Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps you'd like to comment on scientists that declared sugar and smoking didn't harm us.

Given the power of thought, IMO anything that promotes hope and a possible good outcome is OK as long as it doesn't harm. Reiki may not work, but it doesn't hurt anyone, and if they feel better for it why not. Often times people turn to alternative medicine because conventional medicine has failed. I was harmed for life by surgeons doing unnecessary surgery, and my brother may have been killed by medical incompetence- it's no wonder my mother hated doctors and turned to alternatives.

Exactly my thoughts, the much derided "pseudoscience " is mostly harmless, while there are plenty of "real" scientists who sell their souls for profit, without a thought for the well being of the majority of people. 

Science without a moral code should  not even be called science imho.

Same as religion,  science in the wrong hands can be dangerous. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps you'd like to comment on scientists that declared sugar and smoking didn't harm us.

Given the power of thought, IMO anything that promotes hope and a possible good outcome is OK as long as it doesn't harm. Reiki may not work, but it doesn't hurt anyone, and if they feel better for it why not. Often times people turn to alternative medicine because conventional medicine has failed. I was harmed for life by surgeons doing unnecessary surgery, and my brother may have been killed by medical incompetence- it's no wonder my mother hated doctors and turned to alternatives.

Science is a defender of facts and reality. It is not a defender of individual scientists and their motives.

Knowledge develops over time. As I have said alternative medicine may have examples where they are correct but there just isn't enough research to back it up. I mentioned in a previous post someone who took chinese herbs in a tea and got better. Acupuncture may be found to have merit. I would suggest though the vast majority in the list above are not in that category.  I don't like it when people promoting such treatments act as though it is backed by science and research.

I would agree that say naturopaths have done good. Aspects of their treatment had not been backed by scientific research, and are probably full of baloney, but they promoted healthy foods and lifestyles, meditation and yoga, before it was common.

In terms of the placebo effect having a place in medicine most doctors would not disagree that it scientifically may in fact have a positive effect. Reiki may be a benign waste of $80 that has a positive placebo effect, or it may not be , but many other new age treatments are more dangerous and or more expensive.  

 

On sugar I don't think many reputable doctors ever said excessive sugar was good - it probably wasn't a high profile topic in the past because excessive sugar use was much less common  than now. I still get annoyed though when I see certain foods such as breakfast cereal being given 4 stars out of 5 by so called health panels and they are packed with sugar.

No doubt there are corrupted doctors and scientists who  lied about sugar and about smoking and taking pain killers etc .  

In terms of your personal experience of surgery I suppose you can ask yourself is it an area where doctors are still learning - for example with prostate issues there has been debate over the last 10 years as to, given it can be a slow moving illness, it could be left alone. Other people die and should have had treatment. It is amazing that just through a blood test they can know so much. They are still though working out the best combination of treatments. It's easy to be cynical and say they operated for the money. Maybe in your case they did.

In some ways I concur with what you are saying but don't throw out the baby of science with the bathwater of the greedy doctors and researchers that appear hear and there. You may think the whole system and science in general is corrupted but I disagree. In this case there is a lot of baby and not much bathwater in my opinion.

[mauGR1]

The other day i came across Karl Popper's paradox... :

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

....For those who are interested in philosophy, this is imho a succinct explanation why every society, be it religious or scientific is doomed to become intolerant .

it follows that being tolerant is not always a good thing.

The problem is not easy to solve,  as the level of tolerance is subjective and different for everyone. 

[Peter Denis]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

...

it follows that being tolerant is not always a good thing.

The problem is not easy to solve,  as the level of tolerance is subjective and different for everyone. 

Fully agree.

Speaking personally I consider myself a very, very tolerant person.  Live and let live and do no harm to any living being, that being my motto.  And I am surely not the preaching or proselytizing type (denying others their point of view), but willing and fully capable to defend my views where challenged.

But in spite of the above, I am far from tolerant on those that are demeaning or cruel, and will call them out on that behavior.  With ignorance I am more compassionate, but there are limits... By the way, I recognize the same trait in @Sunmasters posts.

In general I am a kind person with much empathy and always willing to help wherever I can.  Of course my 'kindness' is sometimes mistaken for 'weakness' by people thinking they can make advantage of it, but those making that error are in for a surprise.

So far, for some tolerant soul-searching...

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Fully agree.

Speaking personally I consider myself a very, very tolerant person.  Live and let live and do no harm to any living being, that being my motto.  And I am surely not the preaching or proselytizing type (denying others their point of view), but willing and fully capable to defend my views where challenged.

But in spite of the above, I am far from tolerant on those that are demeaning or cruel, and will call them out on that behavior.  With ignorance I am more compassionate, but there are limits... By the way, I recognize the same trait in @Sunmasters posts.

In general I am a kind person with much empathy and always willing to help wherever I can.  Of course my 'kindness' is sometimes mistaken for 'weakness' by people thinking they can make advantage of it, but those making that error are in for a surprise.

So far, for some tolerant soul-searching...

Being tolerant it's easy peasy, but dealing with the intolerant not that much ????

[Peter Denis]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Being tolerant it's easy peasy, but dealing with the intolerant not that much ????

Yes, for sure I am not (yet) the 'turning the other cheek' person.

Unless of course, we are talking about doing a moony. ????

[mauGR1]

33 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Yes, for sure I am not (yet) the 'turning the other cheek' person.

Unless of course, we are talking about doing a moony. ????

Had to look for the meaning of "moony " and if i got that correct,  I've been rather moony recently... ????

on "turning the other cheek", it looks to me like a highway to instant enlightenment,  but it's easier said than done. 

[yodsak]

On 2/23/2021 at 9:50 AM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

4 Surely if the example you give above is true it could have been reproduced in the last 20 years  to satisfy the scientists. I cannot believe there would not be many scientists and Sheldrake himself happy to set up a test both to promote his theories and become famous by proving such a theory correct.

Exactly. A scientific hypothesis needs to be testable, falsifiable, peer reviewed . . ESP itself is neither scientific nor unscientific — but it can be studied scientifically or unscientifically, and scientific studies find no support for the hypothesis that ESP exists. Those who ignore the evidence and insist that ESP is a real, natural phenomenon fail to meet one of the key aspects of scientific behaviour: assimilating the evidence.

 

''I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be''.

--  Isaac Asimov,  Professor of biochemistry, , known for his works of popular science and science fiction . A prolific writer who wrote or edited more than 500 books.

 

[yodsak]

Rupert Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist who has made his name promoting various kinds of woo, including telepathy (including in dogs!), immaterial minds, and his crazy idea of “morphic resonance,” a Jung-ian theory in which all of nature participates in some giant collective memory. (He was once a real scientist, trained in biochemistry and cell biology at Cambridge, but somewhere went off the rails.)

 

I’ve crossed swords with Sheldrake before when I campaigned against his TEDx talk, which was filled with his crazy ideas. I and several others pointed out that what he said violated the mission of TEDx to present innovative but sound science. This resulted in TEDx taking Sheldrake’s talk off of their website and putting it in a special “time out” room for misbehaving woomeisters.

 

Let’s face it: we’ll never be free of people who lap up the woo of people like Chopra and Sheldrake. There’s something about human psychology that is susceptible to this kind of stuff. All we can do is decry it as often as we can, and hope that those on the fence will listen to us.

— Jerry A.Coyne.

https://newrepublic.com/article/115533/rupert-sheldrake-fools-bbc-deepak-chopra

[mauGR1]

34 minutes ago, yodsak said:

Let’s face it: we’ll never be free of people who lap up the woo of people like Chopra and Sheldrake. There’s something about human psychology that is susceptible to this kind of stuff. All we can do is decry it as often as we can, and hope that those on the fence will listen to us.

— Jerry A.Coyne.

I can smell a fanatic here, with some un-scientific attitude.

Spiritual science is not meant to oppose science, except in the minds of some hopelessly materialistic people.

 

After 1000s years of history,  it should be clear that people like to think with their own brains. 

Science is not meant to kill imagination. ⁹

The suppression of imagination would be a complete mistake, go read Popper's paradox, don't be intolerant ????

[Peter Denis]

5 hours ago, yodsak said:

Exactly. A scientific hypothesis needs to be testable, falsifiable, peer reviewed . . ESP itself is neither scientific nor unscientific — but it can be studied scientifically or unscientifically, and scientific studies find no support for the hypothesis that ESP exists. Those who ignore the evidence and insist that ESP is a real, natural phenomenon fail to meet one of the key aspects of scientific behaviour: assimilating the evidence.

...

I have had several telepathic experiences in my life, so there is no need for me to 'ignore the evidence' as you put it.

 

Just to give 2 personal examples (which also show that telepathy is not limited to life endangering situations when all your sensors are on guard, but also in very mundane casual circumstances).

1 - I vividly recall a mind-reading experience I had when I was approx 10 years old.  Our teacher had a book which he wanted to give to one of the pupils.  To make it a fair dealing, he told his class of about 25 children that he would think of a number from 1 to 100, and that the first one that got it right would get the prize.  The moment he said that I KNEW the number, and he then proceeded sequentially one by one to ask us which number we thought he had chosen.  Me sitting in the back of the class would be approx the 20th to which he would ask it.  Nobody of my class-mates told 'my number' and when it was my turn, I calmly called it out with not a shadow of doubt that that was the number the teacher was thinking about , and it was of course correct and I got the prize.

The point here being that I was utterly convinced I had it right, and there wasn't any doubt in my mind that I could have it wrong.  On the contrary, I would have been more than surprised if it turned out that my number was not the one the teacher had chosen.

2 - A couple of years ago we had a Game evening with 6 friends.  And we played a game with 3 teams of 2 people, in which one person in one of the teams had to decide on a word and the other person in that team had to make a drawing of it, while the other teams could make guesses what he was drawing.  The 'drawer' was not allowed to speak, and the person that had suggested the word could only respond with icy - cold - warm - hot to indicate whether the suggestion made was somewhat in the right direction.

The drawing team had chosen the word 'Zeus' (the Greek UpperGod residing on top of mount Olympus).  The drawer made two lines on the paper (it later turned out that he wanted to draw a mountain), and immediately I said 'Zeus'. I remember everybody looking strange at me when the - equally surprised - drawing team told that this was indeed correct.  The drawing team then told the rest of the participants that they had played this game the week before and that it took long time for the other teams to come up with the word Zeus, and hence that they took it again.  Of course that did not explain how I - not having been present then - could have it right, but the other teams seemed to think I had been there and so 'mystery solved for them'.  Only the drawing team kept on looking quizzically to me...

 

Now you can explain these examples (I have had several other similar experiences) as chance or me picking up the signal in another way than via 'mind-reading', but the fact that I KNEW and that it was not 'a guess' was unmistakable.  When you did not had such experiences, it would be almost impossible to describe that feeling of 'knowing'.  So there is no need for me wanting 'hard scientific evidence' that ESP is real, as I experienced it myself and the many studies/experiments that have been conducted that prove there is 'something' like ESP do not surprise me nor trigger my skeptic response.  

 

[mauGR1]

24 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

have had several telepathic experiences in my life, so there is no need for me to 'ignore the evidence' as you put it.

Careful,  it won't be long before some "scientists " demand some "solid proof " of the existence of telepathy ????

[Fat is a type of crazy]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I can smell a fanatic here, with some un-scientific attitude.

Spiritual science is not meant to oppose science, except in the minds of some hopelessly materialistic people.

 

After 1000s years of history,  it should be clear that people like to think with their own brains. 

Science is not meant to kill imagination. ⁹

The suppression of imagination would be a complete mistake, go read Popper's paradox, don't be intolerant ????

It is probably obvious but it could be summarised thus:

Science does not kill imagination. Imagination helps science. But imagination is not science until the theory is appropriately tested.

If the mission of Ted talks is to present innovative but sound science, and not simply interesting but unproven ideas,  then they had every right to point out that Sheldrake did not pass the test; 

There is nothing special about spirituality or anything else when it comes to science. Spiritual beliefs and ideas can only become sound science once there theories are tested and proven correct;

It is not ignorant to theorise about spiritual matters as long as you just keep an awareness of the definition of sound science. Saying something is not sound science is not to say it is silly or that to speculate about it is ignorant.  It only becomes so when people say that which is not sound science is sound science.

[Peter Denis]

3 hours ago, yodsak said:

Rupert Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist who has made his name promoting various kinds of woo, including telepathy (including in dogs!), immaterial minds, and his crazy idea of “morphic resonance,” a Jung-ian theory in which all of nature participates in some giant collective memory. (He was once a real scientist, trained in biochemistry and cell biology at Cambridge, but somewhere went off the rails.)

 

I’ve crossed swords with Sheldrake before when I campaigned against his TEDx talk, which was filled with his crazy ideas. I and several others pointed out that what he said violated the mission of TEDx to present innovative but sound science. This resulted in TEDx taking Sheldrake’s talk off of their website and putting it in a special “time out” room for misbehaving woomeisters.

 

Let’s face it: we’ll never be free of people who lap up the woo of people like Chopra and Sheldrake. There’s something about human psychology that is susceptible to this kind of stuff. All we can do is decry it as often as we can, and hope that those on the fence will listen to us.

— Jerry A.Coyne.

https://newrepublic.com/article/115533/rupert-sheldrake-fools-bbc-deepak-chopra

 

What better way of countering this Ultra Skeptic, than with an excerpt from an article by Sheldrake himself.

As soon as we accept the theory that the mind is more extensive than the brain, a whole range of unexplained phenomena begin to make sense.  These include the sense of being stared at, telepathy, and a whole range of even more mysterious phenomena like premonitions. All of these things are normal: normal in the sense that they are common, many have experienced them, they actually happen, and they are part of nature. Yet they are all considered taboo from the point of view of conventional institutionalized science because they do not fit in with the materialistic view of the mind being inside the head. Most scientists  prefer not  to discuss these phenomena and consider their existence impossible. In fact, some sceptics get extremely angry at the mere mention of things like telepathy, and there are organized groups of sceptics who serve as vigilantes, policing the frontiers of science and trying to suppress discussion and research on these topics.  As I am  one  of their primary targets, it has caused me to reflect on why people get so angry about this. I think it is because these phenomena are anomalies that threaten the prevailing material worldview. Many people accept the material worldview and have made it something of a religion . Evangelical materialists are terrified that if any of these theories are accepted, science and reason will crumble into dust and that civilization will be overrun by what Freud called "the black mud of superstition." These things are so frightful to some that they feel these theories must be kept at bay at all cost.

 

Rather than dogmatically denying them outright, testing these phenomena open-mindedly would be in     the true spirit of scientific inquiry. All science is based on critically examining evidence to see if there        could be alternative explanations.  This is how organized science works.

 

 

The full 5-page article The Extended Mind (interesting introduction to some of Sheldrake's work) added here for download.  Good for a quick read...

 

The Extended Mind_Rupert Sheldrake.pdf.pdf

Edited February 27, 2021 by Peter Denis

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

It is probably obvious but it could be summarised thus:

Science does not kill imagination. Imagination helps science. But imagination is not science until the theory is appropriately tested.

If the mission of Ted talks is to present innovative but sound science, and not simply interesting but unproven ideas,  then they had every right to point out that Sheldrake did not pass the test; 

There is nothing special about spirituality or anything else when it comes to science. Spiritual beliefs and ideas can only become sound science once there theories are tested and proven correct;

It is not ignorant to theorise about spiritual matters as long as you just keep an awareness of the definition of sound science. Saying something is not sound science is not to say it is silly or that to speculate about it is ignorant.  It only becomes so when people say that which is not sound science is sound science.

Well, I guess that R. Sheldrake is not losing any sleep over "Ted talks", and neither do i. 

If you want to think that consciousness is just electrical impulses coming from the brain, who i am to deny you that option?

Spiritual science is trying to explain the unknown using scientific methodology,  if that upsets some people so much, why don't they just stay out of it ?

[Fat is a type of crazy]

19 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, I guess that R. Sheldrake is not losing any sleep over "Ted talks", and neither do i. 

If you want to think that consciousness is just electrical impulses coming from the brain, who i am to deny you that option?

Spiritual science is trying to explain the unknown using scientific methodology,  if that upsets some people so much, why don't they just stay out of it ?

I think you are still a little bit missing the point and we actually agree. If they are using scientific methodology no problem but as yet it just isn't sound science. Think of the method as a direction and sound science as a destination. Those who have proven that carbon is an element  have reached the destination of sound science. Could still be overturned but not likely. Most if not all spiritual theories just haven't reached the destination. Its not an opinion it is fact.

Sometimes though I take your last point - I feel sometimes like I am posting on a football fan website about how much I am not into football. Replace football with faith. Maybe best I leave it there.

 

[mauGR1]

21 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I think you are still a little bit missing the point and we actually agree. If they are using scientific methodology no problem but as yet it just isn't sound science. Think of the method as a direction and sound science as a destination. Those who have proven that carbon is an element  have reached the destination of sound science. Could still be overturned but not likely. Most if not all spiritual theories just haven't reached the destination. Its not an opinion it is fact.

Sometimes though I take your last point - I feel sometimes like I am posting on a football fan website about how much I am not into football. Replace football with faith. Maybe best I leave it there.

 

Of course we agree on lots of points. 

In fact, i said that spiritual science (sorry for that generalization ) is 'trying ' to explain something which is indeed difficult to explain. Yet, the times are changing, and, as it was said a few posts ago, understanding the main principles of spiritual science, doesn't require blind faith,  but just a very normal open mind.

The amazing work of scientists during the centuries is not meant to be a straitjacket for human mind, but just the opposite. 

I guess you don't need any advice on the matter, but I dare to recommend you "Theosophy" written by R.Steiner about 100 years ago... It may satisfy (it did for me) your legit need for a rational approach to the knowledge of the Spirit. 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

 

What better way of countering this Ultra Skeptic, than with an excerpt from an article by Sheldrake himself.

As soon as we accept the theory that the mind is more extensive than the brain, a whole range of unexplained phenomena begin to make sense.  These include the sense of being stared at, telepathy, and a whole range of even more mysterious phenomena like premonitions. All of these things are normal: normal in the sense that they are common, many have experienced them, they actually happen, and they are part of nature. Yet they are all considered taboo from the point of view of conventional institutionalized science because they do not fit in with the materialistic view of the mind being inside the head. Most scientists  prefer not  to discuss these phenomena and consider their existence impossible. In fact, some sceptics get extremely angry at the mere mention of things like telepathy, and there are organized groups of sceptics who serve as vigilantes, policing the frontiers of science and trying to suppress discussion and research on these topics.  As I am  one  of their primary targets, it has caused me to reflect on why people get so angry about this. I think it is because these phenomena are anomalies that threaten the prevailing material worldview. Many people accept the material worldview and have made it something of a religion . Evangelical materialists are terrified that if any of these theories are accepted, science and reason will crumble into dust and that civilization will be overrun by what Freud called "the black mud of superstition." These things are so frightful to some that they feel these theories must be kept at bay at all cost.

 

Rather than dogmatically denying them outright, testing these phenomena open-mindedly would be in     the true spirit of scientific inquiry. All science is based on critically examining evidence to see if there        could be alternative explanations.  This is how organized science works.

 

 

The full 5-page article The Extended Mind (interesting introduction to some of Sheldrake's work) added here for download.  Good for a quick read...

 

The Extended Mind_Rupert Sheldrake.pdf.pdf 3.28 MB · 0 downloads

Amen to that! ????

[Fat is a type of crazy]

23 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Of course we agree on lots of points. 

In fact, i said that spiritual science (sorry for that generalization ) is 'trying ' to explain something which is indeed difficult to explain. Yet, the times are changing, and, as it was said a few posts ago, understanding the main principles of spiritual science, doesn't require blind faith,  but just a very normal open mind.

The amazing work of scientists during the centuries is not meant to be a straitjacket for human mind, but just the opposite. 

I guess you don't need any advice on the matter, but I dare to recommend you "Theosophy" written by R.Steiner about 100 years ago... It may satisfy (it did for me) your legit need for a rational approach to the knowledge of the Spirit. 

I used to have an interest in the Theosophical Society - they do look at interesting topics and concepts. A close relative, who I got along well with, was active with them. I just googled his name and it came up with stuff he wrote for them. I was for a time interested in Krishnamurti too who had a famous falling out with them. Over time I just let that side of things disappear. I think for me I just decided that nothing from that line of thinking was going to actually break through to my actual life and make it better or take me somewhere good. It was just more people believing more stuff. 

[Sunmaster]

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I used to have an interest in the Theosophical Society - they do look at interesting topics and concepts. A close relative, who I got along well with, was active with them. I just googled his name and it came up with stuff he wrote for them. I was for a time interested in Krishnamurti too who had a famous falling out with them. Over time I just let that side of things disappear. I think for me I just decided that nothing from that line of thinking was going to actually break through to my actual life and make it better or take me somewhere good. It was just more people believing more stuff. 

That's funny, because I was attracted to that line of thinking for its very logical and practical approach to the big questions in life.

There's a right time for everything I guess. It took over 20 years for the "spiritual seed" in me to mature and to go back to practicing. ???? 

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I used to have an interest in the Theosophical Society - they do look at interesting topics and concepts. A close relative, who I got along well with, was active with them. I just googled his name and it came up with stuff he wrote for them. I was for a time interested in Krishnamurti too who had a famous falling out with them. Over time I just let that side of things disappear. I think for me I just decided that nothing from that line of thinking was going to actually break through to my actual life and make it better or take me somewhere good. It was just more people believing more stuff. 

R.Steiner was a member of Theosophical Society as well, later on they parted roads.

Now it doesn't matter which path one is following, but personally I'm convinced that if you are searching for some truth, eventually you will  find, or perhaps the truth will find you.

[VincentRJ]

On 2/27/2021 at 11:13 AM, Peter Denis said:

I have had several telepathic experiences in my life, so there is no need for me to 'ignore the evidence' as you put it.

I vividly recall a mind-reading experience I had when I was approx 10 years old.  Our teacher had a book which he wanted to give to one of the pupils.  To make it a fair dealing, he told his class of about 25 children that he would think of a number from 1 to 100, and that the first one that got it right would get the prize.  The moment he said that I KNEW the number, and he then proceeded sequentially one by one to ask us which number we thought he had chosen.  Me sitting in the back of the class would be approx the 20th to which he would ask it.  Nobody of my class-mates told 'my number' and when it was my turn, I calmly called it out with not a shadow of doubt that that was the number the teacher was thinking about , and it was of course correct and I got the prize.

The point here being that I was utterly convinced I had it right, and there wasn't any doubt in my mind that I could have it wrong.  On the contrary, I would have been more than surprised if it turned out that my number was not the one the teacher had chosen.

 

We seem to be going down a minefield of rabbit holes in this thread. In your first example of a so-called 'mind-reading' experience at the age of ten, there is a very obvious explanation. The teacher said he would think of a number, but he didn't write the number on a piece of paper, right? 

 

In such circumstances the teacher was not required to prove that the number you quoted was the number he actually thought of. Perhaps he didn't think of any number.
Because he was a teacher, he probably thought that you were the most suitable person to receive the book, and therefore he wanted to give you the book, but he didn't want to show a personal bias to the class by giving the book to you, so he created the illusion of a random experiment of number-guessing.

 

Also, perhaps you were not the only one who was convinced they knew the number. Did you question all your class mates afterwards, about how certain they were that they knew the number?

 

As I've mentioned before, there are 'hard' sciences, and 'Soft' sciences. Your examples are at the extreme end of the 'Soft' sciences. In fact, so 'Soft' that they can hardly be described as science in any way. ????

 

I can understand that at the age of ten, such an experience would have had quite a profound effect and would have caused you to accept concepts of ESP as you grew up, and accept other experiences as confirmation of ESP, not realizing that such confirmations were examples of 'Confirmation Bias'.

 

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.

Edited February 28, 2021 by VincentRJ

[mauGR1]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.

While it's true that confirmation bias can distort one's perception of reality, this post doesn't seem to be immune to it.

[Peter Denis]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

We seem to be going down a minefield of rabbit holes in this thread. In your first example of a so-called 'mind-reading' experience at the age of ten, there is a very obvious explanation. The teacher said he would think of a number, but he didn't write the number on a piece of paper, right? 

 

In such circumstances the teacher was not required to prove that the number you quoted was the number he actually thought of. Perhaps he didn't think of any number.
Because he was a teacher, he probably thought that you were the most suitable person to receive the book, and therefore he wanted to give you the book, but he didn't want to show a personal bias to the class by giving the book to you, so he created the illusion of a random experiment of number-guessing.

 

Also, perhaps you were not the only one who was convinced they knew the number. Did you question all your class mates afterwards, about how certain they were that they knew the number?

 

As I've mentioned before, there are 'hard' sciences, and 'Soft' sciences. Your examples are at the extreme end of the 'Soft' sciences. In fact, so 'Soft' that they can hardly be described as science in any way. ????

 

I can understand that at the age of ten, such an experience would have had quite a profound effect and would have caused you to accept concepts of ESP as you grew up, and accept other experiences as confirmation of ESP, not realizing that such confirmations were examples of 'Confirmation Bias'.

 

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.

There are a couple of points I want to make regarding your post.

1 - I only cited 2 examples from my personal experience of 'reading another person's mind'.  I could have cited other examples.  Also useful to clarify that it does not happen to me 'on command' (so would be difficult to repeat it under laboratory conditions), but that does not make the experiences I had less real for me.

2 - You can 'explain away' the 1st example I gave (as you did) but the 2nd example would be more difficult although I am sure that you would be able to find an explanation to discard it.  Accepting the possibility that I actually had read another person's mind is of course a crazy and impossible thing from a Skeptic's perspective and begs for a far-fetched rational explanation...

3 - The main point in the 1st example is not so much that I guessed it right or that the teacher might have wanted to provide me with the book and didn't want the class to think he had 'favorites' (actually I was very far from a 'favorite' of his, as I was more the dreamy kind and he clearly preferred the brutal in-your-face pupils).

>> The actual point I wanted to make - and which you seem to have missed - is that I KNEW the number he had chosen.  There was no guessing or any doubt about this at all in my mind.  It struck me like lightning and I simply KNEW that was the number and was not in the least surprised that it was correct. 

When you never had such an experience, you will not be able to appreciate this 'feeling of absolute certainty' which is quite different - and actually much more real - than regular things you know (e.g. which is the capital of Estonia). 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

 

>> The actual point I wanted to make - and which you seem to have missed - is that I KNEW the number he had chosen.  There was no guessing or any doubt about this at all in my mind.  It struck me like lightning and I simply KNEW that was the number and was not in the least surprised that it was correct. 

When you never had such an experience, you will not be able to appreciate this 'feeling of absolute certainty' which is quite different - and actually much more real - than regular things you know (e.g. which is the capital of Estonia). 

 

How many times have you experienced this 'knowing certainty' about the outcome of an unpredictable event? How many times have you been wrong?

 

One major point that is very relevant about such experiences is that most of the time we are not aware of the many subtle influences that affect our opinions, experiences, interpretations and explanations.
There are so many past experiences, both good and bad (or traumatic), that are buried in our subconscious, and those experiences which we are unaware of, are influencing our decision-making and experiences all the time. It's why certain Buddhist Meditation Retreats do not allow people who have had a psychological history of trauma to join the group. Releasing such suppressed forces in the subconscious, through meditation practice, can potentially have some very disturbing effects.

 

There are also subtle influences experienced in the present all the time, which the conscious mind is unable to grasp, for various reasons depending on the circumstances. A common example is 'subliminal messaging'. The following article describes the 'subliminal' situation very clearly and is very readable and very interesting. I suggest you read the full article. Here are some quotes:

 

"What’s really fascinating is that our subconscious behavior is always on autopilot. Our subconsciousness is more powerful than consciousness when it comes to processing information: Subconsciousness is able to process 20,000 bits of information simultaneously, while consciousness can deal only with 7 ± 2 bits of information at the same time."

 

"Throughout the day, are you aware of every time you inhale and exhale? Or of every step you take in order not to fall? That’s subconscious thinking for you. Subliminal messages appeal to our subconscious mind. They work through a process in which external sensory stimuli work to trigger reactions without us noticing the signals."

 

"Conclusion
After walking through the history of subliminal experiments, you can see that subliminal messaging isn't just black magic - there is science to it. And no matter how much we want to be in control of our reactions, we are subject to external influences--with and without us being aware of it."

 

https://visme.co/blog/subliminal-messages/#:~:text=Subliminal messages are defined as,literally means “below threshold.”&text=In short%2C both the perception,happen at the subconscious level

[Neeranam]

I once was invited onto a tv program in scotland which was to be aired on one Halloween, a kind of spooky ghost thing.

Myself and my yoga teacher were hypnotically regressed. Well actually I wasn't, I was very nervous with all the cameras and spoke to the famous hypnotist, so famous I can't remember his name! After speaking to him I felt absolutely no stress or fear when sitting in front of a Grampian Tv camera.

He regressed me through my present life and it was qite a nice feeling, however when we got to 0, he asked my to name a date, which I did 1864 and I got this very weird feeling that I didn't want to go there. It was explained afterwards that this happens to many people, maybe something traumatic happened.

My friend however appeared on tv and she was transformed into an Indian woman.

Uri geller was also on this program and when he and my teacher were speaking, there was a very strange thing happened, they just stared at each other for what seemed like ages, kind of communicating without speaking.

I have seen the power of God, I believe in reincarnation, there is no doubt in my mind. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

6 hours ago, Neeranam said:

I once was invited onto a tv program in scotland which was to be aired on one Halloween, a kind of spooky ghost thing.

Myself and my yoga teacher were hypnotically regressed. Well actually I wasn't, I was very nervous with all the cameras and spoke to the famous hypnotist, so famous I can't remember his name! After speaking to him I felt absolutely no stress or fear when sitting in front of a Grampian Tv camera.

He regressed me through my present life and it was qite a nice feeling, however when we got to 0, he asked my to name a date, which I did 1864 and I got this very weird feeling that I didn't want to go there. It was explained afterwards that this happens to many people, maybe something traumatic happened.

My friend however appeared on tv and she was transformed into an Indian woman.

Uri geller was also on this program and when he and my teacher were speaking, there was a very strange thing happened, they just stared at each other for what seemed like ages, kind of communicating without speaking.

I have seen the power of God, I believe in reincarnation, there is no doubt in my mind. 

Good story. I am going to put on the doubter hat now. I had a similar experience in the 80's - met a girl in Lombok who referred me to a past lives therapist - that was a thing in the 80's. She was pretty, and a girlfriend of the lead singer of a successful Australian band - I gave it a go and had a similar experience to you.

It felt profound but I put it down to being in a strange situation and letting yourself and your imagination go and having a girl focus on you added to the theatre. My memories of the past life were vague - non verifiable - and nothing much. 

You probably know Uri Gellar describes himself as an entertainer these days. He had to due to fraud cases. James Randi did a good job on him.

So that's a different take on the past lives stuff.

[Peter Denis]

Some thoughts about reincaration by Dethlefsen, who has written extensively about it (him being a former reincarnation therapist).  Also - and main reason I picked this particular excerpt - is his assessment of the call for 'evidence', and the distinction between believing-knowing he is making. 

 

This rhythmic movement of the soul between life and death has, since time immemorial, been called transmigration of souls or reincarnation (literally a “re-entry into flesh”). Plato knew about it just as Goethe did. I deliberately say “knew” and not “believed”, for reincarnation is not a matter of belief but rather a matter of philosophical insight. Everyone is free to believe in something other than reincarnation, but it should be borne in mind that any hypothesis without reincarnation has the stamp of absurdity, since only reincarnation is in harmony with all universal laws.
How astonishing it is to hear people again and again demanding proofs of reincarnation.
Reality needs no outward proof since it proves itself by its very existence. The kind of functional, outward proof, that has been made into he keystone of scientific argument, is, in fact, the greatest enemy of true knowledge, for it seeks to enforce belief. To say “I have proved it” is in essence tantamount to saying “You must believe me”. But reality does not require proof because it is not a matter of belief. Reality is perceived through the individual's experience, and thereby generates knowledge.
If one knows something one does not need to believe it and one is free of the need for proofs.
A statement such as “death is the end of everything” does require proof because this statement forms no part of reality and therefore cannot be experienced. In no area of reality can one point to a process of nature that ends abruptly in nothingness.

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Peter Denis

[Fat is a type of crazy]

41 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Some thoughts about reincaration by Dethlefsen, who has written extensively about it (him being a former reincarnation therapist).  Also - and main reason I picked this particular excerpt - is his assessment of the call for 'evidence', and the distinction between believing-knowing he is making. 

 

This rhythmic movement of the soul between life and death has, since time immemorial, been called transmigration of souls or reincarnation (literally a “re-entry into flesh”). Plato knew about it just as Goethe did. I deliberately say “knew” and not “believed”, for reincarnation is not a matter of belief but rather a matter of philosophical insight. Everyone is free to believe in something other than reincarnation, but it should be borne in mind that any hypothesis without reincarnation has the stamp of absurdity, since only reincarnation is in harmony with all universal laws.
How astonishing it is to hear people again and again demanding proofs of reincarnation.
Reality needs no outward proof since it proves itself by its very existence. The kind of functional, outward proof, that has been made into he keystone of scientific argument, is, in fact, the greatest enemy of true knowledge, for it seeks to enforce belief. To say “I have proved it” is in essence tantamount to saying “You must believe me”. But reality does not require proof because it is not a matter of belief. Reality is perceived through the individual's experience, and thereby generates knowledge.
If one knows something one does not need to believe it and one is free of the need for proofs.
A statement such as “death is the end of everything” does require proof because this statement forms no part of reality and therefore cannot be experienced. In no area of reality can one point to a process of nature that ends abruptly in nothingness.

 

 

Sorry but just when I think I'll leave it there along comes something like this.

Not to believe in reincarnation is absurd. Why? He says that no one can point to a process in nature that ends abruptly in nothingness. Cemeteries suggest otherwise.  Possibly our sense of awareness or sense of being is somehow a thing separate from our bodies that must live on. Why? What is the evidence it is? The evidence is the opposite. 

But evidence is not necessary because he KNOWS it is true. 

He says death requires proof because we have no experience of it but reincarnation does not because we do. So if I know I have had an experience of reincarnation then it is by definition correct. 

But does he  know? Really? 

Philosophy is defined as the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge. He says he uses philosophical insight to know reincarnation is true. So knowledge of knowledge lead to knowledge that reincarnation is real?

 

He says knowledge comes from experience. Sounds OK as long as you take into account that your experience is limited and a subjective experience. He seems to say that the  experience he had is knowledge and no need for proof because I experienced something, I felt something that was so strong it makes it fact, and therefore I know it is correct. Why?

Further, he appears to say an individual's knowledge or feeling of knowledge is much more significant than objective proof. This might indicate that all religious people who have certainty in the knowledge of their faith are by definition correct. Why?  

 

If a scientist proves something by actual hard work and scientific testing he is telling everyone else they must believe him? No. That is not how science works. He is saying I think through my endeavours I have built a consistent argument that is borne out by the facts. He then welcomes others to attempt to prove him wrong. That proof requires more than someone saying I am certain I am correct and by that certainty alone  I have proven you wrong.

Sometimes some words on a page are poetic or have a nice feeling but if you take it bit by bit it there's nothing there except for: I think or feel with certainty that I know so it is fact. Reincarnation is real because I know it is and because I know it is reincarnation is real.  

This is the smugness I talk about - not in you but in the author - they feel they can just say stuff like that and in the end just smile and say - I just know. No. 

 

[Neeranam]

Regarding Karma, I visited a retreat centre in Darmasala, India. This is where HH the Dalai Lama lives and I was very fortunate to meet him. After 13 days in the retreat, he had an audience with us. We were allowed to ask him questions, so I had two, which were about emptiness. As soon as I shook his hand and he gave me a necklace, I knew the answers to the questions immediately, without asking! He had a tremendous aura and my friend and I were in a state of bliss for about 3 days; we couldn't stop smiling and many thought we were on drugs. 

 

We had a visit from a very senior Lama, who had not had much contact with Westerners. Someone asked a question about Karma and the translator said that many Westerners don't believe in Karma. I still remember his complete shock and laughter. 

There was an Israeli girl who sat at the front of the room. She asked some questions in a rather rude way, almost shouting. One question was "why do monks eat meat, they are like pigs?". At the end of the questions, we had a meditation and there was a loud grunting noise coming from the front. We were ll amazed as this girl had fallen over and was lying on her side, snoring which sounded like a pig. When the Lama left, a seior monk said to be careful when criticizing the monks/Buddhism.

When we were there, a nun from England joined us. She had just spent 12 years in isolation in a cave in the mountains. She was obviously enlightened and light shone from her.

Talking about light, I also met a senior yogini in Mount Abu. She gave us 'Drishti', which means to sit looking at each others forehead, where the soul sits. This was the most profound spiritual experience I have ever had. I was in Nirvana/heaven, soft golden/red light of a great intensity. I tried to focus on her face but whatever I tried I couldn't see it. It was incredible, she really didn't have a head that could be seen, just a source emitting waves of light.

Also in Darmasala, there was a Spanish boy who was about 6 years old. He was tested and proved to be the reincarnation of a Lama. This was done by him choosing several objects which had belonged to the Lama. 

So many other great experiences, like getting off a train in a city and walking through a park where a beggar shouted out "hello Mr. Neeranam". I was intrigued and he went on to tell me my future and past, but that's all for now.