IMG_2361
Blog powered by Typepad

« The game of life | Main | Story time »

Comments

A theory taught as fact shows the power of scientism.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66517

Apparently the link above suggests that Darwin knew a little bit about plagiarism.

http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/essays/
ARWPAMPH.htm

The link above suggests that Wallace came out in favor of spiritualism something the Darwinist don’t appear to talk much about.

The link above has excerpts from some of his writings on spiritualism and they appear to be very sound as he not only attended séances but also did much research into spiritualism.

Here is a very short sample: "...all the material imperfections of our globe, the wintry blasts and summer heats, the volcano, the whirlwind and the flood, the barren desert and the gloomy forest, have each served as stimuli to develop and strengthen man's intellectual nature; while the oppression and wrong, the ignorance and crime, the misery and pain, that always and everywhere pervade the world, have been the means of exercising and strengthening the higher sentiments of justice, mercy, charity, and love, which we all feel to be our best and noblest characteristics, and which it is hardly possible to conceive could have been developed by other means..."30

I was reading your 2007 post about reincarnation having surfed via google re:
Helen Wambaugh. I'm not sure how to defend or not her work on Past life regression, as I'm not sure at this late date that I remember how she analyzed all her data. I will say that I knew her in the late 70's and underwent numerous past life group sessions with her. In fact I was on the TV program "in search of" and in her People (?) magazine article. Most of the participants seemed to have memories of "past lives" during these sesions. In fact I clearly recall portions of at least three "lives" and the birth experience. I can't say I totaly believe in reincarnation, but I'm still wary of beliving it does or doesn't take place.

People who automatically dismiss others out of skepticism probably should be discounted themselves. For example, the comment, "some chick....." proves that person's lack of credibility. Helen was certainly no Spring Chicken when she wrote her books, and to refer to her as some chick is enough to get me ROTFLMAO! She was in her late 50's, very obese and not "Chick" like at all. She was very nice and quite serious about her work.

Just a comment about this for you, as I write my own blog and am always interested in comments.

Please excuse my typos, I don't type anymore since a minor stroke and just never hit the right keys.

Your's in the blogosphere,
Rick Thompson

Thank you Rick Thompson for sharing your story. I strongly lean in the direction that reincarnation exists. I think most of us resist the thought of coming back and doing this all over again.

There are several reasons I believe it to be so. One some people are healed during a past life regression. This suggests more than a spirit controlling a body and that the person actually lived through that life.

Another with scars on the body that match wounds during a past life. This suggests to me that the astral body carried those scars over from a past life.

And of course all the memories some children have from a past life. I.e. my 3-year-old granddaughter is sharing and knowing things that she has not been taught in this life. She even claims to be able to see people that none of us see.

Concerning Wambaugh her statistics line up perfect with the birth rate yet I understand she regressed more women then men. When statistics come out that perfect a big red flag comes up in my mind. Also do you know if she made such a statement that the average time between lives was 52 years? Average can be such a misleading number.

Would you mind sharing your website link.

"The link above suggests that Wallace came out in favor of spiritualism something the Darwinist don’t appear to talk much about."

Wallace certainly came out in favour of Spiritualism.
He wrote "Miracles and Modern Spiritualism" - a record of his experiences and in his book "My Life" he devotes a whole chapter called 'Mesmerism to Spiritualism' to some previously unpublished experiences.

Here's what Louie Savva has to say about Wallace

http://www.everythingispointless.com/search/label/spiritualism

Louie describes himself as: Atheist. Nihilist. Anarchist. Pessimist. Misanthrope.

In his email exchange with Sue Blackmore, with whom I crossed swords on more than one occasion on TV, he says:

There are three facts which I now choose to acknowledge as the most important. There is no point to life. There is no survival after death. One day, the whole universe will die. With that knowledge I now find my life almost joyless.

Why should I take any notice of him?

Because isn't he telling the truth? I mean it's easy to get duped. Look evolution is a well established fact. Well the age of spritualism was a religion, with individuals who were preying on the weak and innocent.

Seems we're still living in an age of spiritualism with predators sheering the gullable sheep. You could say that organized religion has been doing that since the Pharoahs and the priests in Sumer.

Wish I could read what you're talking about, but the filter here has X'ed it out. I'll get to it later tonight.

“Because isn't he telling the truth? I mean it's easy to get duped. Look evolution is a well established fact. Well the age of spritualism was a religion, with individuals who were preying on the weak and innocent.”

This writer did make one valid comment. “I mean it’s easy to get duped.” The dilemma becomes we almost never think we are the ones being duped. It is always the other person or persons being “duped.”

These are the type of comments when anything is taught as truth whether it be one’s bible or evolution. I think there is some kind of intrinsic desire to find truth and if we can find that truth in a book or in our educational institutions it fills this inherent desire with some certainty (comfort?) but only for a limited amount of time. Then doubt creeps in; maybe in this life or another and then we continue to seek these “truths” for the very essence of our Being.

I know when I started this journey in earnest almost two decades ago I have to admit I was looking for one book or author that had this truth. It was not to be.

This intellectual journey may only be an aid or often a hindrance in discovering the real truth of our Being as an expression of what most call God. I.e. pure awareness. Or not. :-)

Jacob - you fail to convince me.

Quoting Louie Savva is meaningless.

Making ridiculous statements about Spiritualism also doesn't help.

William, you said:
There are several reasons I believe it to be so. One some people are healed during a past life regression. This suggests more than a spirit controlling a body and that the person actually lived through that life.

ANSWER: Have you ever heard of the placebo effect? It's used in medicine all the time and it works. If people think something might help them, it often does.

William, you said:
Another with scars on the body that match wounds during a past life. This suggests to me that the astral body carried those scars over from a past life.

ANSWER FROM A "MEDIUM" FRIEND OF MINE:
If that is the case and we supposedly have many, many, many lives, then surely we would have had multiples where we died from some sort of injury, and if that be the case, then why are we not all walking around covered in birthmarks?

William, you said:
And of course all the memories some children have from a past life. I.e. my 3-year-old granddaughter is sharing and knowing things that she has not been taught in this life. She even claims to be able to see people that none of us see.

ANSWER FROM A "MEDIUM" AGAIN: Children who haven't developed a strong sense of "self" tune into memories that aren't their own, and hypnotized adults have their own sense of self "turned off" and so they are able to tune into other folks memories.

See how easily it is to sink this particular belief?

Regarding reincarnation. Our guides tell us this is false. The memories people report come from the spirit world, just like mediums receive messages. It is certainly true that many many spirits believe in reincarnation, and this creates a circular effect, which supports the beliefs of mortals. We have also been told that this belief is not one which will impede your spiritual growth. Each of us has free will, so you really have no choice but to walk away from a reincarnationist, after you have heard their side, and told them your side. Reincarnation is obviously a hard thing to "prove" particularly to a spirit. How long do they wait before they "know" they won't reincarnate? In fact it seems they realise first that they are so far evolved beyond us mortals, that it simply cannot serve any purpose. You might console yourself that a belief in reincarnation has very little bad effect on your spiritual growth.

I am right now being faced (and have continually over the past few years) by those with beliefs in past/parallel lives and the multidimensional nature of being. Many of those I have come into contact with believe that by gaining knowledge and healing these aspects of their being or lives helps to "unblock" their hearts to Divine Love. My personal experience of "pastlife healing" did not convince me that what was being projected was evidence of my "multidimensionality" or in any way a "healing" process as it was suggested to me. Actually, I felt as if I was observing the role of the main character in the life of another. On reading the Messages about why there is no reincarnation and what creates these "memories", I understand why now.

Silver Birch contracts himself on this subject; in one book he says yes and in another no.

A guide of Emma Hardinge Britten when questioned on this subject asked: Does the eagle go back to the egg?

FINALLY, A SPIRIT MESSAGE FOR YOU:
I am here, Saelish.
I was, when on earth, an inhabitant of the great Empire of Assyria of which Nineveh was the capital. I was not a king but was one of a great king's magicians or wise men, and when I lived was a man of great influence and power in the kingdom.
I came tonight to tell you a great truth in connection with the soul. As you may infer, when I lived we knew nothing of the one and only God, but we worshipped many gods, great and little, and believed that these gods could help or harm us, just as we deserved their help or their injurious workings. And so our many gods sometimes came in conflict in their treatment of us poor mortals, so that we at times hardly knew whether our gods were our friends or our enemies.
Of course, the help that we sought for was all of a material nature, for never did we think of help in the way of preparing us for a future life; that, we supposed, was only for those of us who by our great achievement in battle or in intellectual pursuits would, upon death, become gods ourselves. The poor, ordinary mortals were only intended to live the mortal life, at least during the incarnation that they then had, and their expectations were that perhaps in some future incarnation, they might have the opportunity and the favors of the unknown gods, so that they might become gods themselves.
This was the substance of the beliefs and hopes of the Assyrians at that time - and many millions died in that belief and are now inhabitants of the several planes of certain spheres of the spirit world. None of them has ever returned for a new incarnation and thereby start on their way to become gods, and this for the reason which is sufficient to satisfy them when they became spirits, sooner or later: those men who they supposed had become gods when they died, were in the spirit world spirits themselves, and not gods at all (sic).
So you see that the soul, when once it leaves the physical body, never returns again to any physical body, but continues in the spirit world to exist as a soul with a body of spirit form and substance; and no spirit has ever experienced the sensation of becoming reincarnated. And this is the truth that I wished to tell you; that the soul, when once it leaves the physical body, never again finds its habitation in another or the same physical body, but forever thereafter occupies the spirit body, and that in the spirit world only.
When a mortal dies, earth, so far as being the home of that mortal again in earthly body, becomes a thing of the past - it is a mere way station which has been left behind, and will never again appear as a stopping place on the spirit's line of progression.
I thought it might do good for me to write this tonight, for it is the information from a spirit who long years ago lived on earth and believed in this doctrine of reincarnation, and who during all the long years of its spirit life has learned and experienced the truth, that reincarnation is a fable and has no real existence.
No, the soul never retraces its steps or its method of existence, for it never goes back from the spirit to mortal.
I know that on the earth today there are thousands of mortals who believe in this doctrine of reincarnation, and many thousands more have died in that belief, but they live and die in that belief, and only when the truth comes to them, do they realize that their belief was an erroneous one, and that they will never reach Nirvana by retracing their course of life through the physical body.
The soul never dies, but always lives, and whenever its position is such as to justify progression, it progresses.
I live in the sixth sphere, and am considered to be a very exalted spirit in my intellectual acquirements and in my condition of freedom from sin and errors which belonged to me on earth, and which belongs to every mortal. My happiness is very great, and my home and surroundings are beautiful.
This sphere is a wonderful place, not only because of the surroundings and homes of the inhabitants, but because of the great mental and moral development of those who live in that sphere. No spirit who has not that development can live in this sphere because of its unfitness.
Male and female spirits enjoy this wonderful development and their intercourse in the intellectual things that exist in this sphere is free and frequent, and the interchange of thoughts brings much happiness and satisfaction.
We don't know of any spheres beyond the sixth, although we have heard it rumored that there are other spheres, but we give little credence to these rumors, because none of us, I mean the inhabitants of this sphere, has ever found a higher one, and many of us live in the highest planes of this sphere.

Oh, and I forgot this, regarding a well known medium:

Psychic Medium (name withheld)has been communicating with the souls of the afterlife his entire life. The information he receives from the other side is unlike anyone else in the world. Often considered to be the best psychic mediums in the world today, he is working on his first book to be published in late 2008. Group Reading (Up to 6 people at one time): $1200.00

Quick Facts: The souls of the other side often tell Jason that reincarnation does not exist. Our souls move on to another plane, but never come back to this earth.

Or is it that "your spirits are smarter than ours" ?

Sorry, and for those interested, regarding Alan Kardec:

In France reincarnation was advocated before the time of Allan Kardec by several philosophers and mystics, such as Henri de St. Simon, Prosper Enfantin, Charles Fourier, Pierre Leroux, and Jean Reynaud. From an article by Alexander Aksakof in the London Spiritualist during 1875, it appears that Kardec adopted the doctrine of reincarnation from spirit communications that were received by the medium Celina Japhet. Japhet's mediumship was developed by one M. Roustan, a mesmerist who believed in reincarnation.

If the medium disclosed the doctrine under the effect of the mesmerist's belief, it is easy to understand how Kardec and his school could receive ample confirmation through automatists of his tenet that spiritual progress is achieved through a series of incarnations.

The influence of the Kardec school was powerful and, by the appeal of its reconciliation with the apparent injustices of life, it became more popular than the teachings of the Spiritualist Z. J. Piérart and his followers, who denied reincarnation and relied on the same kind of evidence as that which the Kardecists produced. Indeed, Alphonse Cahagnet, who kept the earliest careful trance records in France, was the first to whom the communicators emphatically denied reincarnation.

Sorry again, I forgot this information in my last post, it is more speculative, but nonetheless perhaps relevant:


For its psychological import, it is also interesting to note that at the exact time of Kardec's death, Home claimed to have received the following communication: "I regret having taught the Spiritist doctrine. Allan Kardec." (See Home's book Lights and Shadows of Spiritualism, 1877.)

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle pointed out that since reincarnation for the spirits is a question of their own future, they may not be more enlightened on it than we are on our own fate.

By the way William, when you stated your grand-daughter sees people who you can't, you just established what I have written to explain it for you. Why would you not see that she is picking up information from them? Perhaps because you "choose" your own spin on it?

Anon wrote:

"Silver Birch contracts himself on this subject; in one book he says yes and in another no."

I would dearly love to know the two books where this happens.

I've heard this before but the writer when challenged claimed a friend told her.

Having sat with Silver Birch I know this to be completely untrue.

I also have all the Silver Birch books.

I am interested in evidence which can be verified.

Calling all dualists and idealists

I read this discussion between two users i wonder what your opinion is?

Here's your filter theory of mind and brain

But obviously if the brain "filters" consciousness so to speak, then once the self operates by itself without a brain, then its abilities are no longer limited by the brain. One does not require physical processes to occur for a disembodied self to recognise faces for example. It is consciousness which does the recognising, not the physical processes in the brain. Indeed it is only consciousness which ever does the recognising. These physical processes merely allow ones consciousness to recognise faces whilst one is embodied.

response

And it is precisely this sort of claim which is incompatible with the evidence. If, as an example, all we knew about the visual cortex is that various portions of it are active during various visual perception tasks, then one could certainly speculate that it is just acting as a filter, and that the actual visual perception tasks are being performed by some non-physical consciousness. But that isn't all that we know!

The simple fact of the matter is that your brain does recognize faces. You can bury your head in the sand and ignore this fact, since it contradicts your precious transmission hypothesis, but it is still a fact.


Hang on a sec. Let's imagine that we survive our bodies (i.e there is a "life after death"). Are you seriously suggesting we could not recognise shapes, motion detection etc in an afterlife? No wonder you reject such a notion!

No. I am saying that, in such a case, some new entity would have to take over these functions from the (now non-functioning) brain. What we do know is that for an ordinary living human being, these functions are performed by the brain. I am not going to worry about how they are performed in your hypothetical ghosts, because I see no reason to believe that such things exist in the first place. Incidentally, the fact that such an afterlife would require that these some non-physical entity be there to take over these clearly physical functions of the mind, is one of the (many) reasons why I think that such an afterlife does not exist.

Keep in mind that, historically speaking, many aspects of the mind which are currently known to be functions of the brain, were once assumed by dualists to be performed by some non-physical mental entity.

Care to name any?

Well, for starters all of the various information processing and storage functions of the mind which are now known to be performed by the brain. For example, take vision. It was not so very long ago that dualists would all have argued that things like shape recognition, motion detection, and even face recognition, were all non-physical activities performed the some "mental entity". For that matter, some dualists still believe they are, in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

As we began to discover the role the brain plays in the mind, dualists have been forced to draw an arbitrary line between consciousness and so-called "physical correlates of consciousness". Not only is the drawing of such a line completely arbitrary (since both sides of the line are clearly aspects of the mind), but as we learn more about how it works, they are forced to continuously move that line. Every time science figures out something new about the mind, yet another piece of it suddenly goes from being considered an aspect of consciousness, to being a physical correlate of it.

Epiphenomenalism is just the logical culmination of this process. They go ahead and agree with the physicalists that any and all aspects of the mind which are in any way causally efficacious, are on the "physical correlate" side of the line, and that only phenomenal consciousness remains on the non-physical side. And even then, they are only able to keep anything at all on the consciousness side of the line, by appealing to fallacious arguments and circular reasoning.

Oddly enough, out of all the various forms of dualism out there, supernatural dualism is the least problematic. At least they don't have to worry about trying to reconcile their position with all the scientific evidence that keeps annoyingly explaining what they thought was part of some mysterious "mental realm" which science has no access to. The only problem they have to deal with is the fact that, like all forms of supernaturalism, their position is utterly vacuous and completely useless as an epistemological framework.

s: 2291
Posted 06/15/07 - 11:19 AM:
quote post
#67
Minty,

On the contrary, I specifically cited the fact that most interaction dualists subscribe to the view that some aspects of the mind are brain processes, and that others are processes of some mental substance, and that these two processes interact with each other. This is neither the transmission hypothesis nor the production hypothesis.

It depends what you mean by "mind". They don't believe any aspect of consciousness or the self are brain processes. I'm aware of no back peddling by interactive dualists on this issue. Hence my request for enlightenment. Looks like I'll be waiting forever though.

Speak for yourself. I personally know quite a few dualists who do believe exactly what you are saying they do not.

I never made any such claim. I think that transmission theory is false because I know that it is not compatible with the scientific evidence.

Which scientific evidence? I know of no scientific evidence it is incompatible with. Is this evidence going to remain a secret forevermore??

The scientific evidence quite clearly shows that the brain is, at the very least, an active component in all aspects of consciousness. The notion that the brain acts as a receiver which consciousness uses to control the body and collect sensory information, simply ignores all of the known functions of the brain which go way beyond that.

You seem to like to use the analogy of a television set. Well, if somebody who understands electronics looks inside of a machine which, from the outside, seems to be an ordinary TV, only to find that the machine is actively generating the story being shown, then the transmission theory gets rejected. The same goes for the brain. The transmission theory might have been a viable possibility several decades ago, when we did not actually know anything about how the brain works. But now it simply is not.

Note that this has nothing to do with metaphysical presumptions. It is simply a matter that the transmission theory is not compatible with what we know about how the brain works.

And so it goes my beliefs are thee beliefs.

It is the paradigm effect in action.

The so-called spirit (Saelish) in the sixth dimension is teaching some of the lowest level teachings I have read. Only a person with a very low level of intellect or they have not done their research would think this spirit is residing in the sixth dimension.

Sorry but that is the reality of believing such low level teachings. Discernment is very important when evaluating such teachings.

Easy to fool those that want to believe those that think like them.

If reincarnation is not a reality I will not be one bit disappointed.

the transmission theory is not compatible with what we know about how the brain works.

The fact that various centers of the brain show activity when mental processes are taking place does not mean that consciousness originates in those centers. It could just as easily mean that an extracerebral consciousness is operating on those centers.

I must ask why do parapsychologist's invent terms like psi-missing? Isn't it an excuse for a failed psi experiment? That isn't science.

If reincarnation is not a reality I will not be one bit disappointed. - william
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reminds me of a quote by Mark Twain, "There has never been an intelligent person of the age of sixty who would consent to live his life over again. His or anyone else's."

Very few of the Near Death Experiences that I've read willingly came back. There are even those that were angry that they were brought back.

One NDE of a little 11 year old girl that I read said that told Dr. Morris that she pitched a fit on the other side, grabbed hold of a fence pole, and the being of light just laughed and sent her back anyway.

Another NDE that I read was about a doctor in a hospital who had a heart attack and his friend, another doctor, resuscitated him. After coming back he told his friend, "don't you ever do that to me again."

The only people who want to come back are small children who are afraid that their parents will be sad, or mothers with small children.

"I must ask why do parapsychologist's invent terms like psi-missing? Isn't it an excuse for a failed psi experiment?"

Not exactly. If I'm right, it works something like this. Say hypothetically an illness is cured by Medicine 1. A doctor wants to see if it works with Medicine 1 and a new Medicine 2. However, the combination results in no positive outcomes. Then, that is indicative of something. It shows that Medicine 1 works, as it has a 100% result rate, but by adding the second medicine, the result is negated.

If the combination cured say 40% of the illnesses, then it suggests that something else may be at play, and that medicine 1 may not be the only possibility to cure the illness.

In PSI terms, a 90% positive test suggests that it is real. If a test had a result equal to chance, then it may be attributable to chance. If the result is very very low, then it suggests, again, that something is at play and that the test conditions may be having an averse effect.

Another example might be someone walking into a room in a horror film and saying "It's too quiet... something is up". Now, if they heard loud screaming and violent noises, they'd know something is up. If they hear absolute silence, they again may feel something is 'wrong'. If they heard general ambient noises, they may feel the situation is normal.

Odd example, I know but it came into my mind. Besides if I'm wrong, someone with more knowledge of the subject than myself will be along to correct me.


Also, with regard to your dismissal of the television transmission theory thingamabob. You state that knowing the intricacies of a television manifest that it helps to create the story and the visual. Well, is not this the job of our synapses and neural pathways etc?

I'm glad you're asking questions though, and not just dismissing this topic out of hand. Now that's science.

Thanks for response

My big beef is what would falsify esp for example? or precognition?. I mean in mainstream science a failed experiment is a failed experiment and usually argues against the hypothesis.

Well, it depends. In psychology could certain atmospheres alter the result?

Imagine you wanted to scientifically test what a person found attractive in someone (such a test has recently been carried out by Aberdeen University). Then, you held a gun to their head while you showed them different things. They might have things on their mind other than the test in question.

So we could say:

a scientist who is bitterly opposed to the idea of a positive outcome and creates a negative atmosphere as a result

someone tested under sloppy conditions that does not allow them to be comfortable and provide their best work

the simple fact that the tested subject may just not be 'on form' that day

It's interesting that you say 'in mainstream science a failed experiment is a failed experiment and usually argues against the hypothesis'. Well, in mainstream sciene, a positive experiment is a positive experiment and helps to support a hypothesis. So why does this not apply to the numerous positive experiements for psi?

Good points I have to say I agree with you.

One more question though do you have any references to a skeptic and a parapsychologist getting a positive result for psi?

The simple fact of the matter is that your brain does recognize faces. You can bury your head in the sand and ignore this fact, since it contradicts your precious transmission hypothesis, but it is still a fact.

If it is a fact, information transfer without brain is impossible. How exactly do you explain Pam Reynolds NDE experience and other OBE experiences where the witnesses *does* see objects which are outside of their sensory range even if they would be
awake ?

The transmission theory might have been a viable possibility several decades ago, when we did not actually know anything about how the brain works. But now it simply is not.
Fine. Tell the facts which proved that consciousness resides only physically in the brain.

My big beef is what would falsify esp for example? or precognition?
If the experiments (ganzfeld etc.) under controlled conditions yield *overall* chance
results (or deviations which can be expected by random noise).But there is the severe problem how to difer very weak influences from nonexistent ones e.g. in epidemiology. So if you are correct, you give coincidence intervals even if theoretically the result is zero (As in physics: The photon mass and the electron radius, both theoretically zero, are given miniscule practical limits).

Sure no problem

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/steven_conifer/mbd.html

How a person can survive death given that so many characteristics essential to one's personality are known to be brain dependent: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html#personality

Also what would it take to falsify the transmission theory? The correlations we have for mind/brain are very tight.

What testable predictions does the transmission theory make?

One more question though do you have any references to a skeptic and a parapsychologist getting a positive result for psi?

See the relatively good Wikipedia article for Ganzfeld. Especially Hyman is dishonest because while he acknowledges that he can't explain the deviations in parapsychological publications (and has been criticized for sloppy research by an expert of meta-analysis, Robert Rosenthal),
during skeptic meetings he forget that and touted that parapsychology is still unable to get a successful experiments since 100 years, etc. etc.
The book "The Psi Wars" is a good reading
lecture.

Just killin' the italics.

Oh, drat. It didn't work. Oh well.

"Italics off!"{grin!}

I fixed the italics.

Regarding how testable the transmission theory is, I think there is probably no way to definitively disprove it, which I admit is problematic. But the theory can be bolstered by looking at various anomalous phenomena, as is done in the book Irreducible Mind. If the reality of these phenomena is accepted, then something very much like the transmission theory is probably true, or at the very least, the physicalist theory must be false.

Jacob, the article you linked to to explain NDEs was just ridiculous. I remember reading it afew years ago, when I was laboring under the impression that sceptics were probably right, and I still thought that it wwas a lousy article. He is pretty vague about all the evidence he seeks to refute, and takes most of his arguments from other people. I really can't see why you linked to it, other than because you don't know the topic well enough to debate it but think that any scepric's argument will hold up. The article really doesn't have any arguments that would interest anyone who knows the topic, he seems to thhink that as long as there is another theory of how the experience occured, that must be the answer, I'm sure everyone here is aware of Susan Blackmore's "dying brain hypothesis", but that's basically the whole argument. He doesn't even mention any specififc cases or studies. He also doesn't talk veridical perceptions in OBEs or NDEs, though that was what you claimed to be refuting "no problem".

William said: The so-called spirit (Saelish) in the sixth dimension is teaching some of the lowest level teachings I have read. Only a person with a very low level of intellect or they have not done their research would think this spirit is residing in the sixth dimension.

SO: Would you care to explain to us how you can prove this to us? What makes you right and others wrong? Are your spirits smarter than the rest? Or do they simply fit into your 'belief'? And don't give me Alan Kardec/Spirits Book either, or any 'enlightened' Buddhists/Hindus...the truth is there is no one who knows for sure, and this includes you, me and everyone else. There is not one person on the face of this earth who testify with certainty exactly whose spirits are 'smarter' than the rest and you know that to be true.

William: Sorry but that is the reality of believing such low level teachings. Discernment is very important when evaluating such teachings.

SO: Again, can you prove your spirits are 'smarter'? How? You can't, you know it. So don't cast judgements on others that don't fit into your 'theory'. And that's what it is, a theory, nothing more.

William: Easy to fool those that want to believe those that think like them.

SO: Really? And how easy is it to fool YOU who wants to believe your 'spirits'? Yours are just 'smarter'? Then prove it. You can't and the truth of that should serve as a wake up call. Not everyone who doesn't fit into your 'belief' is just more foolish than you or your 'spirits'. Does it seem strange to you that the 'spirits' who are pushing reincarnation don't seem to be able to give the SPECIFIC mechanics of it in great detail? (and the argument that 'we wouldn't understand it' doesn't hold any water, give it to us anyway!)

FINALLY: Another spirit message for you (sorry for the length):

I am here, Luke.
I want to tell you tonight of the mystery of the birth of the soul in the human being.
All souls which enter into mortal bodies are, previous to such advent, real, living existences, and made in the likeness of the Great Soul, though not having the qualities and potentialities of that Soul, and also, not having the form of individualized personality that they have after they become parts of the composition, or form, of the mortal and spiritual bodies of human beings.
The soul, in its existence prior to becoming an indweller in the mortal body, has a consciousness of its existence and of its relationship to God and to other parts of the Great Soul, and more especially of the duplex character of its being; and by this I mean the sexual differences in the two parts of the soul, which, in the way that they are united, constitutes the one complete soul.
When the time comes for this soul to become an indweller in the mortal frame, the two parts that I speak of separate, and only one of the parts enters at the same time into a mortal and never into the same mortal; and while this separation is necessary for the individualization of each part of this one complete soul, yet the two parts never lose that interrelationship, or the binding qualities that existed before their separation, and which continue to exist thereafter, and in the great future, after the work of individualization shall be completed, will come together again and reunite in a complete one.
This separation may exist a longer or shorter time, depending upon the similar development of those similar qualities that is absolutely necessary in order that this coming together in the original one, as it were, may take place.
While, as I have said, this soul before its separation has a consciousness of its existence, and when its duplex character leaves it, or rather leaves the two separated parts, and thereafter, until its reentrance into the spirit world, does not again return to these parts (sic). But in order to regain this consciousness, it is not necessary that both of these parts at the same time shall come again into the spirit life, for if one part becomes a spirit, free from the physical body, and the other part remains in the mortal body, that part that comes into the spirit world may receive the awakening to this consciousness, depending upon certain conditions and developments .
It often happens, that both these parts will return to the spirit world, and yet, for a long time, live as spirits without having a restoration of this consciousness, because of various reasons that may exist. The conditions of the development of the two parts may be so vastly different that the realization of this consciousness may be wholly impossible; and very often it is the case that when these two individualized parts are informed that they are the soulmates of each other, they will not believe that information, and live on in utter indifference to the fact.
But ultimately, the consciousness of their relationship will come to them, because their development, no matter whether intellectual or spiritual, will tend towards the awakening of this consciousness, which is always present with them, although dormant.
Now, as to what this soul is in its constituent parts or shape or form prior to its separation for the purpose of becoming an inhabitant of the mortal body, we spirits are not informed and do not know. We are often present at the conception, and also the birth of a child, and realize that a soul has become enveloped in the flesh, but we cannot see that soul as it enters into that home of mortal environment, because as to us it is invisible and has no form; but after its lodgement in the human body we can perceive it and realize its existence, for then it assumes a form, and that form varies in different incarnations, or in the incarnations in different humans.
We have never seen the Soul of God, although we know that there is this Great Oversoul, and hence we cannot see the soul of any image of the Great Soul until it becomes, as I say, individualized.
I know that men have often wondered and asked the question as to the preexistence of the soul that has been incarnated, and what qualities and attributes it had during its preexistence, and as to these particulars I wish to say, that we spirits, although we are inhabitants of God's Celestial Heavens, have little information, though we know that the soul, and I mean the complete soul in oneness, has an existence prior to its becoming individualized. You may ask, how we know this? I can say, that we spirits of the higher soul development can, by our soul perceptions, understand the existence of these souls as images of the Great Soul, and the qualities of these images are such, that while we cannot sensibly, as you would say, see these souls or their dualities, yet we are conscious of their existence. To use an illustration, that is not altogether appropriate, you understand that the wind blows, yet you cannot see it.
And we further understand, and such is the result of our observations, that when the soul, and keep in mind that I mean the two parts when I say soul, once becomes incarnated and assumes an individualized form, it never thereafter loses that individuality, and hence, never again returns to its condition of pre-existence, and can never again become reincarnated in the existence of any human being.
There is no such thing as reincarnation, and all the theories and speculations of men upon that question, which conclude that a soul once incarnated can again become incarnated, are wrong, for the incarnation of a soul is only one step in its destined progress from an invisible formless existence to a perfected spirit.
A soul in this progress never retraces its steps - it is always progress, though sometimes stagnation takes place - but continues as an individualized spirit until it reaches its goal in fulfillment of the Father's plan for the perfecting of His universe.
This is a subject that is difficult of treatment for several reasons, among which is the fact that we spirits, no matter how high our attainments, do not have the information in order to give a full and complete description of the soul and its qualities prior to its incarnation, and you mortals are not capable of comprehending the full truth as we may try to convey it to you.
I have made this effort to give you some faint idea of the soul, as you are in good condition tonight to receive my ideas, but I realize how inadequate my attempt has proved to be. But from it, you can understand that the soul has an existence prior to its finding its home in the physical body, that it is duplex and has a consciousness of the relationship of its two parts, that after it has received the experience of the mortal life and received an individuality, it returns to the spirit world, and that at some time that consciousness will come to it again, and the two parts will become one, unless in the development of these separate parts have arisen barriers that may prevent their reuniting. And further, that this soul will never again retrace the steps of its progression and become reincarnated.


"One more question though do you have any references to a skeptic and a parapsychologist getting a positive result for psi?"

Here is the most compelling (and easy to follow) transcripts I've read of why Jacob's question is unlikely to be answered:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/telepathy_RSA.htm

Can you name even one aspect of the mind that we know exists, but which is also known to not be something that the brain does?

To the Anonymous poster spouting on crap about Reincarnation not existing.

I suppose you haven't heard of a certain individual named Jeffrey Keene who remembers the life of John B. Gordon, When you look at Photo's of each person you can clearly see identical Facial Features in each. You can also see the similarity in Facial Features between Marilyn Monroe and Sherrie Lea Laird who is the supposed reincarnation of Monroe. How can someone that has identical facial features as someone they remember being in a Past Life not have been that person? chances are pretty low IMO.

Also I might point out that many well known Mediums believe in Reincarnation are you saying they are all liars, Here is a list of names who say Reincarnation is a fact: James Van Praagh, John Edward, Lisa Williams, Gordon Smith (The Psychic Barber) who is well known Medium in England states this on his website in his FAQs. "Do spirits reincarnate?
Some spirits are born into a spirit world and make spiritual progression there. Others may choose to reincarnate to the earth plane and some may even experience physical rebirth because they have not broken the same patterns of life that they constantly repeat.

Why do some spirits stay in the Spirit world and others reincarnate?
Some spirits choose to progress and learn in the spirit worlds, while others may feel they have more to learn in a physical world."

The only well known Medium that comes to mind that says Reincarnation doesn't happen is Colin Fry and I am still not even convinced he has Psychic Abilities.

Everything you are posting here looks to me like Channeled Material lol and you can't believe everything you read cause there are a lot of Charlatans out there who claim they can channel spirits/masters etc...

On another note about Reincarnation the medium Tony Stockwell who is a colleague of Colin Fry's stated that he believed he had a past life with his Guide on a website I can't even remember now, His Guide told him this btw are you saying his Guide is a liar too?

Mr Anonymous you realise in what you are stating you are also calling the great Out-Of-Body Explorers Edgar Cayce and Robert Monroe liars as well, Just thought I'd mention that.

Colin Fry has an open mind on the subject.

One of his guides, Magnus, has explained in great detail his understanding of reincarnation which may or may not be right but is nevertheless very interesting.

He also stated that although he had met many people in the Spirit World who believed in reincarnation he had never met anyone who had actually reincarnated!

"Can you name even one aspect of the mind that we know exists, but which is also known to not be something that the brain does?"

Yes - mind survives the brain.

Can you name even one aspect of the mind that we know exists, but which is also known to not be something that the brain does?

ESP, PK, NDEs, OBEs, crisis apparitions, deathbed visions, mediumistic communications, other after-death communications, memories of past lives, and various other topics discussed on this blog over the years ...

Most people don't start with the transmission theory and then look for evidence of it. They start with the evidence and are then drawn to the transmission theory as one way of making sense of the evidence.

An alternative to the transmission theory would be some form of idealism - the idea that Mind actually creates the physical world, or (a different option) that the physical world exists only in the mind.

Jacob, I would like to draw your attention to examples such as people with very little 'brain mass' who are able to function as normal, intelligent people.

NDE's have not been proved as being created by any scientific phenomena yet. Hypotheses have been offered and dismissed.

There are many cases of patients suffering from diseases such as alzheimers etc who have moments of lucidity right before the end...

NDE's have not been proved as being created by any scientific phenomena yet. Hypotheses have been offered and dismissed. - the major
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Don't you just get tired of arguing "is it real?" Over and over again? No one has ever been able to explain to me how it is that people who have NDE's routinely make comments that corroborate, parallel, and support the holographic Universe. When Dr. Kenneth Ring taught a class on near death experiences at the University of Connecticut he required his students to read The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot as well as his books, Life At Death, etc. Feelings of overwhelming oneness and connectedness, feeling like they are literally everywhere in the Universe at once, 360 degree vision, time and space not existing, having all knowledge, things being made out of light, during the life review feeling the emotions and telepathically hearing the thoughts of the people they interacted with, seeing colors they've never seen before and hearing sounds they've never heard, even overwhelming feelings of Love, are all by products or what one might expect in a holographic universe. It really is eerie because Talbot didn't write his book to specifically support NDE's but the connection between the two can not be easily explained away. I'm not sure it's even possible to fully understand NDE's without some grasp of how a hologram works. The Life Review is a holographic experience par excellance.

One more question though do you have any references to a skeptic and a parapsychologist getting a positive result for psi

An example of a skeptic who get a positive evidence for psi or some type of paranormal phenomena, can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N1dIUTbZTo

Another example of a skeptic getting a positive result confirming a parapsychologist previous result can be read at:

http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Wiseman_psi.html

Regarding how testable the transmission theory is, I think there is probably no way to definitively disprove it, which I admit is problematic

It's true, because the transmission theory (that implies dualism) is a philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific one. Philosophical hypotheses don't need to be falsifiable (but they can be it), only empirical-scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. (Popper used his demarcation criteria to differentiate science, that must be falsifiable, from other theories like metaphysical ones, that don't need to be falsifiable, even if they're correct). Other non-empirical sciences, like logic or mathematics (formal sciences) aren't empirically falsifiable.

By the way, the proposition "scientific propositions must be empirically falsifiable" is not, in itself, falsifiable proposition. But is it an incorrect one?

Ephiphenomenism is an example of a philosophical hypothesis, and at the same time a false and contradictory one (in analytic grounds alone):

http://www.geocities.com/athanasiafoundation/epiphenomenalism.html

How a person can survive death given that so many characteristics essential to one's personality are known to be brain dependent

The "how" question is a good one, but a secondary question. We don't need to know the "how" of a phenomenon to know that it's truth. AIDS was discoveried in 1981, but its "how" (mechanisms, etc.) was only discoveried in 1984 (e.g. HIV)

Materialism can't explain "how" brain produces consciousness, but it doesn't stop materialists to believe in it.

We don't have a testable and reproducible theory about "how" life arouse, but it doesn't imply that life doesn't exist. We know life exists, even if we can't explain "how" it bacames to exist.

Can you name even one aspect of the mind that we know exists, but which is also known to not be something that the brain does

Yes, a mind can imagine a pink elephant; you can see it in your own imagination in full color and movement, and reproduce it in any time; but we can't see that elephant in a brain. Brain doesn't produce pink elephants, but any normal mind can do it.

In the brain, you can only see many physical and chemical neurological processes, but you'll never find out a pink elephant in full color there.

A neuroscientist can only show a cerebral correlation for the imagination of a elephant; but a correlation doens't entail identity or causation.

Concerning reincarnation. Although I am not fond of the concept it appears to me at this time to be a valid concept. The reason for my believing at this time of its validity is for several reasons.

Often when a person has a phobia or some type of physical pain the medical profession cannot help past life regression with the person reliving that emotional experience under hypnosis the phobia or pain is gone. This suggests that this person actually lived in a human body before.

Also often during regression a person will review several lives which suggests this cannot be one spirit controlling one’s mind. Also some of those spirits that appear to be very advanced spirits in their teachings claim reincarnation is a realty.

It appears that beliefs on the other side even by spirits have much variation. I think we often believe that those on the other side have much more knowledge than we do. It appears that like attracts like on the other side, as they tend to do in this physical world. This might explain why some spirits say reincarnation is a reality and others state it is not a reality. We especially see how this like attracts like in religious and political beliefs in this physical world.

Maybe newer souls just come crashing back into a human body due to attachments, etc and older souls take more time to plan out their environment to maximize opportunities (that often involve obstacles and struggles) for learning. From my personal experience and research we appear to be in some type of soul clusters or bands.

Some also teach that nature is one big incubator for the creation of souls. This is the direction l lean towards at this time

I'd like to recommend the reading of this interesting article by a physicist explaining some of the incoherences of materialism:

http://xoomer.alice.it/fedeescienza/brainandmind.html

hi all,
i found this article (interview) to be wise and profound- and it kind of looks at today's paradigm about human minds.

i've always like carl jung's approach to psychology- despite having majored in psychology, i read alot of propaganda against it because it's not reductionistic..


On Soul, Character and Calling

i, for one, still have faith in that we are more than just a cosmic accident. it may not convince anyone, but it just feels right..

The comments to this entry are closed.