before the rest of the population. Their 'background vision' is more highly developed due to them using both hemispheres of their brain for the purpose they were intended.
The left brain, on the other hand, has been shown to be highly narcissistic and with an inflated sense of its own worth and status. The left hemisphere sees no problem with itself, and this has been shown in stroke patients who lost the use of the right hemisphere of their brain. Operating in left-brain mode only, they assumed they were perfectly fine until they attempted to get out of bed only to discover they were paralysed on one side.
Between the left and right hemispheres of the human brain is the corpus callosum, which is a thin membrane of nerve fibers which separates the two halves and has now been shown that rather than being a communicative link between the two brain halves, it acts more like a buffer, with the left brain in Western people having a desire to literally switch off the neural activity in the right hemisphere. This is one meme which Betty Edwards was correct about in her book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain—the left hemisphere is a bully. In overly logical and analytical individuals, fMRI scans have shown the left brain actually inhibits the right brain—via the corpus callosum nerve fibers—from offering its contribution to the entire cognitive process. This state of right hemisphere nullification is where the debunker and the hardcore skeptics are trapped and can never leave—in their intolerant and highly narcissistic left hemisphere—using the two percent of neural wiring into their right hemisphere in order to shut it off. Ordering the right hemisphere to cease activity while the left side of the brain saves the world from 'morons' who dare question official government press releases or the mandates from any authority figure or bureaucratic institutions.
Along with this, their intuition and 'background awareness' are likewise diminished. Can you see where this is going? For all their obsession with brain functionality and brain size, as well as their entrenched (and completely unproven) notion that all human consciousness resides in the brain, the debunkers and hardcore skeptics are only using one half of their brain.
EVOLUTION AND THE CORPUS CALLOSUM
Despite what one would assume, the further we get from our hunter-gatherer ancestors, the thickness of the corpus callosum has actually increased. Pushing both halves of the human brain further apart rather than removing it. This presents Darwinists with a problem; as we move further away from the dangers of the natural world, there should be an on-going lateralisation and symmetry of the two brain hemispheres. Another problem is presented here; in that it has now been shown that people of higher intelligence and IQ are much easier to hypnotise and mind control than more creative individuals, and even people with lower IQs are less likely to be mesmerised than formally educated persons with advanced degrees. This would go a long way to explaining why the most absurd flying saucer cults are populated with PhDs and other highly qualified people waiting for the 'space brothers' to arrive. The over-dependence upon and submission to the left hemisphere of the brain leads to just as much delusion and risk of being deceived as the flighty and poetic over-stimulated right hemisphere.
A COGNITIVE AWARENESS STRANGLED BY STATISTICAL INFORMATION AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS
All the great scientific discoveries were 'eureka' moments. They were not developed in the labs by white coats working for corporations and foundations. Scientific discovery was not gained by piling sequential 'certainties' upon previous 'certainties'. They were intuitive insights which were validated through the Scientific Method of measurement and constant re-testing. The Western system of education has created a kind of trial separation between the left and right hemispheres of the human brain. Therefore, similar to a stroke patient who is not aware that one side of his or her body is paralysed until they attempt to get out of bed, the deeply entranced hyperactive left brain debunker and hardcore skeptic is simply unable to grasp how the rest of us see the world and experience life. Unable to see the wood from the trees, they do not comprehend intuition and noetic insights. They are cognitively blinded to these experiences and the rest of us trying to explain to them how some official announcement or world event—does not "feel right"—is a human experience that they are completely unaware of. This is why you cannot explain an alternative viewpoint of view to them. Humans need both sides of their brain working in tandem in order for their consciousness to synthesise a more complete and richer understanding of the world as well as human and social dynamics.
THE JOURNEY INTO ORTHODOXY MADNESS
This can be seen as a kind of self-induced schizophrenia, resulting from over-hyperactivity in the left hemisphere of the brain. There is too much information being processed, and the intense devotion to the analytical leads to a kind of overload in the 'here and now' dominant cognitive rationalisation based on statistical data, while neglecting the right hemisphere of the brain and the 'background awareness'.
Much of this has to do with how our minds process ideas and concepts through visual thought forms, and how this is then expressed in language and the written word. By neglecting the right hemisphere, extreme stress is then placed on the left hemisphere, and the results can be catastrophic. Philo Farnsworth, the Utah farm boy who invented the modern television system and then went on to develop over 150 patents in television and broadcast technology, ended up drinking himself to death due to—according to his family—being unable to shut his mind down and live a normal life. His initial discovery was a result of a 'eureka' moment, when as a teen, he observed how the plough lines behind his tractor represented the ideal method for transmitting images by radio waves; however, his obsession with formulae and endless analytical pursuits literally blew his mind. Farnsworth is not unique in this respect.
When one becomes completely entrenched within the left brain and obsessed with an exclusively analytical lifestyle (which then becomes a belief package to be defended), there is a loss of cognitive functioning and behavioural control. This explains why there is so much anger and hostility among debunkers and hardcore skeptics. The bullying aspect of their narcissistic left brain creates a superiority complex, in that they come to believe they know all and see all, when in reality, they are running half-empty with one aspect of their human experience essentially missing. This part of the human experience where intuition, hunches, insight and social intelligence of the most subtle and intricate forms are a complete mystery to them. To the skeptical debunker, things—'either are or they are not'—there is no grey area, as they are ironically not fully utilising their own grey matter to its full potential.
Stress is then incurred upon their left hemisphere cognitive functioning and behavioural deficiencies result. They are not calling people 'morons' and 'retards' as a general insult or standard Internet 'courage'—the debunkers and hardcore skeptics are deeply frustrated and near hysterical to the point where they see anyone who is open-minded and willing to indulge the mysterious as being akin to an alien life form. They simply cannot relate to the rest of us. We are 'irrational', 'lacking reason' 'lost in woo'. Their experience of being human and how they describe it through crude metaphors whereby 'we are just DNA robots' and there is nothing else going on—is not how the rest of us experience our lives. We know there is much more to the human experience than these left-brained internees of the hardcore skeptic and debunker faction assume. Much, much more.
So the next time you find yourself confronted with a hardcore skeptic or debunker, do not even bother to try and make your argument or present your point of view to them, as you are throwing 100% of a human experience in 50% of a self-repressed cognitive understanding. It's not their fault they are the way they are. They are victims of an educational system which began in Prussia in the eighteenth century and which has led humanity into one scientific genocide and meat grinder after the next.
Along with this, their intuition and 'background awareness' are likewise diminished. Can you see where this is going? For all their obsession with brain functionality and brain size, as well as their entrenched (and completely unproven) notion that all human consciousness resides in the brain, the debunkers and hardcore skeptics are only using one half of their brain.
EVOLUTION AND THE CORPUS CALLOSUM
Despite what one would assume, the further we get from our hunter-gatherer ancestors, the thickness of the corpus callosum has actually increased. Pushing both halves of the human brain further apart rather than removing it. This presents Darwinists with a problem; as we move further away from the dangers of the natural world, there should be an on-going lateralisation and symmetry of the two brain hemispheres. Another problem is presented here; in that it has now been shown that people of higher intelligence and IQ are much easier to hypnotise and mind control than more creative individuals, and even people with lower IQs are less likely to be mesmerised than formally educated persons with advanced degrees. This would go a long way to explaining why the most absurd flying saucer cults are populated with PhDs and other highly qualified people waiting for the 'space brothers' to arrive. The over-dependence upon and submission to the left hemisphere of the brain leads to just as much delusion and risk of being deceived as the flighty and poetic over-stimulated right hemisphere.
A COGNITIVE AWARENESS STRANGLED BY STATISTICAL INFORMATION AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS
All the great scientific discoveries were 'eureka' moments. They were not developed in the labs by white coats working for corporations and foundations. Scientific discovery was not gained by piling sequential 'certainties' upon previous 'certainties'. They were intuitive insights which were validated through the Scientific Method of measurement and constant re-testing. The Western system of education has created a kind of trial separation between the left and right hemispheres of the human brain. Therefore, similar to a stroke patient who is not aware that one side of his or her body is paralysed until they attempt to get out of bed, the deeply entranced hyperactive left brain debunker and hardcore skeptic is simply unable to grasp how the rest of us see the world and experience life. Unable to see the wood from the trees, they do not comprehend intuition and noetic insights. They are cognitively blinded to these experiences and the rest of us trying to explain to them how some official announcement or world event—does not "feel right"—is a human experience that they are completely unaware of. This is why you cannot explain an alternative viewpoint of view to them. Humans need both sides of their brain working in tandem in order for their consciousness to synthesise a more complete and richer understanding of the world as well as human and social dynamics.
THE JOURNEY INTO ORTHODOXY MADNESS
This can be seen as a kind of self-induced schizophrenia, resulting from over-hyperactivity in the left hemisphere of the brain. There is too much information being processed, and the intense devotion to the analytical leads to a kind of overload in the 'here and now' dominant cognitive rationalisation based on statistical data, while neglecting the right hemisphere of the brain and the 'background awareness'.
Much of this has to do with how our minds process ideas and concepts through visual thought forms, and how this is then expressed in language and the written word. By neglecting the right hemisphere, extreme stress is then placed on the left hemisphere, and the results can be catastrophic. Philo Farnsworth, the Utah farm boy who invented the modern television system and then went on to develop over 150 patents in television and broadcast technology, ended up drinking himself to death due to—according to his family—being unable to shut his mind down and live a normal life. His initial discovery was a result of a 'eureka' moment, when as a teen, he observed how the plough lines behind his tractor represented the ideal method for transmitting images by radio waves; however, his obsession with formulae and endless analytical pursuits literally blew his mind. Farnsworth is not unique in this respect.
When one becomes completely entrenched within the left brain and obsessed with an exclusively analytical lifestyle (which then becomes a belief package to be defended), there is a loss of cognitive functioning and behavioural control. This explains why there is so much anger and hostility among debunkers and hardcore skeptics. The bullying aspect of their narcissistic left brain creates a superiority complex, in that they come to believe they know all and see all, when in reality, they are running half-empty with one aspect of their human experience essentially missing. This part of the human experience where intuition, hunches, insight and social intelligence of the most subtle and intricate forms are a complete mystery to them. To the skeptical debunker, things—'either are or they are not'—there is no grey area, as they are ironically not fully utilising their own grey matter to its full potential.
Stress is then incurred upon their left hemisphere cognitive functioning and behavioural deficiencies result. They are not calling people 'morons' and 'retards' as a general insult or standard Internet 'courage'—the debunkers and hardcore skeptics are deeply frustrated and near hysterical to the point where they see anyone who is open-minded and willing to indulge the mysterious as being akin to an alien life form. They simply cannot relate to the rest of us. We are 'irrational', 'lacking reason' 'lost in woo'. Their experience of being human and how they describe it through crude metaphors whereby 'we are just DNA robots' and there is nothing else going on—is not how the rest of us experience our lives. We know there is much more to the human experience than these left-brained internees of the hardcore skeptic and debunker faction assume. Much, much more.
So the next time you find yourself confronted with a hardcore skeptic or debunker, do not even bother to try and make your argument or present your point of view to them, as you are throwing 100% of a human experience in 50% of a self-repressed cognitive understanding. It's not their fault they are the way they are. They are victims of an educational system which began in Prussia in the eighteenth century and which has led humanity into one scientific genocide and meat grinder after the next.
Use your intuition and ignore them. You do not need their validation and approval, as they are only interested in what the men in the white coats tell them that which is a 'fact'. Be polite and continue to follow your own field of study and knowledge path, and then see where it leads you. This may lead you nowhere, but so what. The journey is often more important than the destination. Your life will be more rewarding, creative and enriching for allowing your right brain to take part in the imagination of yourself within this five-sense reality we call human existence.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Julie Beischel needs your help
Copied from this post from Michael Prescott:
=================================================================
Hello,
This may be the most important email I have ever sent you.
Regardless of what you think about mediumship, the reality is that each day grieving people seek out mediums in order to receive messages from their loved ones who have passed. Anecdotal data suggests that these messages can have profound healing effects on the grieving, but before we can say that for sure, we need more data.
Using my training in drug trial methodology (my PhD is in pharmacology and toxicology), I designed a randomized clinical trial to test the effects of a personal mediumship reading on grief. We are calling it the Bereavement and Mediumship (or BAM) Study, because that's how it can feel when you lose a loved one:
BAM... your life will never be the same.
Although the BAM Study protocol has received endorsements from researchers, clinical psychologists, and grief therapists, we have been unable to secure the needed funds from traditional funding organizations in order to perform the study.
So, we are going to try something new - crowdfunding. http://www.gofundme.com/ bamstudy That is, instead of relying on a single large agency to fund the study, we are taking it to the people, hoping that many smaller contributions from passionate and interested individuals can equal the funds needed to make this study happen.
Our goal is raise $35,000 by May 1, 2013. It's an ambitious goal, but we need to try.
We are using the crowd funding platform GoFundMe.com to manage the campaign. http://www.gofundme.com/bamstudy
Funds will be used to support the efforts of three researchers to: develop consenting and training materials; consent, screen, and train participants; develop an on-line database; administer the grief instrument; collect and analyze data; write a journal article describing the results of the study; shepherd the article through the peer-review and publication process; and produce additional educational materials for clinicians, mediums, and the general public.
If we make the May 1st goal, we will be able to start the study in early June and complete it by late 2014. If we don't make the May 1st goal, we will use the collected funds to complete as many study tasks as we can, and continue to raise funds in order to conduct the full study.
For those of you who have already experienced the healing effects of a mediumship reading, putting effort into studying this may seem like a waste of time. I assure you that it is not. In our culture, science serves as an authority and only by using the tools of science can we truly affect change and potentially make this a treatment option available to everyone suffering from a loss.
The BAM Study is at the very core of why I started this work and why I co-founded the Windbridge Institute. I want to conduct research that truly helps people.
Every week, I receive emails from people asking how they can become involved and support our work. Well, this is it. We can't complete this study without you. If you can contribute some funds, that's great; if you can't, just help us spread the word: forward this message; post information about the BAM Study on your social media sites; if you blog, blog about it; send emails to your friends; mention it over lunch; etc. Anything and everything helps.
Go to http://www.gofundme.com/bamstudy to contribute to the BAM Study now.
If you need more information about the study, including expert testimonials, a short video of me, and a list of unique incentives for contributors, please visit www.AfterlifeScience.com.
Together we can make this happen.
Thank you.
Julie
=================================================================
Hello,
This may be the most important email I have ever sent you.
Regardless of what you think about mediumship, the reality is that each day grieving people seek out mediums in order to receive messages from their loved ones who have passed. Anecdotal data suggests that these messages can have profound healing effects on the grieving, but before we can say that for sure, we need more data.
Using my training in drug trial methodology (my PhD is in pharmacology and toxicology), I designed a randomized clinical trial to test the effects of a personal mediumship reading on grief. We are calling it the Bereavement and Mediumship (or BAM) Study, because that's how it can feel when you lose a loved one:
BAM... your life will never be the same.
Although the BAM Study protocol has received endorsements from researchers, clinical psychologists, and grief therapists, we have been unable to secure the needed funds from traditional funding organizations in order to perform the study.
So, we are going to try something new - crowdfunding. http://www.gofundme.com/ bamstudy That is, instead of relying on a single large agency to fund the study, we are taking it to the people, hoping that many smaller contributions from passionate and interested individuals can equal the funds needed to make this study happen.
Our goal is raise $35,000 by May 1, 2013. It's an ambitious goal, but we need to try.
We are using the crowd funding platform GoFundMe.com to manage the campaign. http://www.gofundme.com/bamstudy
Funds will be used to support the efforts of three researchers to: develop consenting and training materials; consent, screen, and train participants; develop an on-line database; administer the grief instrument; collect and analyze data; write a journal article describing the results of the study; shepherd the article through the peer-review and publication process; and produce additional educational materials for clinicians, mediums, and the general public.
If we make the May 1st goal, we will be able to start the study in early June and complete it by late 2014. If we don't make the May 1st goal, we will use the collected funds to complete as many study tasks as we can, and continue to raise funds in order to conduct the full study.
For those of you who have already experienced the healing effects of a mediumship reading, putting effort into studying this may seem like a waste of time. I assure you that it is not. In our culture, science serves as an authority and only by using the tools of science can we truly affect change and potentially make this a treatment option available to everyone suffering from a loss.
The BAM Study is at the very core of why I started this work and why I co-founded the Windbridge Institute. I want to conduct research that truly helps people.
Every week, I receive emails from people asking how they can become involved and support our work. Well, this is it. We can't complete this study without you. If you can contribute some funds, that's great; if you can't, just help us spread the word: forward this message; post information about the BAM Study on your social media sites; if you blog, blog about it; send emails to your friends; mention it over lunch; etc. Anything and everything helps.
Go to http://www.gofundme.com/bamstudy to contribute to the BAM Study now.
If you need more information about the study, including expert testimonials, a short video of me, and a list of unique incentives for contributors, please visit www.AfterlifeScience.com.
Together we can make this happen.
Thank you.
Julie
Monday, April 8, 2013
Synchronicity and Vibration
Similarity in vibration has also been used to explain the phenomenon of synchronicity -- "coincidences" of seemingly unrelated events that share a common meaning... [A] well-known illustration of this phenomenon was described by psychiatrist Carl Jung, the originator of the notion of synchronicity [10]. One of Jung's patients was recounting her dream about a golden scarab beetle when he heard a rapping on the window. When he opened it, a rose chafer beetle -- the insect most similar to a scarab in Jung's region -- flew into the room. Jung quickly put two and two together. He realized that the mythological meaning of the scarab -- an ancient Egyptian symbol for rebirth -- was highly pertinent to his patient's problems. And this was also the reason why the insect had appeared in waking life.
The phenomenon of synchronicity demonstrates a key point -- the universe may not be operating like a cold, meaningless machine after all. Instead, the reality we experience each day may be flooded with fields of meaning. One field might embody the horror and violence of 9/11. Another field might be associated with a hope for rebirth. Each field of meaning has a particular vibration to it, and objects, individuals, emotions, dreams, and events with similar vibrations will tend to resonate with one another and then co-occur. This is what creates synchronicities. In fact, various theories of quantum physics require the existence of synchronicities [11]...
(Source)
The phenomenon of synchronicity demonstrates a key point -- the universe may not be operating like a cold, meaningless machine after all. Instead, the reality we experience each day may be flooded with fields of meaning. One field might embody the horror and violence of 9/11. Another field might be associated with a hope for rebirth. Each field of meaning has a particular vibration to it, and objects, individuals, emotions, dreams, and events with similar vibrations will tend to resonate with one another and then co-occur. This is what creates synchronicities. In fact, various theories of quantum physics require the existence of synchronicities [11]...
(Source)
Sunday, April 7, 2013
TheAmazingAtheist makes himself look like an Ass on Television
This video has been viciously thumbed down and the comments section filled with dim-witted vitriol so I thought I would put it here.
*Facepalm*
*Facepalm*
TheCartesianTheist spanks BionicDance
Philosophy is hard. Really hard. I've read quite a bit of it, and still consider myself a philosophical lightweight to stay humble. Therefore, it's not unexpected that some people will have a hard time or struggle with it the way others may struggle with math or spelling, for example. Nothing to be ashamed of. The problem is, many (the majority?) of Youtube atheists like the above BionicDance are really philosophically lightweight, yet they go on and on using big words like 'ontology' and 'epistemology' thinking that makes them Immanuel Kant or Saul Kripke. When they are corrected, they simply ignore the correction and, usually, go on a mean-spirited tirade. These are two of the biggest reasons why so many people can't take them seriously. BionicDance is well known for for these unflattering attributes, and here TheCartesianTheist goes in for the philosophical kill. Enjoy.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Psychologists and Obsolete Metaphysics
Does psi conflict with science? The answer is no. Telepathy, Mediumship, and other forms of anomalous cognition conflict with materialism, not with science per se. In fact polls suggest that scientists, by and large, are open to and curious about these phenomena....that is, of course, unless he or she is a psychologist .
To put it into context, only 3% of natural scientists believe ESP to be impossible whereas 34% of psychologists hold the opposite view. Interestingly enough, many of the most vocal skeptics such as Richard Wiseman, Chris French, Ray Hyman, et al. are psychologists. Obviously, that's not to say that onlypsychologists dismiss ESP as hokum--just think of biologist Richard Dawkins for that matter--but, at the risk of confusing correlation with causation, one must take note of the statistics and venture to say that theredoes appear to be something noteworthy going on among psychologists.
It's fashionable to invoke quantum mechanics to buttress all kinds of theories and, granted, sometimes it seems like it's gone a bit overboard, but in all seriousness there is nothing in quantum mechanics which precludes the possibility of psi. Now, the existence of psi has been scientifically proven, but for the moment imagine that it is still a legitimately moot point. The possibility that it exists is still there, given the discoveries in physics which actually disprove hard materialism, but many psychologists and skeptics in general simply flat out assert that there is no possibility whatsoever. In other words, Adherence to outmoded metaphysics is far more prevalent among psychologists than physicists.
Indeed, obdurate adherence to Newtonian Mechanics and behaviorist psychology, fueled by scientism, is a large stumbling block here. In 21st century science, this is simply unacceptable and motivated more by ideology than evidence.
To put it into context, only 3% of natural scientists believe ESP to be impossible whereas 34% of psychologists hold the opposite view. Interestingly enough, many of the most vocal skeptics such as Richard Wiseman, Chris French, Ray Hyman, et al. are psychologists. Obviously, that's not to say that onlypsychologists dismiss ESP as hokum--just think of biologist Richard Dawkins for that matter--but, at the risk of confusing correlation with causation, one must take note of the statistics and venture to say that theredoes appear to be something noteworthy going on among psychologists.
It's fashionable to invoke quantum mechanics to buttress all kinds of theories and, granted, sometimes it seems like it's gone a bit overboard, but in all seriousness there is nothing in quantum mechanics which precludes the possibility of psi. Now, the existence of psi has been scientifically proven, but for the moment imagine that it is still a legitimately moot point. The possibility that it exists is still there, given the discoveries in physics which actually disprove hard materialism, but many psychologists and skeptics in general simply flat out assert that there is no possibility whatsoever. In other words, Adherence to outmoded metaphysics is far more prevalent among psychologists than physicists.
Indeed, obdurate adherence to Newtonian Mechanics and behaviorist psychology, fueled by scientism, is a large stumbling block here. In 21st century science, this is simply unacceptable and motivated more by ideology than evidence.
After God...
An excerpt from this interesting essay. Not entirely sure how I feel about it yet but it is food for thought:
When religious belief began to fracture in Europe in the early 19th century, the hope was that culture could replace religion as a tool to guide, humanise and console.
Claims that culture could stand in for scripture – that Middlemarch could take up the responsibilities previously handled by the Psalms, or the essays of Schopenhauer satisfy needs once catered to by Saint Augustine’s City of God – still have a way of sounding eccentric or insane in their combination of impiety and ambition.
Nevertheless, the proposition is not so much absurd as it is unfamiliar. The very qualities that the religious locate in their holy texts can often just as well be discovered in works of culture. Novels and historical narratives can adeptly impart moral instruction and edification. Great paintings do make suggestions about our requirements for happiness. Philosophy can usefully probe our anxieties and offer consolation. Literature can change our lives. Equivalents to the ethical lessons of religion lie scattered across the cultural canon.
So, why does the notion of replacing religion with culture, of living according to the lessons of literature and art as believers live according to the lessons of faith, continue to sound so peculiar to us? The fault lies with academia. Universities are entirely uninterested in training students to use culture as a repertoire of wisdom – a source that can prove of solace to us when confronted by the infinite challenges of existence, from a tyrannical employer to a fatal lesion on our liver.
We are by no means lacking in material that we might call into service to replace the holy texts; we are simply treating the material in a non-instrumental way. In other words, we are unwilling to consider secular culture religiously enough, in this sense, as a source of guidance.
When religious belief began to fracture in Europe in the early 19th century, the hope was that culture could replace religion as a tool to guide, humanise and console.
Claims that culture could stand in for scripture – that Middlemarch could take up the responsibilities previously handled by the Psalms, or the essays of Schopenhauer satisfy needs once catered to by Saint Augustine’s City of God – still have a way of sounding eccentric or insane in their combination of impiety and ambition.
Nevertheless, the proposition is not so much absurd as it is unfamiliar. The very qualities that the religious locate in their holy texts can often just as well be discovered in works of culture. Novels and historical narratives can adeptly impart moral instruction and edification. Great paintings do make suggestions about our requirements for happiness. Philosophy can usefully probe our anxieties and offer consolation. Literature can change our lives. Equivalents to the ethical lessons of religion lie scattered across the cultural canon.
So, why does the notion of replacing religion with culture, of living according to the lessons of literature and art as believers live according to the lessons of faith, continue to sound so peculiar to us? The fault lies with academia. Universities are entirely uninterested in training students to use culture as a repertoire of wisdom – a source that can prove of solace to us when confronted by the infinite challenges of existence, from a tyrannical employer to a fatal lesion on our liver.
We are by no means lacking in material that we might call into service to replace the holy texts; we are simply treating the material in a non-instrumental way. In other words, we are unwilling to consider secular culture religiously enough, in this sense, as a source of guidance.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock Censored by TED Talks
By now it is rather common knowledge that Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's TED talk has been removed after much whining by intellectually feeble skeptics. Much less discussed, it seems, is that Graham Hancock had his talk censored as well. Of course, everyone knows that the hallmark of free-thinking is censoring others, right? Education and science and blah blah blah for the win!
John Searle and the Homunculus Fallacy
Here is an interesting argument brought to you by John Searle:
- On the standard textbook definition, computation is defined syntactically in terms of symbol manipulation.
- But syntax and symbols are not defined in terms of physics. Though symbol tokens are always physical tokens, "symbol" and "same symbol" are not defined in terms of physical features. Syntax, in short, is not intrinsic to physics.
- This has the consequence that computation is not discovered in the physics, it is assigned to it. Certain physical phenomena are assigned or used or programmed or interpreted syntactically. Syntax and symbols are observer relative.
- It follows that you could not discover that the brain or anything else was intrinsically a digital computer, although you could assign a computational interpretation to it as you could to anything else. The point is not that the claim "The brain is a digital computer" is false. Rather it does not get up to the level of falsehood. It does not have a clear sense. You will have misunderstood my account if you think that I am arguing that it is simply false that the brain is a digital computer. The question "Is the brain a digital computer?" is as ill defined as the questions "Is it an abacus?", "Is it a book?", or "Is it a set of symbols?", "Is it a set of mathematical formulae?"
- Some physical systems facilitate the computational use much better than others. That is why we build, program, and use them. In such cases we are the homunculus in the system interpreting the physics in both syntactical and semantic terms.
- But the causal explanations we then give do not cite causal properties different from the physics of the implementation and the intentionality of the homunculus.
- The standard, though tacit, way out of this is to commit the homunculus fallacy. The humunculus fallacy is endemic to computational models of cognition and cannot be removed by the standard recursive decomposition arguments. They are addressed to a different question.
- We cannot avoid the foregoing results by supposing that the brain is doing "information processing". The brain, as far as its intrinsic operations are concerned, does no information processing. It is a specific biological organ and its specific neurobiological processes cause specific forms of intentionality. In the brain, intrinsically, there are neurobiological processes and sometimes they cause consciousness. But that is the end of the story.
The Scientism of Martin Heidegger
I've noticed that people who rally behind the work of Heidegger usually don't understand his position, which isn't surprising given the fact that he hid his rather cliched insights in a sea of impenetrable verbiage. The corollaries of his thought, however, are not at all pleasant, as this paper makes clear:
I will start with a classic question: can the idea that we have of the human person, which is to say of ourselves, survive the forward march of scientific discovery? It is a commonplace that from Copernicus to molecular biology, and from Marx to Freud along the way, we have had steadily to abandon our proud view of ourselves as occupying a special place in the universe, and to admit that we are at the mercy of determinisms that leave little room for what we have been accustomed to consider our freedom and our reason. Is not cognitive science now in the process of completing this process of disillusionment and demystification by showing us that just where we believe we sense the workings of a mind, there is only the firing of neural networks, no different in principle than an ordinary electric circuit? The task in which I have joined with many others, faced with reductive interpretations of scientific advance of this sort, has been to defend the values proper to the human person, or, to put it more bluntly, to defend humanism against the excesses of science and technology.
Heidegger completely inverted this way of posing the problem. For him it was no longer a question of defending humanism but rather of indicting it. As for science and technology, or rather "technoscience" (an expression meant to signify that science is subordinated to the practical ambition of achieving mastery over the world through technology), far from threatening human values, they are on Heidegger's view the most striking manifestation of them. This dual reversal is so remarkable that it deserves to be considered in some detail, even - or above all - in a reflection on the place of cybernetics in the history of ideas, for it is precisely cybernetics that found itself to be the principal object of Heidegger's attack. In those places where Heideggerian thought has been influential, it became impossible to defend human values against the claims of science . This was particularly true in France, where structuralism - and then poststructuralism - reigned supreme over the intellectual landscape for several decades before taking refuge in the literature departments of American universities. Anchored in the thought of the three great Germanic "masters of suspicion" - Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud - against a common background of Heideggerianism, the human sciences à la française made antihumanism their watchword,loudly celebrating exactly what humanists dread: the death of man. This unfortunate creature, or rather a certain image that man created of himself, was reproached for being "metaphysical." With Heidegger, "metaphysics" acquired a new and quite special sense, opposite to its usual meaning. For positivists ever since Comte, the progress of science had been seen as forcing the retreat of metaphysics; for Heidegger, by contrast, technoscience
represented the culmination of metaphysics. And the height of metaphysics was nothing other than cybernetics. [Emphasis added]
And later:
Let us for the sake of argument grant the justice of Heidegger's position. At once an additional enigma presents itself. If for him cybernetics really represented the apotheosis of metaphysical humanism, how are we to explain the fact that the human sciences in France, whose postwar development I have just said can be understood only against the background of Heidegger's philosophy, availed themselves of the conceptual toolkit of cybernetics in order to deconstruct the metaphysics of subjectivity? How is it that these sciences, in their utter determination to put man as subject to death, each seeking to outdo the other's radicalism, should have found in cybernetics the weapons for their assaults?
It's a great read, and I recommend all Heidegger enthusiasts read it and learn from it. I know I learned a few things myself.
I will start with a classic question: can the idea that we have of the human person, which is to say of ourselves, survive the forward march of scientific discovery? It is a commonplace that from Copernicus to molecular biology, and from Marx to Freud along the way, we have had steadily to abandon our proud view of ourselves as occupying a special place in the universe, and to admit that we are at the mercy of determinisms that leave little room for what we have been accustomed to consider our freedom and our reason. Is not cognitive science now in the process of completing this process of disillusionment and demystification by showing us that just where we believe we sense the workings of a mind, there is only the firing of neural networks, no different in principle than an ordinary electric circuit? The task in which I have joined with many others, faced with reductive interpretations of scientific advance of this sort, has been to defend the values proper to the human person, or, to put it more bluntly, to defend humanism against the excesses of science and technology.
Heidegger completely inverted this way of posing the problem. For him it was no longer a question of defending humanism but rather of indicting it. As for science and technology, or rather "technoscience" (an expression meant to signify that science is subordinated to the practical ambition of achieving mastery over the world through technology), far from threatening human values, they are on Heidegger's view the most striking manifestation of them. This dual reversal is so remarkable that it deserves to be considered in some detail, even - or above all - in a reflection on the place of cybernetics in the history of ideas, for it is precisely cybernetics that found itself to be the principal object of Heidegger's attack. In those places where Heideggerian thought has been influential, it became impossible to defend human values against the claims of science . This was particularly true in France, where structuralism - and then poststructuralism - reigned supreme over the intellectual landscape for several decades before taking refuge in the literature departments of American universities. Anchored in the thought of the three great Germanic "masters of suspicion" - Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud - against a common background of Heideggerianism, the human sciences à la française made antihumanism their watchword,loudly celebrating exactly what humanists dread: the death of man. This unfortunate creature, or rather a certain image that man created of himself, was reproached for being "metaphysical." With Heidegger, "metaphysics" acquired a new and quite special sense, opposite to its usual meaning. For positivists ever since Comte, the progress of science had been seen as forcing the retreat of metaphysics; for Heidegger, by contrast, technoscience
represented the culmination of metaphysics. And the height of metaphysics was nothing other than cybernetics. [Emphasis added]
And later:
Let us for the sake of argument grant the justice of Heidegger's position. At once an additional enigma presents itself. If for him cybernetics really represented the apotheosis of metaphysical humanism, how are we to explain the fact that the human sciences in France, whose postwar development I have just said can be understood only against the background of Heidegger's philosophy, availed themselves of the conceptual toolkit of cybernetics in order to deconstruct the metaphysics of subjectivity? How is it that these sciences, in their utter determination to put man as subject to death, each seeking to outdo the other's radicalism, should have found in cybernetics the weapons for their assaults?
It's a great read, and I recommend all Heidegger enthusiasts read it and learn from it. I know I learned a few things myself.
Mantras and Cognitive Satiation
Dr. Tart makes the connection for us :
When I was about 8 years old, I personally discovered what I later learned in graduate school was called "cognitive satiation."
My mother sent me to the store to buy a couple of items, a quart of milk and a loaf of rye bread. She admonished me not to forget what I was supposed to get, as I had bought the wrong things at the store in the past. So all the way to the store I kept saying to myself (I think it was aloud, but in a soft voice), "Quart of milk, loaf of rye bread, quart of milk, loaf of rye bread………quart of milk, loaf of rye bread….." over and over and over.
I got to the store and asked for those things, but was amazed as I realized that I no longer had the slightest idea what a quart of milk or a loaf of rye bread was!
Cognitive satiation. Lots and lots of fast repetition of words or phrases and after a while your mind is scrambled as to what the words or phrases mean. The meaning comes back after a while, luckily.
I read years later that one person seeking mystical experience (it may have been P. D. Ouspensky) did this with repeating his own name, over and over, until he no longer understood who or what he was….. A quick way to "ego loss?" ;-)
Now I understand cognitive satiation as a way of destabilizing your ordinary state of consciousness. My systems approach (see my States of Consciousness book for those interested in altered state induction) describes the induction of altered states, beginning with destabilizing your baseline state. In general you do things that destabilize your ordinary state and, after it has broken down, other practices shape the kind of altered state that will likely result.
So where are you likely to end up if you try satiating some word or phrase, your own name, e.g., by rapid and prolonged repetition of it? I would predict that mostly depends on your intentions and previous experiences. If you conceive of this as prayer or meditation, I think the chances are good you may experience some contact with Spirit. It probably helps if you believe the word or phrase you are repeating has special spiritual power or connotations, and is a classical mantra or Western prayer word or phrase. If you think of this as just a psychological curiosity though, you'll probably get some interesting moments of confusion, nothing spiritual about it at all…..Or just an interesting take on how your mind can temporarily blank out…..
The most popular method of mantra recitation is to do it at a rather brisk speed as is mentioned above, but repeating them slowly and fully articulating each syllable (each syllable in Sanskrit mantras in particular has a meaning in and of itself), meditating on each repetition and the sound out of and into which each articulation dissipates (the famous "AUM" mantra, for example) is another popular form. Regardless of the method, the goal is the same: a meditative state of mind which is conducive to spiritual encounters.
When I was about 8 years old, I personally discovered what I later learned in graduate school was called "cognitive satiation."
My mother sent me to the store to buy a couple of items, a quart of milk and a loaf of rye bread. She admonished me not to forget what I was supposed to get, as I had bought the wrong things at the store in the past. So all the way to the store I kept saying to myself (I think it was aloud, but in a soft voice), "Quart of milk, loaf of rye bread, quart of milk, loaf of rye bread………quart of milk, loaf of rye bread….." over and over and over.
I got to the store and asked for those things, but was amazed as I realized that I no longer had the slightest idea what a quart of milk or a loaf of rye bread was!
Cognitive satiation. Lots and lots of fast repetition of words or phrases and after a while your mind is scrambled as to what the words or phrases mean. The meaning comes back after a while, luckily.
I read years later that one person seeking mystical experience (it may have been P. D. Ouspensky) did this with repeating his own name, over and over, until he no longer understood who or what he was….. A quick way to "ego loss?" ;-)
Now I understand cognitive satiation as a way of destabilizing your ordinary state of consciousness. My systems approach (see my States of Consciousness book for those interested in altered state induction) describes the induction of altered states, beginning with destabilizing your baseline state. In general you do things that destabilize your ordinary state and, after it has broken down, other practices shape the kind of altered state that will likely result.
So where are you likely to end up if you try satiating some word or phrase, your own name, e.g., by rapid and prolonged repetition of it? I would predict that mostly depends on your intentions and previous experiences. If you conceive of this as prayer or meditation, I think the chances are good you may experience some contact with Spirit. It probably helps if you believe the word or phrase you are repeating has special spiritual power or connotations, and is a classical mantra or Western prayer word or phrase. If you think of this as just a psychological curiosity though, you'll probably get some interesting moments of confusion, nothing spiritual about it at all…..Or just an interesting take on how your mind can temporarily blank out…..
The most popular method of mantra recitation is to do it at a rather brisk speed as is mentioned above, but repeating them slowly and fully articulating each syllable (each syllable in Sanskrit mantras in particular has a meaning in and of itself), meditating on each repetition and the sound out of and into which each articulation dissipates (the famous "AUM" mantra, for example) is another popular form. Regardless of the method, the goal is the same: a meditative state of mind which is conducive to spiritual encounters.
Neal Grossman on "Fundamaterialism"
Philosopher Neal Grossman posted a paper over at UFO Skeptic in which he rails against many academics who tenaciously cling to materialism despite a plethora of evidencing proving it to be wrong. They either flat out ignore the evidence or insist on an "overly stringent standard of evidence, which, if adopted, would render any empirical science impossible."
This irrational disposition among the intelligentsia when it comes to disproving materialism is nothing new, going all the way back to William James, as Dr. Grossman shows. Most materialists don't even bother to read the research before making sweeping proclamations against it, many of their criticisms already having been answered. Usually when they are apprised of this they simply move the goalpost thus creating said overly stringent standard of evidence.
Unfortunately, many academes have adopted materialism, not as a scientific hypothesis which is amenable to challenging evidence, but as a rigid ideology. In turn, any evidence which shows materialism to be wrong or incomplete is dismissed out of hand, caricatured, lambasted, or twisted in a way to somehow buttress the theory. These are the hallmarks of a dogmatic zealot, not open-minded, scientifically literate scholars.
In response, Dr. Grossman has coined the poignant term "fundamaterialism" to describe this sad state of affairs. Truly, this blind adherence to materialism is fueled by scientism which in turn is fueled by fear of religious extremism. How ironic that materialists, in their haste to move away from dogmatism have leapt right into its miasmic embrace.
If you are a self-proclaimed skeptic then allow me to advise you, before you type that bellicose comment questioning the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with materialism, to pause and at least consider the possibility that materialism is not the end of the story. Take a look outside of the skeptical circles which make a business of misrepresenting the theories of those they disagree with and see for yourself. As an incentive to do just that, I shall leave you with the words of Michael Grosso, as recounted by Dr. Grossman, when he attempted to get his friends to read anything regarding the evidence for life after death. Bold lettering added:
The type of person I have in mind will come up with weak, if not irrational, excuses for not reading the book I place in his hand. In one case, the argument ran: "It's only words on paper; no reason to take any of it seriously." . . . How strange that these intelligent people should be not merely indifferent but resistant to the data. It's as if there were a conspiracy against this information, a need to make it harmless, irrelevant, or nonexistent.
This irrational disposition among the intelligentsia when it comes to disproving materialism is nothing new, going all the way back to William James, as Dr. Grossman shows. Most materialists don't even bother to read the research before making sweeping proclamations against it, many of their criticisms already having been answered. Usually when they are apprised of this they simply move the goalpost thus creating said overly stringent standard of evidence.
Unfortunately, many academes have adopted materialism, not as a scientific hypothesis which is amenable to challenging evidence, but as a rigid ideology. In turn, any evidence which shows materialism to be wrong or incomplete is dismissed out of hand, caricatured, lambasted, or twisted in a way to somehow buttress the theory. These are the hallmarks of a dogmatic zealot, not open-minded, scientifically literate scholars.
In response, Dr. Grossman has coined the poignant term "fundamaterialism" to describe this sad state of affairs. Truly, this blind adherence to materialism is fueled by scientism which in turn is fueled by fear of religious extremism. How ironic that materialists, in their haste to move away from dogmatism have leapt right into its miasmic embrace.
If you are a self-proclaimed skeptic then allow me to advise you, before you type that bellicose comment questioning the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with materialism, to pause and at least consider the possibility that materialism is not the end of the story. Take a look outside of the skeptical circles which make a business of misrepresenting the theories of those they disagree with and see for yourself. As an incentive to do just that, I shall leave you with the words of Michael Grosso, as recounted by Dr. Grossman, when he attempted to get his friends to read anything regarding the evidence for life after death. Bold lettering added:
The type of person I have in mind will come up with weak, if not irrational, excuses for not reading the book I place in his hand. In one case, the argument ran: "It's only words on paper; no reason to take any of it seriously." . . . How strange that these intelligent people should be not merely indifferent but resistant to the data. It's as if there were a conspiracy against this information, a need to make it harmless, irrelevant, or nonexistent.
Skeptics who've proven the existence of Psi
I've tried rewriting a few of my most popular posts which were deleted when I was hacked. Here is the first.
=================================================================
Those of you who are familiar with the whole skeptic vs. "believer" debate regarding the existence of psi will probably be aware that many professional skeptics have conducted scientific experiments in an ostensible attempt to ascertain, one way or the other, whether or not ESP truly exists. The usual story is that, try as they might, they simply found no scientific evidence for it and that those who hold the opposite view are living in a fairy-tale land.
Well, not so fast.
The truth of the matter is that despite claims to the contrary, quite a few skeptics have indeed corroborated what parapsychologists have been saying all along about the existence of psi. A few noteworthy names are Richard Wiseman, Chris French, and Stanley Jeffers. All very prominent skeptics who've scientifically undermined their own anti-paranormal positions.
You don't hear much about this in skeptical circles and these individuals will categorically deny having done any such thing, yet the evidence is there in black and white. The reason psi is still controversial is not for any scientific reason, but ideological, as the above demonstrates.
=================================================================
Those of you who are familiar with the whole skeptic vs. "believer" debate regarding the existence of psi will probably be aware that many professional skeptics have conducted scientific experiments in an ostensible attempt to ascertain, one way or the other, whether or not ESP truly exists. The usual story is that, try as they might, they simply found no scientific evidence for it and that those who hold the opposite view are living in a fairy-tale land.
Well, not so fast.
The truth of the matter is that despite claims to the contrary, quite a few skeptics have indeed corroborated what parapsychologists have been saying all along about the existence of psi. A few noteworthy names are Richard Wiseman, Chris French, and Stanley Jeffers. All very prominent skeptics who've scientifically undermined their own anti-paranormal positions.
You don't hear much about this in skeptical circles and these individuals will categorically deny having done any such thing, yet the evidence is there in black and white. The reason psi is still controversial is not for any scientific reason, but ideological, as the above demonstrates.
The Link between Health and Interest in the Paranormal
Here is a post I managed to recover which I had on the blog before:
People who are actively interested in parapsychology and have had experiences they interpret as paranormal or transcendent report that these experiences have enhanced their spiritual beliefs and well-being. These effects are generally a combined result of more than one anomalous experience and a larger number of experiences are associated with greater effects. Fear apparently is a relatively common initial reaction to paranormal phenomena, but the overall, long-term effects appear to be positive in this group.
These results support McClenon's conclusion that anomalous experiences promote well-being and spirituality (McClenon, 1994). McClenon based his conclusion primarily on recent and historical autobiographical accounts and field observations. The present results are also similar to findings from near-death experiences (Ring, 1980, 1984) and religious experiences (Hay, 1979), and suggest that different types of anomalous experiences may induce similar effects. (Only four of the experiences described in the present sample were near-death experiences.) These findings are also consistent with other studies that (a) found positive overall ratings for the effects of anomalous experiences but did not investigate what aspects of life were affected (Gabbard & Twemlow, 1984; Kennedy & Kanthamani, 1995; Kennedy, Kanthamani, and Palmer, in press; Richards, 1991), and (b) reported changes in various aspects of life, but did not report whether the changes were positive or negative (Palmer, 1979).
The reports of increased well-being and other positive effects resulting from anomalous experiences are consistent with the common assumption that paranormal phenomena are guided by motivations or needs (Broughton, 1988; Stanford, 1974a; 1974b; Weiner and Geller, 1984). Although spirituality-related effects were most prevalent, more mundane beneficial effects were also common. Of course, a psi experience with a relatively mundane benefit such as avoiding personal injury, could also enhance a person's spiritual perspective. (Source)
People who are actively interested in parapsychology and have had experiences they interpret as paranormal or transcendent report that these experiences have enhanced their spiritual beliefs and well-being. These effects are generally a combined result of more than one anomalous experience and a larger number of experiences are associated with greater effects. Fear apparently is a relatively common initial reaction to paranormal phenomena, but the overall, long-term effects appear to be positive in this group.
These results support McClenon's conclusion that anomalous experiences promote well-being and spirituality (McClenon, 1994). McClenon based his conclusion primarily on recent and historical autobiographical accounts and field observations. The present results are also similar to findings from near-death experiences (Ring, 1980, 1984) and religious experiences (Hay, 1979), and suggest that different types of anomalous experiences may induce similar effects. (Only four of the experiences described in the present sample were near-death experiences.) These findings are also consistent with other studies that (a) found positive overall ratings for the effects of anomalous experiences but did not investigate what aspects of life were affected (Gabbard & Twemlow, 1984; Kennedy & Kanthamani, 1995; Kennedy, Kanthamani, and Palmer, in press; Richards, 1991), and (b) reported changes in various aspects of life, but did not report whether the changes were positive or negative (Palmer, 1979).
The reports of increased well-being and other positive effects resulting from anomalous experiences are consistent with the common assumption that paranormal phenomena are guided by motivations or needs (Broughton, 1988; Stanford, 1974a; 1974b; Weiner and Geller, 1984). Although spirituality-related effects were most prevalent, more mundane beneficial effects were also common. Of course, a psi experience with a relatively mundane benefit such as avoiding personal injury, could also enhance a person's spiritual perspective. (Source)
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Hacked....
So yea, long time no see. Apparently, I was hacked and my blog was deleted and I just now managed to get it back. Unfortunately, whoever hacked me deleted some of my best posts, focusing on the posts in which I show James Randi to be the lying sociopath he really is so I am going to go on a limb and say that the hacker is somehow associated with the skeptics. Crazy, right?
To be honest, this whole experience has kind of taken the wind out of my sails and I am not sure if I will continue to blog or not. Some of my past posts, as I was reading them, seem rather amateurish, but I want the blog to stay up for reference anyway whether or not I continue to write.
So what have I been up to since we last met?:
-I started P90X....and promptly quit
-I visited Las Vegas again. I hate the strip but love the rest of the state. Red rocks are cool!
-I switched from Trinitarian Christianity to Unitarian Christianity. My fellow Christian readers may be unhappy with that, but to me it makes more sense than Trinitarianism. The more I read about Jesus being God, the less it makes sense.
-I got a new girlfriend and she likes to skate too. Awesome, I know!
So yea, I am not sure if any of my readers are still around but if you are, I've missed you guys!! Twitter it, post it in forums, email your buddies, Physicalism is Dead is back online!
To be honest, this whole experience has kind of taken the wind out of my sails and I am not sure if I will continue to blog or not. Some of my past posts, as I was reading them, seem rather amateurish, but I want the blog to stay up for reference anyway whether or not I continue to write.
So what have I been up to since we last met?:
-I started P90X....and promptly quit
-I visited Las Vegas again. I hate the strip but love the rest of the state. Red rocks are cool!
-I switched from Trinitarian Christianity to Unitarian Christianity. My fellow Christian readers may be unhappy with that, but to me it makes more sense than Trinitarianism. The more I read about Jesus being God, the less it makes sense.
-I got a new girlfriend and she likes to skate too. Awesome, I know!
So yea, I am not sure if any of my readers are still around but if you are, I've missed you guys!! Twitter it, post it in forums, email your buddies, Physicalism is Dead is back online!
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Graham Nicholls and OBEs
Graham Nicholls, for those of you unfamiliar with who he is, is an expert at having out-of-body experiences.
Nicholls's background is working class London, where he was brought up in the often difficult circumstances of the inner city. He describes a harrowing mugging incident, and hanging out with delinquent youths in his teens, yet he clearly possesses a highly sensitive and spiritually-inclined temperament. His first psychic experience occurred as a child when he awoke one night feeling a powerful sense of energy all around him. He found himself getting out of bed and going into the corridor outside, where he encountered an unfamiliar tall figure staring intently at him.
It took a while to learn how to move, and longer still to reach beyond the confines of his home. He found that organic objects, such as trees, seemed to vibrate on a subtler frequency to concrete and glass, which, counterintuitively, seemed more energised. But the frequencies seem to shift; sometimes living things seem 'almost unbearably luminescent' while at other times they appear dull and almost invisible.
That's an interesting observation which is highly consonant with the reflections of some of the world's greatest mystics. It's an interesting min-biography of a highly interesting individual, to be sure, and as someone who has had several OBEs I too can relate quite strongly. Do go check out the rest of it :-)
See ya.
And to hear his appearance on skeptiko look here.
Nicholls's background is working class London, where he was brought up in the often difficult circumstances of the inner city. He describes a harrowing mugging incident, and hanging out with delinquent youths in his teens, yet he clearly possesses a highly sensitive and spiritually-inclined temperament. His first psychic experience occurred as a child when he awoke one night feeling a powerful sense of energy all around him. He found himself getting out of bed and going into the corridor outside, where he encountered an unfamiliar tall figure staring intently at him.
I looked up to find that the energy continued to flow in every direction and even the doorway in which the figure stood seemed to extend out into another place or time.... Although my fear held me to the spot, there was also a feeling that something very important and transformative was taking place. The fear came from me, not from anything the apparition had done. In fact it had more of the feeling of a messenger or guide than of anything negative... The more I looked into the eyes of the tall ethereal figure the more I felt like I was being given something. Looking back now, even without appealing to mystical explanations for what took place, it is clear that I was opened to a new and life-changing avenue of enquiry in my life.While having the OBE, he came to many interesting insights which, had he been in his body, he might not have realized:
It took a while to learn how to move, and longer still to reach beyond the confines of his home. He found that organic objects, such as trees, seemed to vibrate on a subtler frequency to concrete and glass, which, counterintuitively, seemed more energised. But the frequencies seem to shift; sometimes living things seem 'almost unbearably luminescent' while at other times they appear dull and almost invisible.
That's an interesting observation which is highly consonant with the reflections of some of the world's greatest mystics. It's an interesting min-biography of a highly interesting individual, to be sure, and as someone who has had several OBEs I too can relate quite strongly. Do go check out the rest of it :-)
See ya.
And to hear his appearance on skeptiko look here.
An Empirical Case Against Materialism
Here are a few excerpts from this paper entitled, "An Empirical Case Against Materialism":
For materialist philosophers, the example of vitalism provides a favorite cautionary tale. It is often argued, by analogy, that just as an earlier generation of philosophers and scientists were wrong to assume the existence of some ‘fifth element,’ or élan vital, to account for the special properties of living tissue --- or, similarly, to propose a strange substance, caloric fluid, to explain the phenomenon of heat --- so dualists today are wrong to suggest that consciousness cannot possibly be explained in purely physical terms (see, e.g., Dennett 1996; Churchland, P. M. 1996; Churchland, P. S. 1996). However, it seems to me that in the case of qualitative conscious experience, these analogies fail: there is a crucial and obvious difference, which the materialists have persistently ignored.
Objective, physical phenomena such as heat, biological life and countless others are always amenable, at least, to rudimentary formal description. It is therefore inappropriate, in these cases, to dismiss the possibility of a reductive explanation — because there is positive evidence to suggest that we might find one, if we looked. When, on the other hand, we consider some simple phenomenal quality, such as that which is evoked when we perceive or visualize a particular primary color, and try to construct even a crude, rough and ready, yet valid formal description of it — without comparative reference to phenomenal qualities of any kind — we invariably fail. I base this generalization not only upon my own experience and the reported experience of others, but also upon the fact that, to my knowledge, no one has ever published a convincing account of success. If, by careful introspection, we could find within the most basic phenomenal qualities some underlying, non-qualitative, logical structure which defines their nature — something that might be expressible, perhaps, as a number, a vector or an equation — then we might indeed have the makings of a valid formal description; yet it seems to be a universal feature of human experience that we can do no such thing. No mathematical formula is known, for example, which recognizably expresses, to any degree of approximation, the phenomenal character of the color blue, or the intrinsic disvalue of a pain. Thus, phenomenal qualities are sharply distinct from uncontroversially physical phenomena inasmuch as they present the materialist with what might be called a ‘description problem’: that is, we appear to lack positive evidence to suggest that they are, in general or in any particular case, relational physical properties; or to put this differently, they appear to possess special properties which are incompatible with such an analysis.
This problem is particularly striking when we consider specific identity claims, in which it is suggested that a particular sort of phenomenal quality is identical with the occurrence of some well-defined (or for that matter, hypothetically well-defined) physical phenomenon. Now, materialist philosophers sometimes argue (by analogy, once again) that a single phenomenon may manifest itself, or may be known or
understood, in various different ways which seem quite distinct — giving the misleading impression that there are two or more distinct phenomena instead of just one. Thus, the morning star and the evening star appear distinct, when in fact they are merely different appearances of a single object; likewise it is possible for someone to know a set of facts about Mark Twain and another set of facts about Samuel Clemens, remaining ignorant of the fact that they are one and the same person. Similarly, it is argued, we have two ways of knowing about the physical phenomenon we call a pain; via the first-person experience of having one and via a third-person, scientific description of its alleged physical basis (such as, for the sake of argument, the firing of nociceptive-specific neurons in the parietal cortex. See Papineau 1993, 1995, 2002). These distinctive appearances, or ways of knowing, may seem quite different — but this need not worry us; it is merely a trick of perspective.
The weakness of this argument should now be obvious. In the case of the cited examples, our conception of each distinct appearance, or named individual, has many points in common with its counterpart — and no anomalous features which seem inconsistent with an identity claim. Phosphorus and Hesperus may both be described as a bright object of a certain size, appearing in the sky. Twain and Clemens may each be described as a male human being, a journalist and author, who was born in Missouri in 1835 and died in Connecticut in 1910. In neither case is the suggestion that the two appearances correspond to a single individual particularly shocking or implausible. In the case at issue, however, we are presented with, on the one hand, a subjectively qualitative sensation, which we cannot formally describe to any extent whatsoever — and on the other hand, a neurological process which we can formally describe in arbitrary detail, yet without giving any hint that the qualitative sensation exists at all, much less, any clue as to its character. Here, the two manifest phenomena have, as far as we can tell, nothing in common, other than the fact that they seem to be closely correlated and causally interdependent.18
And:
(1) Materialism, with respect to the nature of consciousness, is the view that subjective mental phenomena are extrinsic physical phenomena, that is, structures, relation-ships or spatiotemporal patterns that obtain amongst instances or collections of fundamental physical entities (whose essential nature, if any, is presumed to be non-mental).
(2) All known extrinsic physical phenomena, including those which are poorly understood, admit to an empirically valid, non-ostensive, non-qualitative, formal description — at least to some degree of approximation — such that they can be identified, with significant reliability, on the basis of that description alone.
(3) To our knowledge, all known mathematical translations or transformations of a formally describable spatiotemporal form into some particular aspect or manifestation thereof invariably yield a formally describable spatiotemporal form.
(4) From (2) and (3), it is overwhelmingly likely that any physical phenomenon which, as materialists claim, constitutes the content of a particular conscious experience will be amenable, at least, to a rudimentary yet empirically valid formal description.
(5) There is no evidence to suggest that an empirically valid formal description, to any degree of approximation, of any phenomenal quality has ever been discovered.
(6) Therefore, materialism is probably false.
See ya.
For materialist philosophers, the example of vitalism provides a favorite cautionary tale. It is often argued, by analogy, that just as an earlier generation of philosophers and scientists were wrong to assume the existence of some ‘fifth element,’ or élan vital, to account for the special properties of living tissue --- or, similarly, to propose a strange substance, caloric fluid, to explain the phenomenon of heat --- so dualists today are wrong to suggest that consciousness cannot possibly be explained in purely physical terms (see, e.g., Dennett 1996; Churchland, P. M. 1996; Churchland, P. S. 1996). However, it seems to me that in the case of qualitative conscious experience, these analogies fail: there is a crucial and obvious difference, which the materialists have persistently ignored.
Objective, physical phenomena such as heat, biological life and countless others are always amenable, at least, to rudimentary formal description. It is therefore inappropriate, in these cases, to dismiss the possibility of a reductive explanation — because there is positive evidence to suggest that we might find one, if we looked. When, on the other hand, we consider some simple phenomenal quality, such as that which is evoked when we perceive or visualize a particular primary color, and try to construct even a crude, rough and ready, yet valid formal description of it — without comparative reference to phenomenal qualities of any kind — we invariably fail. I base this generalization not only upon my own experience and the reported experience of others, but also upon the fact that, to my knowledge, no one has ever published a convincing account of success. If, by careful introspection, we could find within the most basic phenomenal qualities some underlying, non-qualitative, logical structure which defines their nature — something that might be expressible, perhaps, as a number, a vector or an equation — then we might indeed have the makings of a valid formal description; yet it seems to be a universal feature of human experience that we can do no such thing. No mathematical formula is known, for example, which recognizably expresses, to any degree of approximation, the phenomenal character of the color blue, or the intrinsic disvalue of a pain. Thus, phenomenal qualities are sharply distinct from uncontroversially physical phenomena inasmuch as they present the materialist with what might be called a ‘description problem’: that is, we appear to lack positive evidence to suggest that they are, in general or in any particular case, relational physical properties; or to put this differently, they appear to possess special properties which are incompatible with such an analysis.
This problem is particularly striking when we consider specific identity claims, in which it is suggested that a particular sort of phenomenal quality is identical with the occurrence of some well-defined (or for that matter, hypothetically well-defined) physical phenomenon. Now, materialist philosophers sometimes argue (by analogy, once again) that a single phenomenon may manifest itself, or may be known or
understood, in various different ways which seem quite distinct — giving the misleading impression that there are two or more distinct phenomena instead of just one. Thus, the morning star and the evening star appear distinct, when in fact they are merely different appearances of a single object; likewise it is possible for someone to know a set of facts about Mark Twain and another set of facts about Samuel Clemens, remaining ignorant of the fact that they are one and the same person. Similarly, it is argued, we have two ways of knowing about the physical phenomenon we call a pain; via the first-person experience of having one and via a third-person, scientific description of its alleged physical basis (such as, for the sake of argument, the firing of nociceptive-specific neurons in the parietal cortex. See Papineau 1993, 1995, 2002). These distinctive appearances, or ways of knowing, may seem quite different — but this need not worry us; it is merely a trick of perspective.
The weakness of this argument should now be obvious. In the case of the cited examples, our conception of each distinct appearance, or named individual, has many points in common with its counterpart — and no anomalous features which seem inconsistent with an identity claim. Phosphorus and Hesperus may both be described as a bright object of a certain size, appearing in the sky. Twain and Clemens may each be described as a male human being, a journalist and author, who was born in Missouri in 1835 and died in Connecticut in 1910. In neither case is the suggestion that the two appearances correspond to a single individual particularly shocking or implausible. In the case at issue, however, we are presented with, on the one hand, a subjectively qualitative sensation, which we cannot formally describe to any extent whatsoever — and on the other hand, a neurological process which we can formally describe in arbitrary detail, yet without giving any hint that the qualitative sensation exists at all, much less, any clue as to its character. Here, the two manifest phenomena have, as far as we can tell, nothing in common, other than the fact that they seem to be closely correlated and causally interdependent.18
And:
(1) Materialism, with respect to the nature of consciousness, is the view that subjective mental phenomena are extrinsic physical phenomena, that is, structures, relation-ships or spatiotemporal patterns that obtain amongst instances or collections of fundamental physical entities (whose essential nature, if any, is presumed to be non-mental).
(2) All known extrinsic physical phenomena, including those which are poorly understood, admit to an empirically valid, non-ostensive, non-qualitative, formal description — at least to some degree of approximation — such that they can be identified, with significant reliability, on the basis of that description alone.
(3) To our knowledge, all known mathematical translations or transformations of a formally describable spatiotemporal form into some particular aspect or manifestation thereof invariably yield a formally describable spatiotemporal form.
(4) From (2) and (3), it is overwhelmingly likely that any physical phenomenon which, as materialists claim, constitutes the content of a particular conscious experience will be amenable, at least, to a rudimentary yet empirically valid formal description.
(5) There is no evidence to suggest that an empirically valid formal description, to any degree of approximation, of any phenomenal quality has ever been discovered.
(6) Therefore, materialism is probably false.
See ya.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Raymond Tallis on Neurotrash
Raymond Tallis wrote a piece for New Humanist in which he he said:
The fundamental assumption is that we are our brains and this, I will argue presently, is not true. But this is not the only reason why neuroscience does not tell us what human beings “really” are: it does not even tell us how the brain works, how bits of the brain work, or (even if you accept the dubious assumption that human living could be parcelled up into a number of discrete functions) which bit of the brain is responsible for which function. The rationale for thinking of the kind – “This bit of the brain houses that bit of us...” – is mind-numbingly simplistic. In a typical experiment, individuals are exposed to different stimuli, or asked to imagine certain scenarios, and the change in brain activity is recorded. For example, a person may be asked to look at a photograph of, or think of, someone they love and then someone to whom they are relatively indifferent. The difference between the activation of the brain under the two circumstances is meant to show what is special about the emotion of love. On the basis of these and other experiments, the brain scientists Semir Zeki and Andreas Barthels [link to pdf] have concluded that love is due to activity “in the medial insula and the anterior cingulated cortex and, subcortically, in the caudate nucleus and the putamen, all bilaterally.”
He then further expounds on the problem with this thinking:
Why is this fallacious? First, when it is stated that a particular part of the brain lights up in response to a particular stimulus, this is not the whole story. Much more of the brain is already active or lit up; all that can be observed is the additional activity associated with the stimulus. Minor changes noted diffusely are also overlooked. Secondly, the additional activity can be identified only by a process of averaging the results of subtractions after the stimulus has been given repeatedly: variations in the response to successive stimuli are ironed out. Finally, and most importantly, the experiments look at the response to very simple stimuli – for example, a picture of the face of a loved one compared with that of the face of one who is not loved. But, as I have pointed out elsewhere (for the benefit of Martians), romantic love is not like a response to a stimulus. It is not even a single enduring state, like being cold. It encompasses many things, including not feeling in love at that moment; hunger, indifference, delight; wanting to be kind, wanting to impress; worrying over the logistics of meetings; lust, awe, surprise; imagining conversations, events; speculating what the loved one is doing when one is not there; and so on. (The most sophisticated neural imaging, by the way, cannot even distinguish between physical pain and the pain of social rejection: they seem to “light up” the same areas!) [Emphasis added]
He then recounts a recurring problem with materialistic conceptions of the mind:
The problems begin at a very basic level. The brain, as understood by neuroscience, is a piece of matter tingling with electrochemical activity. There is nothing in this activity that would make the stand-alone brain capable of making the material objects around it have an appearance to it or able to have the sense of itself as the subject to whom these objects appear. Consider something as elementary as seeing something in front of you. While it is easy to understand how the brain, understood as a material object, would respond with nerve impulses to light falling upon it, it is not possible to explain how those nerve impulses then become a representation of the source of that light; how the effects of light in the brain reach back in a counter-causal way to the object from which the light originated. Material causation, in short, explains how the light gets into the brain but not how the gaze looks out and sees an illuminated world.
He has much more to say, so do go read the article in its entirety. :-)
See ya.
The fundamental assumption is that we are our brains and this, I will argue presently, is not true. But this is not the only reason why neuroscience does not tell us what human beings “really” are: it does not even tell us how the brain works, how bits of the brain work, or (even if you accept the dubious assumption that human living could be parcelled up into a number of discrete functions) which bit of the brain is responsible for which function. The rationale for thinking of the kind – “This bit of the brain houses that bit of us...” – is mind-numbingly simplistic. In a typical experiment, individuals are exposed to different stimuli, or asked to imagine certain scenarios, and the change in brain activity is recorded. For example, a person may be asked to look at a photograph of, or think of, someone they love and then someone to whom they are relatively indifferent. The difference between the activation of the brain under the two circumstances is meant to show what is special about the emotion of love. On the basis of these and other experiments, the brain scientists Semir Zeki and Andreas Barthels [link to pdf] have concluded that love is due to activity “in the medial insula and the anterior cingulated cortex and, subcortically, in the caudate nucleus and the putamen, all bilaterally.”
He then further expounds on the problem with this thinking:
Why is this fallacious? First, when it is stated that a particular part of the brain lights up in response to a particular stimulus, this is not the whole story. Much more of the brain is already active or lit up; all that can be observed is the additional activity associated with the stimulus. Minor changes noted diffusely are also overlooked. Secondly, the additional activity can be identified only by a process of averaging the results of subtractions after the stimulus has been given repeatedly: variations in the response to successive stimuli are ironed out. Finally, and most importantly, the experiments look at the response to very simple stimuli – for example, a picture of the face of a loved one compared with that of the face of one who is not loved. But, as I have pointed out elsewhere (for the benefit of Martians), romantic love is not like a response to a stimulus. It is not even a single enduring state, like being cold. It encompasses many things, including not feeling in love at that moment; hunger, indifference, delight; wanting to be kind, wanting to impress; worrying over the logistics of meetings; lust, awe, surprise; imagining conversations, events; speculating what the loved one is doing when one is not there; and so on. (The most sophisticated neural imaging, by the way, cannot even distinguish between physical pain and the pain of social rejection: they seem to “light up” the same areas!) [Emphasis added]
He then recounts a recurring problem with materialistic conceptions of the mind:
The problems begin at a very basic level. The brain, as understood by neuroscience, is a piece of matter tingling with electrochemical activity. There is nothing in this activity that would make the stand-alone brain capable of making the material objects around it have an appearance to it or able to have the sense of itself as the subject to whom these objects appear. Consider something as elementary as seeing something in front of you. While it is easy to understand how the brain, understood as a material object, would respond with nerve impulses to light falling upon it, it is not possible to explain how those nerve impulses then become a representation of the source of that light; how the effects of light in the brain reach back in a counter-causal way to the object from which the light originated. Material causation, in short, explains how the light gets into the brain but not how the gaze looks out and sees an illuminated world.
He has much more to say, so do go read the article in its entirety. :-)
See ya.
Monday, August 6, 2012
More on Magick Spells and how they "work"
I wanted to embed the video here, but, of course, blogspot wasn't cooperating so just go here to watch it. As usual it's a bit low so you might need headphones. Starting to see the connection with parapsychology? :-)
See ya.
See ya.
What are Spirit Controls?
In mediumship, a spirit control is a disincarnate who acts as a guide and helper for the medium. The spirit control facilities communication between the medium and other spirits who are not able to come through on their own. Additionally, they act as spiritual bouncers, so to speak, keeping out lower level spirits who might seek to cause chaos during the seance or affect the well-being of the medium. However, as with anything having to do with spiritualism, there is controversy:
Controls have always been controversial. For one thing, many of them have proved unable to establish their earthly existence with any plausibility. As one example, efforts to find historical records relating to Mrs. Piper's control, Dr. Phinuit (pronounced fin-wee), were unsuccessful. Moreover, many of the controls seem to be rather bizarre and questionable characters. Gladys Osborne Leonard's control, Feda, was a young girl from India who spoke pidgin English. One of Mrs. Piper's early controls was an American Indian girl with the unlikely name of Chlorine. Indeed, a disproportionately high percentage of controls were American Indians with colorful names and stereotyped speech patterns.
Some researchers thought that these controls were projections of the mediums' own subconscious, created merely to guide the seance along. Some mediums--Eileen Garrett for instance--weren't even sure themselves whether their control was an objective entity or merely a projection from themselves:
The Philip experiments recounted in the book began with a circle of sitters vividly imagining a supposedly historical figure named Philip, who they knew was actually a fictional invention. Despite the fact that there never was any Philip, the circle's concentrated attention on this fictitious persona eventually invoked an entity claiming to be Philip, which manifested itself with raps, table movements (sometimes quite violent), and other physical phenomena. The sittings were conducted in bright light and were witnessed by many people and even filmed. Later, other circles reproduced the experiment by "conjuring up" fictitious spirit entities of their own.
Though LeShan doesn't mention it, one of the more interesting moments in the Philip experiment came when a sitter openly expressed his disbelief in Philip, informing the spirit that there never was such a person and that the group had made him up. The phenomena abruptly fizzled out, and it took some time and effort (i.e., concentration and commitment to belief in Philip) to bring them back. Philip is an example of a functional entity par excellence, and may well be the "type" of spirit controls in general.
Clearly we are dealing with a complex phenomenon here. Just what is going on isn't entirely clear, but it's probably that some of these spirit helpers really are creations of intent. Magickians have been conjuring helpers for millenia, the descriptions of which are very similar to that of "Philip." Whatever the case may be, belief is of the utmost importance:
Belief, it seems, is critical -- belief in the spiritual entity itself, and in the world-picture that makes such an entity conceivable. In an atmosphere of intense belief, it is more likely that these functional entities will come into existence and be efficacious. So it seems to me that one reason for the greater prevalence of mediumistic phenomena in the Victorian Era was that more people were inclined to believe in the world-picture of Spiritualism, and that the most enthusiastic of these people were naturally the ones who attended seances.
See ya.
Controls have always been controversial. For one thing, many of them have proved unable to establish their earthly existence with any plausibility. As one example, efforts to find historical records relating to Mrs. Piper's control, Dr. Phinuit (pronounced fin-wee), were unsuccessful. Moreover, many of the controls seem to be rather bizarre and questionable characters. Gladys Osborne Leonard's control, Feda, was a young girl from India who spoke pidgin English. One of Mrs. Piper's early controls was an American Indian girl with the unlikely name of Chlorine. Indeed, a disproportionately high percentage of controls were American Indians with colorful names and stereotyped speech patterns.
Some researchers thought that these controls were projections of the mediums' own subconscious, created merely to guide the seance along. Some mediums--Eileen Garrett for instance--weren't even sure themselves whether their control was an objective entity or merely a projection from themselves:
The Philip experiments recounted in the book began with a circle of sitters vividly imagining a supposedly historical figure named Philip, who they knew was actually a fictional invention. Despite the fact that there never was any Philip, the circle's concentrated attention on this fictitious persona eventually invoked an entity claiming to be Philip, which manifested itself with raps, table movements (sometimes quite violent), and other physical phenomena. The sittings were conducted in bright light and were witnessed by many people and even filmed. Later, other circles reproduced the experiment by "conjuring up" fictitious spirit entities of their own.
Though LeShan doesn't mention it, one of the more interesting moments in the Philip experiment came when a sitter openly expressed his disbelief in Philip, informing the spirit that there never was such a person and that the group had made him up. The phenomena abruptly fizzled out, and it took some time and effort (i.e., concentration and commitment to belief in Philip) to bring them back. Philip is an example of a functional entity par excellence, and may well be the "type" of spirit controls in general.
Clearly we are dealing with a complex phenomenon here. Just what is going on isn't entirely clear, but it's probably that some of these spirit helpers really are creations of intent. Magickians have been conjuring helpers for millenia, the descriptions of which are very similar to that of "Philip." Whatever the case may be, belief is of the utmost importance:
Belief, it seems, is critical -- belief in the spiritual entity itself, and in the world-picture that makes such an entity conceivable. In an atmosphere of intense belief, it is more likely that these functional entities will come into existence and be efficacious. So it seems to me that one reason for the greater prevalence of mediumistic phenomena in the Victorian Era was that more people were inclined to believe in the world-picture of Spiritualism, and that the most enthusiastic of these people were naturally the ones who attended seances.
See ya.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Pluralism and the Mind
Matt Colborn wrote this paper (or, to be more precise, a draft to a lecture he gave) in which he discusses the shortcomings of mainstream theories of the mind and shows that, due to the incoherence of materialism, any materialistic theories of the mind are woefully inadequate. Go read it, and of course don't forget to check out Matt's blog and subscribe if you like his work :-)
See ya.
See ya.
How to see Auras
This is taken from page ten of Diane Ahlquist's White Light: The Complete Guide to Spells and Rituals for Psychic Protection:
Find a friend or loved one who is open-minded and willing to be serious about this experiment. Choose a time of day and a place where you have privacy and no spectators.
1. Have the person stand or sit in a chair in front of a white background such as a sheet or a wall. Stare at the middle of your subject's forehead--the third eye. (In ancient times, people in countries such as India and elsewhere put a mark on their forehead--distinguishing the third eye--as a type of an invitation to look into their aura and "see.")
2. After focusing at that spot on your partner's head for approximately thirty seconds, examine the area with your peripheral vision. Remember to keep your focus on the spot in the center of the forehead.
Keep concentrating. Eventually, you will see the background directly behind the individual becoming brighter and more in focus than the backdrop actually behind them. This is their aura as you see it. It will become clearer the more you focus. You may see several colors or just one or two at first.
You can also practice on yourself in the mirror if you like. Just be sure to practice, practice, practice :-)
See ya.
Find a friend or loved one who is open-minded and willing to be serious about this experiment. Choose a time of day and a place where you have privacy and no spectators.
1. Have the person stand or sit in a chair in front of a white background such as a sheet or a wall. Stare at the middle of your subject's forehead--the third eye. (In ancient times, people in countries such as India and elsewhere put a mark on their forehead--distinguishing the third eye--as a type of an invitation to look into their aura and "see.")
2. After focusing at that spot on your partner's head for approximately thirty seconds, examine the area with your peripheral vision. Remember to keep your focus on the spot in the center of the forehead.
Keep concentrating. Eventually, you will see the background directly behind the individual becoming brighter and more in focus than the backdrop actually behind them. This is their aura as you see it. It will become clearer the more you focus. You may see several colors or just one or two at first.
You can also practice on yourself in the mirror if you like. Just be sure to practice, practice, practice :-)
See ya.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Music and Near Death Experiences
Did you know that nearly 50% of people who've had a near-death experience report having heard beautiful, ethereal music? They comment that it sounded like "New age synthesized music" with a "beautiful, floating sound." For more on this visit this link and to hear a sample of music close to that heard by NDErs, visit here to hear a piece recorded by NDEr and musician, Steve Roach.
See ya.
See ya.
Steve Volk, Libet's Experiment and Free Will
Free will has been receiving a beating by neuromaniac intellectuals who are still beholden to physicalist interpretations of the mind. Steve Volk mentions David Eagleman who wrote that, in light of current findings in neuroscience, we need to revise our legal system to take into account the putative fact that we have no free will. It should be pointed out that Eagleman doesn't seem to realize that, in arguing that we should rethink our legal system so as to support the supposed neuroscientific finding that we don't have free will, he is presupposing that we have the free will to do so. But Eagleman isn't alone. Anti-theist bigot and philosophical lightweight Jerry Coyne jumped on the same anti-free will train as well. Too bad for him, he doesn't know what he is talking about....as usual. Steve Volk writes:
Avid meditators, skilled in directing their awareness for long periods of time, show remarkable changes in brain function. Most notably, fMRI scans of long-term meditators show a dramatic reduction of activity in their amygdalas and greater activity in the left-frontal cortex, rendering them better able to focus. Similar structural changes begin in short-term meditators, too, after mere weeks. Further, this change seems to be based on what we think about, as opposed to the physical act of sitting through long stretches of silence or chanting. (For instance, nuns who focus on the centering prayer have brains similar to monks but reflect a greater emotional response, presumably as a result of focusing on a sense of communion with God.) In short, then, there is a well-developed line of research that appears to represent the exact phenomenon Coyne claims can’t happen—the brain modifying its own workings, the computer reaching “inside itself” to “change its program.”
Still, what about free will? Have neuroscientists shown us to be mechanistic automata? What about the research of Benjamin Libet, whose work supposedly corroborates this picture?:
Looking at the same data, [Dr. Andrew] Newberg says the Libet study is intriguing but does not necessarily eliminate free will: Libet was observing only a small fraction of his patient’s brains. Further, since the experimental subjects knew their task was to decide when to lift a finger, it seems reasonable to expect that their motor regions would demonstrate preparatory behavior. And their conscious awareness of a decision to act did precede the actual movement by 150 milliseconds.
This last bit, the lag between the conscious awareness of an act and its occurrence, might actually rescue choice. Libet himself thought so, and the form of free will he described is now commonly typified as “free won’t.”
Mr Volk makes the astute observation that these scientists are mistaking metaphysics for physics, which is a sign of scientism. One could say that a more careful study of the subject would prevent such ignorant attacks on free will, but that would be rather naive. The incessant striving to show free will to be an illusion is ideologically motivated, and no amount of arguments or counterevidence will change the minds of those pushing so hard to show us to be "meat machines."
See ya.
For more, look here, here and here.
Avid meditators, skilled in directing their awareness for long periods of time, show remarkable changes in brain function. Most notably, fMRI scans of long-term meditators show a dramatic reduction of activity in their amygdalas and greater activity in the left-frontal cortex, rendering them better able to focus. Similar structural changes begin in short-term meditators, too, after mere weeks. Further, this change seems to be based on what we think about, as opposed to the physical act of sitting through long stretches of silence or chanting. (For instance, nuns who focus on the centering prayer have brains similar to monks but reflect a greater emotional response, presumably as a result of focusing on a sense of communion with God.) In short, then, there is a well-developed line of research that appears to represent the exact phenomenon Coyne claims can’t happen—the brain modifying its own workings, the computer reaching “inside itself” to “change its program.”
Still, what about free will? Have neuroscientists shown us to be mechanistic automata? What about the research of Benjamin Libet, whose work supposedly corroborates this picture?:
Looking at the same data, [Dr. Andrew] Newberg says the Libet study is intriguing but does not necessarily eliminate free will: Libet was observing only a small fraction of his patient’s brains. Further, since the experimental subjects knew their task was to decide when to lift a finger, it seems reasonable to expect that their motor regions would demonstrate preparatory behavior. And their conscious awareness of a decision to act did precede the actual movement by 150 milliseconds.
This last bit, the lag between the conscious awareness of an act and its occurrence, might actually rescue choice. Libet himself thought so, and the form of free will he described is now commonly typified as “free won’t.”
Mr Volk makes the astute observation that these scientists are mistaking metaphysics for physics, which is a sign of scientism. One could say that a more careful study of the subject would prevent such ignorant attacks on free will, but that would be rather naive. The incessant striving to show free will to be an illusion is ideologically motivated, and no amount of arguments or counterevidence will change the minds of those pushing so hard to show us to be "meat machines."
See ya.
For more, look here, here and here.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Are NDEs "real?"
Science exists to refute dogmas; nevertheless, dogmas may be introduced when undemonstrated scientific axioms lead us to reject facts incompatible with them. Several studies have proposed psychobiological interpretations of near-death experiences (NDEs), claiming that NDEs are a mere byproduct of brain functions gone awry; however, relevant facts incompatible with the ruling physicalist and reductionist stance have been often neglected. The awkward transcendent look of NDEs has deep epistemological implications, which call for: (a) keeping a rigorously neutral position, neither accepting nor refusing anything a priori; and (b) distinguishing facts from speculations and fallacies. Most available psychobiological interpretations remain so far speculations to be demonstrated, while brain disorders and/or drug administration in critical patients yield a well-known delirium in intensive care and anesthesia, the phenomenology of which is different from NDEs. Facts can be only true or false, never paranormal. In this sense, they cannot be refused a priori even when they appear implausible with respect to our current knowledge: any other stance implies the risk of turning knowledge into dogma and the adopted paradigm into a sort of theology. [Emphasis added]
So begins this spirited defense of the near-death experience, or rather, the non-materialistic interpretation thereof. There is far too much evidence supporting the ontological objectivity (as opposed to a purely hallucinogenic subjectivity) of the NDE, and to continue to pretend that they are explicable from a materialistic standpoint is, at this point, insane. The article, however, cautions against concluding that just because the NDE cannot be accounted for materialistically that, ergo, they are evidence of an afterlife. I disagree with this, as the NDE literature is rich enough to warrant the highly plausible conclusion that consciousness does continue on somehow after the death of the body, but nevertheless the article offers plenty to think about and I highly recommend you share it with any staunch reductionists you know. And finally, I will just leave you with this blurb from the article which I found interesting:
Finally, the data available in the literature are not easily compatible with the interpretation of “meeting deceased people” as a mere consequence of the psychological hypothesis of expectation, considering that in most cases the perception of undefined entities (not belonging to the iconography of the patients' religion) and figures other than known deceased persons has been reported (see, for instance, Holden et al., 2009; van Lommel, 2010). Moreover, it is unclear how people in sudden critical conditions (such as cardiac arrest) might be aware of being near-death and have time enough to develop complex scenarios according to their wishes. Also the occurrence of NDEs in children, even as young as three year old (Morse et al., 1985, 1986), does not support an expectation hypothesis, given their lack of a clear vision of death and of elaborate philosophical-religious views of life.
See ya.
For more look here.
So begins this spirited defense of the near-death experience, or rather, the non-materialistic interpretation thereof. There is far too much evidence supporting the ontological objectivity (as opposed to a purely hallucinogenic subjectivity) of the NDE, and to continue to pretend that they are explicable from a materialistic standpoint is, at this point, insane. The article, however, cautions against concluding that just because the NDE cannot be accounted for materialistically that, ergo, they are evidence of an afterlife. I disagree with this, as the NDE literature is rich enough to warrant the highly plausible conclusion that consciousness does continue on somehow after the death of the body, but nevertheless the article offers plenty to think about and I highly recommend you share it with any staunch reductionists you know. And finally, I will just leave you with this blurb from the article which I found interesting:
Finally, the data available in the literature are not easily compatible with the interpretation of “meeting deceased people” as a mere consequence of the psychological hypothesis of expectation, considering that in most cases the perception of undefined entities (not belonging to the iconography of the patients' religion) and figures other than known deceased persons has been reported (see, for instance, Holden et al., 2009; van Lommel, 2010). Moreover, it is unclear how people in sudden critical conditions (such as cardiac arrest) might be aware of being near-death and have time enough to develop complex scenarios according to their wishes. Also the occurrence of NDEs in children, even as young as three year old (Morse et al., 1985, 1986), does not support an expectation hypothesis, given their lack of a clear vision of death and of elaborate philosophical-religious views of life.
See ya.
For more look here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)