VincentRJ

I'm no expert on 'Seth', and I have to admit that until I searched the internet for information about him, I assumed he was a real person rather than a 'fictional' character created by the female writer, Jane Roberts, whilst she was in many states of some type of trance, communicating with the paranormal. Her life and writings should be a fascinating subject for parapsychologists. Following are a couple of articles which address her beliefs and her background, which seems quite awful, and which must have influenced her later writings. https://sethresearchproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Cunningham_Contribution-to-the-Study-of-the-Possession-Trance-Mediumship-of-Jane-Roberts_Journal-of-Parapsychology-2019-832-248-267.pdf "Dorothy Jane Roberts was born in Saratoga Springs, New York, on May 8, 1929, the only child of Delmer and Marie (Burdo) Roberts. In 1931, when Jane was two years old, her father and mother divorced. For the next five years, Jane lived on welfare with her mother in half of a rented house shared with her mother’s parents in a relatively poor neighborhood of Sarasota Springs. It was during this time that Jane’s mother began to develop a long-standing rheumatoid arthritis condition that eventually made her bedridden—the same disease of which Jane would die in 1984 at the age of 55. Being raised a Catholic, priests in the parish regularly visited the house to offer help to the family. The sexual overtones of these visits is disclosed in Jane’s recollection about “how the one priest who put her to bed when she was but 3 or 4 years old would ‘play’ with her sexually, and how Marie finally figured that out” (Roberts, 1997, p. 222). My mother was a strong, domineering woman, probably scared to death of the position she found herself in. She was psychotic, attempting suicide several times and scaring the devil out of me as a kid with threats . . . One day [she] would say that she loved me, and the next day she’d scream that she was sorry I’d ever been born—that I’d ruined her life . To escape this unhappy childhood, Jane wrote poetry. By the testimony of those who knew her during these early years, Jane always wanted to become a writer and devote her life to writing poetry, novels, and short stories." This next article addresses her psychic, mediumship processes. It's very convoluted. https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/9856/ShawA0516.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y "Writing from the 1960s through the early 1980s, Jane Roberts claimed to channel the teachings of a discarnate energy personality named Seth. My purpose in this project will be to show that the Seth material, even as a product of the New Age movement, can be read according to the same principles that scholars have developed for approaching the channeled texts of previous eras. Because the Seth material comprises dozens of works over thousands of pages, I have focused my investigation on a single text: The God of Jane: A Psychic Manifesto. Written by Roberts, the book is a memoir which describes her experiences as a medium. Through various close readings of the manifesto, and by situating the work in a historical and cultural context, I demonstrate that The God of Jane functions as an interpretive guide for reading New Age channeled texts. In addition, I find that Roberts is not only a literary medium, she is also a literary theorist, who translates the tradition of mediumship into the latter half of the twentieth century."

I don't see how that question debunks the theory of evolution in any way. 'Consciousness' is a very broad term. The simplest definition is 'awareness', that is, 'the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings'. According to this definition, it seems reasonable to assume that all forms of life, including plants, must be conscious to some degree and in some way. However, because there are numerous types, levels and degrees of consciousness, one has to clearly define what type and level of consciousness one is referring to when examining consciousness from a scientific perspective. A unique quality of human consciousness is our higher capacity for abstract thought, which allows us to develop complex languages and make distinctions between numerous 'forms', and label them, using language. Form is created by 'human consciousness', because 'form' is a word created by humans. Every idea, concept, thought, word, scientific theory, non-scientific theory such as a creator God and all the other Gods throughout human history, are creations from human consciousness. However, the issue that's most relevant to any life-form, including microbes and bacteria, is the accuracy of its 'conscious creations' and its ability to adapt to a changing environment, and avoid accidents and mistakes, for the purpose of survival and reproduction. All life is in a constant competition for survival and reproduction. There are no exceptions that I'm aware of. If you know of any, please enlighten me. A Buddhist monk might be stting peacefully in a temple or cave, pleased that he avoids all activities that can kill life, such as digging the soil whicn can kill worms and insects. Yet he is probably not aware that within his own body there's a constant battle between competing microbes and bacteria and the human immune system. The number of 'killings' each day within just one human body is astronomical; far too numerous to count.

Can I assume that you are joking? Is there a better explanation for the development of millions of different species on the planet? What sort of questions should be asked that would show, or imply, that 'evolution is a great lie'?

Wikipedia has an interesting article on neurotheology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_religion The following quote from the article is an interesting explanation of the processes that result in a Buddhist monk, meditator, or contemplative guru, experiencing what they feel is the ultimate reality, or a oneness with the universe. "What Andrew B. Newberg and others "discovered is that intensely focused spiritual contemplation triggers an alteration in the activity of the brain that leads one to perceive transcendent religious experiences as solid, tangible reality. In other words, the sensation that Buddhists call oneness with the universe." The orientation area requires sensory input to do its calculus. "If you block sensory inputs to this region, as you do during the intense concentration of meditation, you prevent the brain from forming the distinction between self and not-self," says Newberg. With no information from the senses arriving, the left orientation area cannot find any boundary between the self and the world. As a result, the brain seems to have no choice but "to perceive the self as endless and intimately interwoven with everyone and everything." "The right orientation area, equally bereft of sensory data, defaults to a feeling of infinite space. The meditators feel that they have touched infinity." Here's the definition of 'orientation', in this context. "Orientation is a function of the mind involving awareness of three dimensions: time, place and person. Problems with orientation lead to disorientation, and can be due to various conditions. It ranges from an inability to coherently understand person, place, time, and situation, to complete orientation."

Everything we experience and think about, occurs inside of you, including all the emotions of happiness, hatred, depression, anxiety, and all the experiences of sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing. However, everything is connected, and therefore the conditions of the outside will always influence, to some degree, what happens inside of you.

I would disagree with the concept of 'whole new level'. There are numerous grades and levels of understanding which all involve the intellect, that is, the processing in the mind of all data received through the five senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch. Such processing also involves the memory of past and related experiences. A person who has never visited a beach anywhere, but has read wonderful stories about the beauty of beaches, which stimulate his/her imagination, might be very disappointed when visiting a beach in Thailand for the first time. The weather might be dull, the water dirty, and the sand might be cluttered with rubish. On the other hand, if the only story about beaches the person has read, is about the awful trash on Thai beaches, then, when the person, for the first time, happens to visit a beach which is pristine and the weather is fantastic, his direct experience will not accord with what he has read. Also, we need to discuss this concept of 'intellectual knowledge alone'. Is there really such a thing? There are varying degrees of distinction to be made between 'fiction' and 'non-fiction'. It's not 'either/or'. Everything is 'fiction' to some degree, because everything, every sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch, has to be interpreted by the mind, and such interpretations always differ to some degree, even if there is a consensus on an issue. This is why it's impossible to completely separate the subject from the object. The disciplines of science strive to be as non-fictitious as possible, and succeed to the degree that the scientific understanding becomes non-fictitious, resulting from the application of the 'true methodology of scientific enquiry'. However, because of the complexity of many situations, a degree of uncertainty still exists, especially in the so-called 'soft' sciences, such as economics, psychology, sociology, political science, anthropology, various field of medicine, climate change, and so on. It's difficult to find a comprehensice list of 'soft' sciences, probably because it's not an 'either/or' situation. However, the fundamental concept of a 'soft' science is based upon an inability to create the conditions required to 'falsify' a particular theory, because there are so many variables, and/or the time involved to get a result makes the experiment impractical. Is there anyone reading this, who would prefer to live in a world devoid of the benefit of modern science?

That's is a good point. The precise meaning of the words we use is a very significant issue. When one searches the dictionary for the meaning of any word in common usage, there are often many variations and synonyms, and the meaning often changes with the context. However, the numerous scientific disciplines have to create words that are much more precise. According to my search on the internet, the average English speaker knows, or recognizes, about 40,000 different words, but around half of those are only partially understood, and not understood well enough for active use, so the average English speaker uses only around 20,000 words. The full Oxford English Dictionary list about 500,000 words, but it's estimated there are another half million technical and scientific words that are not listed in the Oxford English Dictionary. The field of Biology alone has over 70,000 precise terms, which is almost twice the number of words that the average English speaker has stored in his/her memory. However, there appears to be hundreds of 'branches' of the major scientific disciplines. The following Wiki article lists them, but doesn't provide a total number. Perhaps someone has the time to count them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_branches_of_science

Did you paint that, Sunmaster? That's an excellent painting, but it looks as though you changed your mind and added a second painting of additional clouds above the original painting. Perhaps you bought the painting, then decided to improve it by adding the additional sky and clouds which you painted yourself.

The above quote from Wiki is the most relevant to the issue of 'reality' which is often discussed in this thread. Here's the definition of Epistemology: "The theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion." 'An internal perceptual copy of that world, generated by neural processes in our brain', is equivalent to 'an individual interpretation, in the brain, of everything a person experiences through the five senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch.' Since all individual humans are both genetically different to some extent, and have different 'early' experiences embedded in their subconscious, which 'unknowingly' affect their opinions and motives, and have different experiences during their education and development, which also affect their 'path' through life, their likes and dislikes, and so on, then it's no wonder there is such a wide range of different beliefs and opinions, amongst humans, which sometimes result in devastating conflicts and wars. In other words, everyone has at least a slightly different sense of 'reality'. Even Buddhist monks who strive to experience a reality which is free from the influences of the 5 senses, have disagreed on many issues during the past 550 years or so, and continue to do so.

Sometime you just gotta pee. What's the alternative? Let your pee drible down your legs and trousers? This can be a major problem for older men with an enlarged prostate.

You're out by a factor of 10. The current concentration of C02 in the atmosphere is 0.042%, or 420 parts per million.

Of course there isn't a single reality. There are trillions of life forms on our planet, and they are all different to some extent. Even creatures of the same species are all slightly different, so I would estimate, as a very rough guess, that there are around 500 quadrillion realities on our planet, and possibly much more. Each lifeform has its own reality, although the reality of members of the same species tends to be very similar. As I've mentioned before, reality is an inseperable combination of the environment and the subject experiencing the the environment. The reason why science tends to focus more on objectivity than subjectivity is because the environment is absolutely essential for life to exist. However, life is not essential for the environment to exist, although it's true that the existence of life does change the environment to some extent. A Buddhist monk sitting in a cave, meditating 16 hours a day, for 20 years, and imagining another reality, still needs the environment to survive, the air to breath and the food to eat. But the air and the plants and the oceans do not need the Buddhist monk.

I do keep an open mind, and I always change my views when I discover new evidence that is more convincing than the previous evidence that my opinions were based upon. An example is my current view on the claimed catastrophic effects of human CO2 emissions. A few decades ago, when Anthropogenic Global Warming became an issue, I accepted the 'so-called' science that was reported in the media, and which was discussed and explained during interviews of certain scientists, on the media. Why should I doubt the views of respectable scientists, when I've always had a high confidence in the efficacy of the Methodology of Science. However, when I investigated the issues for myself, doing searches on the internet for specific information, which was never addressed during such interviews, such as the history of flooding and storms in a particular location, the pH of the oceans, the undeniable benefits of CO2 which is stupidly vilified in the media as a pollutant, and so on, I soon realized that it wasn't 'validated science' that was being reported, but selected data which was cherry-picked to create the maximum alarm. So I changed my mind with regard to the claimed dangers of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and began thinking about the reasons for this political agenda to create excessive alarm. Was it to prepare well in advance for an eventual scarcity of fossil fuels that would eventually occur as nations continue to develop and increase their wealth? Was it to create fear, in order to control the population? Was it a misguided but genuine attemt to improve the natural environment, and so on?

Surely, in order to 'find out when we pass over to the other side as to why', there must be a thinking and conscious mind that continues to exist after the body has died. That is, a mind that functions without a brain. Wow! How miraculous! What seems more plausible to me is that death is like going to sleep without ever waking up. It's the end. It's all over for the individual. There's nothing to worry about and nothing to think about any more. It's equivalent to perfect and everlasting peace, which is why I prefer this idea, in the absence of any sound, contradictory and scientifically valid evidence..

I think you should begin by making a specific reference to what I've writtem that you interpret as my having a prime assumtion 'that our dear old mother earth, the entirety of our precious physical universe, and the 'you' that you see in the mirror is all there is'. Perhaps we should start with the definition of 'assumption'. The following definition is the most common. "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof" Didn't I give two examples in my post that you are responding to, which distinguish between an estimate of probability, that Dark Matter and Dark Energy exist as an explanation for the observed accelerating expansion of the universe, and the certainty of religious people that God exists? Perhaps the problem is the paradoxical way we sometimes use language. I recall stating in a previous post that 'I believe in the true methodology of science, which requires repeated experimentation that produces consistent results before something can be accepted as true, but true only with a high degree of probability.' However, the word 'believe' is a synonym for 'assume', which is to accept that something is true without proof. Therefore, if I say, 'I believe in a methodology which requires proof', it's equivalent to saying, 'I assume without proof that there exists a methodology which requires proof.' Also, I don't know why you are accusing me of cherry-picking data that fit my assumptions, and discarding other data which do not fit my assumptions. I agree that many people do this, but I am not one of them. I try to consider all sides of the argument that are availabe to me, and use my nous (capacity for rational thinking) to assess what seems most probably true.

Not quite. We have to make a distinction between a logical and rational inference that something, which cannot yet be detected, might exist, because it's the best explanation for certain observed phenomena; and an illogical claim of certainty that something which cannot be detected, does in fact exist. An example of the former, is the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It's existence is inferred from observations of the behaviour of distant galaxies. However, it's existence cannot yet be confirmed because Dark Matter and Dark Energy cannot yet be detected. There are other explanations for the observed accelerating expansion of the universe, but they are more problematic and flawed than the hypothesis of Dark Matter and Energy. An example of the latter is the certainty (or belief) that God exists, despite no confirmed and proven detection. This is an example of the 'giant logical faux pas' you refer to.

As I've mentioned before, science can only investigate what can be detected. If a berieved woman claims she is seeing her deceased husband at the dining table, then other people at the dining table can determine whether or not the deceased husband exists in reality, by applying the most basic methods of sight and waving their hand through the claimed location of the deceased person. It is reasonable to speculate that the woman is hallucinating, but suppose she is lying. Science doesn't have sufficiently sophisticated technology to detect a picture of the deceased husband in the woman's mind, but the technology is sufficiently developed to detect her degree of berievement. This is not a shackling of science by a materialistic paradigm. Science recognises the enormous complexities of the variations within each individual. We are all different, to some degree. Even identical twins are not really identical. A very carefully researched drug used to treat a particular ailment, can be very effective on some people, and perhaps most people, but not all people. Some people, because of their genetic conditions, life-style, and diet, might respond negatively to the same drug. Likewise, the individual experience of a particular Guru, resulting from certain practices, might be similar to the experiences of other people employing the same practices, but not similar to everyone's experience employing those practices, because of the differences in each person's background, genetic condition, past experiences, previous lifestyle, previous medical conditions, and so on.

Because such a belief system can also have harmful effects, known as the Nocebo effect, which is the opposite of Placebo. When two different religious groups engage in war, it's at least partly because each group has a Nocebo effect on the other group. Why? Tough nut to crack in a singular objective world. Might it have anything to do with that other world? You know, that subjective one? The one that you ignore? Question: What is a belief and what are a belief's effects? I don't know why you think that scientific enquiry ignores the subjective world. The subjective world and the objective world are inseperable. This is why it is impossible to be 100% objective and unbiased, because everything we experience or think about is fundamentally related to, and influenced by, our basic characteristics as a Homo Sapien species. Every experience, smell, taste, feeling, sight, hearing and thought process, is an interpretation in the human mind. Some interpretaions are considered to be correct, when they work consistently, and many are considered incorrect because they don't work consistently. The so-called spiritualists, often claim that science in general focuses on the material world, and ignores the non-material world. This is obviously not correct, because the Electromagnetic Spectrum, is non-material, that is, it has no mass. The Photon has no mass, yet everyone with eyesight experiences the effects of this non-material, massless energy, which science has been investigating for centuries. Of course, science cannot investigate things which it cannot detect, but it can examine the processes that take place in the mind using techniques such as 'Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)', and Electroencephalography, or EEG. Such proceses are limited, but will presumably improve in the future.

The placebo effect has been scientifically confirmed. It is estimated that about 30% of the efficacy of all pharmacological drugs is due to the placebo effect, that is, the belief of the patient that the drug will be effective. There have been experiments with two groups of people suffering the same problem. One group is given nothing, and the other group is given a placebo. The group given the placebo shows some improvement in their condition, whereas the other group shows no improvement. In light of this, I now have to admit that I shouldn't be making fun of the 'placebo' stories in the Bible. They are not literally true, but a belief in them might have an advantageous effect in curing some problem, if the belief is strong enough.

My google search also revealed many religious references like the one you quoted, but I'm reluctant to propagate nonsense. My belief is in the true 'methodology of science'. This methodology, as I understand it, requires at least some degree of skepticism on all theories, so that any flaws in a theory can be investigated, using a method of enquiry and investigation which is as objective and as unbiased as possible. Unfortunately, being biased and acting in accordance with an established, politicised, agenda, is normal human behaviour.

Sorry! I was being sarcastic. A Google search revealed the following: "Exceptional purity from pristine wilderness artesian water with a balance of minerals filtered through the best system that exists. Uncontaminated Nature." https://gtglivingwater.com.au/

Water which is full of life, such as bacteria and microscopic organisms.

Isn't the reason obvious? It would be difficult to create a religion based upon the founder being a 'bastard'. Therefore, the story of a 'virgin birth' was essential.

I did a search on the internet to find any studies on this issue, and found quite a few that support the claim that papaya leaf has anti-cancer properties. Here's just a couple, for those who are interested. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4734615/ "Carica papaya leaf decoction, an Australian Aboriginal remedy, has been reported widely for its healing capabilities against cancer, with numerous anecdotal reports. Recently, scientific studies have demonstrated the inhibitory activity of this decoction on the proliferation of both haematopoietic cell lines and solid tumour cell lines. The decoction was prepared by brewing Carica papaya leaves with water in a glass beaker or wooden vessel for a period of time (varying from 5 minutes to 12 hours in various reports). The heating process to prepare the decoction can potentially affect temperature-sensitive compounds, leading to possible changes in bioactivity. In our study, in comparison with the decoction, the leaf juice not only exhibited a stronger cytotoxic effect on SCC25 cancer cells, but also produced a clear significant selective effect when tested on non-cancerous HaCaT cells in parallel with cancer cells." https://ufhealth.org/news/2010/uf-researchers-find-cancer-fighting-properties-papaya-tea "University of Florida researcher Nam Dang, M.D., Ph.D., and colleagues in Japan have documented papaya's dramatic anticancer effect against a broad range of lab-grown tumors, including cancers of the cervix, breast, liver, lung and pancreas. The researchers used an extract made from dried papaya leaves, and the anticancer effects were stronger when cells received larger doses of the tea."

Yes. I do kmow the difference between climate and weather, but unfortunately the Main Stream Media appears not to, hence my sarcasm. Have you not noticed that every time there is an extreme weather event, the masss media tends to describe it as another example of climate change? They even sometime describe the cause of the extreme weather event being climate change, apparently not understanding that 'climate change' is a result, not a cause. What's also amazing is that they seem to think that the worst flood or storm in a hundred years is another example of 'anthropogenic climate change', when basic logic should enable them to understand that an equally severe, or even more severe event 100 years ago, before CO2 emissions began rising, would suggest that such a current, extreme weather event could be within the range of normal and natural climate.