Notices
Results 1 to 35 of 35
Like Tree21Likes
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Abrakadabra
  • 1 Post By Abrakadabra
  • 1 Post By AlexG
  • 5 Post By Flick Montana
  • 3 Post By AlexG
  • 3 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Kompi
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana

Thread: Scientific Evidence of Consciousness outside of the Brain, and the 'After Life'...?

  1. #1 Scientific Evidence of Consciousness outside of the Brain, and the 'After Life'...? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I did a tiny bit ofresearch and found what I consider some interesting information regarding 'life after death' and the consciousness existing outside of the mind.

    First I came across medical scientist called Raymond Moody who has done a lot of work investigating 'NDE'...

    RaymondMoody - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    His website:

    Life After Life: TheOfficial Online Presence of Raymond A. Moody, M.D., Ph.D.
    Life After Life: April 2005

    More on Raymond moody:

    LIFE AFTERLIFE:UNDERSTANDING NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCE with RAYMOND MOODY, M.D.
    Life after Life by Raymond A Moody doc free ebook download fromxa.yimg.com

    Another seemingly very respectable scientist who has done experiments is Sir William Crookes... he is long since dead but his work is well worth looking into for those with an interest in medium ship etc.
    Here's his scientific credentials:

    William Crookes

    The next link focuses much more on his spiritual work and beliefs and provides lots of references that can be used for further research:

    The History of Spiritualism : The Researches of Sir WilliamCrookes

    A little bit more on Sir William:

    Sir William Crookes biography IET Archives - The IET

    Here is a segment of Sir William Crooke's book called 'life after death':

    The Life After Death and How Theosophy Unveils It - CharlesWebster Leadbeater - Google Books

    Now this next website might possibly be a tad controversial... It's called The campaign for Philosophical Freedom and is authored by a man called Michael Roll. There are many mentions of various scientists and incidents which will aid with research so I will include a few links. It might read like a conspiracy site as Roll suggests that many of these spiritual discoveries or evidences in science have been hidden or played down. He claims there is a conspiracy by the powers that be to promote material science and hide spiritual science as it poses a threat to religious institutions. But it has research value as it mentions other scientific figuresand examples of interest:

    The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom

    The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom

    The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom

    Michael Roll, William Crookes & Oliver Lodge - Life AfterDeath

    Here is a webpage I found with a lot of references to aid in this area ofresearch:

    I wantto show you a picture of two people

    This next guy, Victor Zammit, is apparently a lawyer, it could be interesting and might contain some bits of info that might aid the research:

    The Casefor Life After Death

    More from Victor Zammit (or just the same again, I’m not sure:

    The Truth Seeker - Meta-Science: Scientists Confront Life AfterDeath


    Another Scientist I came across in my search for scientific evidence was Sam Parnia who has studied NDEs and is responsible for a robust study called AWARE which seeks proof of out of body experiences from patients in many hospitals,one of the methods is to place an image upside down in the wards in an attempt to discern whether these numerous and detailed reports of out of body experiences by people whose hearts have stopped and who show no signs of brain activity what so ever, are true or psychological. I have heard comments about thelimitations of the tests and have not heard all details about the methodology.The study has been going on a few years and I've found it hard to find anyresults. Sam parnia has written a book on it which is due out anytime now, orin the next few months I think, perhaps the book will change the world, perhaps it won’t we shall have to wait and see, if any of you read it then please letme know if there is anything of interest in it...:

    Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it :Pseudoscience - Page 35 • Rational Skepticism Forum

    AWAREStudy

    The AWARE Study

    Is this the afterlife? | Mail Online

    Here is a link to thread discussing the AWARE study on a similar forum to thisbut only one much more focused on Mind/energy science, as the name suggests...I hope there is no problem posting a link to this forum here:

    Update on the AWARE study 2012 - Parapsychology and alternativemedicine forums of mind-energy.net


    And finally for a few miscellaneous links which may aid research or provideinspiration in some way:

    Phobiaof Death - Thanatophobia
    LIFE AFTER DEATH | News | The Harvard Crimson
    StudyEvaluating Whether the Bispectral Index Prevents Patients at Higher Risk FromBeing Awake During Surgery and Anesthesia - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov
    Can Anyone Ever Design An Experiment to ‘Prove’ Life AfterDeath? « Paranormal Housewives

    So that all I've got on it so far.

    Some of these links might not be entirely impartial science on the subject but the all offer references or insights in some way so I feel it is fully acceptable to share them on a Science forum. Some of them are clearly very scientifically robust researchers into these phenomenon.

    If you have any references to other interesting articles on any of this mind/consciousness/after life phenomena then please share and hopefully we can get a decent conversation going. I think for some, this evidence might open upnew ways of thinking etc.

    I can't imagine what type of person would not want to find out that an afterlife exists for us all and if this becomes accepted scientific fact then it would have far reaching consequences for cultures throughout the world. If this is true... it has to be the most profoundly fascinating subject doesnt it?

    Anyway, I find it all interesting, what do you think?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Moody appears to be a money grubbing charlatan, with no published peer review scientific research. Much of the rest doesn't' appear credible either.

    Moving this to Pseudoscience.


    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; January 5th, 2013 at 12:42 PM.
    Halliday likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    Thanks for your links. But its not okay if you open a new thread for links,rather bring something to talk about.
    "I am sorry for making this letter longer than usual.I actually lacked the time to make it shorter."###
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I did a tiny bit ofresearch and found what I consider some interesting information regarding 'life after death' and the consciousness existing outside of the mind.

    First I came across medical scientist called Raymond Moody who has done a lot of work investigating 'NDE'...

    RaymondMoody - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    His website:

    Life After Life: TheOfficial Online Presence of Raymond A. Moody, M.D., Ph.D.
    Life After Life: April 2005

    More on Raymond moody:

    LIFE AFTERLIFE:UNDERSTANDING NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCE with RAYMOND MOODY, M.D.
    Life after Life by Raymond A Moody doc free ebook download fromxa.yimg.com

    Another seemingly very respectable scientist who has done experiments is Sir William Crookes... he is long since dead but his work is well worth looking into for those with an interest in medium ship etc.
    Here's his scientific credentials:

    William Crookes

    The next link focuses much more on his spiritual work and beliefs and provides lots of references that can be used for further research:

    The History of Spiritualism : The Researches of Sir WilliamCrookes

    A little bit more on Sir William:

    Sir William Crookes biography IET Archives - The IET

    Here is a segment of Sir William Crooke's book called 'life after death':

    The Life After Death and How Theosophy Unveils It - CharlesWebster Leadbeater - Google Books

    Now this next website might possibly be a tad controversial... It's called The campaign for Philosophical Freedom and is authored by a man called Michael Roll. There are many mentions of various scientists and incidents which will aid with research so I will include a few links. It might read like a conspiracy site as Roll suggests that many of these spiritual discoveries or evidences in science have been hidden or played down. He claims there is a conspiracy by the powers that be to promote material science and hide spiritual science as it poses a threat to religious institutions. But it has research value as it mentions other scientific figuresand examples of interest:

    The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom

    The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom

    The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom

    Michael Roll, William Crookes & Oliver Lodge - Life AfterDeath

    Here is a webpage I found with a lot of references to aid in this area ofresearch:

    I wantto show you a picture of two people

    This next guy, Victor Zammit, is apparently a lawyer, it could be interesting and might contain some bits of info that might aid the research:

    The Casefor Life After Death

    More from Victor Zammit (or just the same again, I’m not sure:

    The Truth Seeker - Meta-Science: Scientists Confront Life AfterDeath


    Another Scientist I came across in my search for scientific evidence was Sam Parnia who has studied NDEs and is responsible for a robust study called AWARE which seeks proof of out of body experiences from patients in many hospitals,one of the methods is to place an image upside down in the wards in an attempt to discern whether these numerous and detailed reports of out of body experiences by people whose hearts have stopped and who show no signs of brain activity what so ever, are true or psychological. I have heard comments about thelimitations of the tests and have not heard all details about the methodology.The study has been going on a few years and I've found it hard to find anyresults. Sam parnia has written a book on it which is due out anytime now, orin the next few months I think, perhaps the book will change the world, perhaps it won’t we shall have to wait and see, if any of you read it then please letme know if there is anything of interest in it...:

    Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it :Pseudoscience - Page 35 • Rational Skepticism Forum

    AWAREStudy

    The AWARE Study

    Is this the afterlife? | Mail Online

    Here is a link to thread discussing the AWARE study on a similar forum to thisbut only one much more focused on Mind/energy science, as the name suggests...I hope there is no problem posting a link to this forum here:

    Update on the AWARE study 2012 - Parapsychology and alternativemedicine forums of mind-energy.net


    And finally for a few miscellaneous links which may aid research or provideinspiration in some way:

    Phobiaof Death - Thanatophobia
    LIFE AFTER DEATH | News | The Harvard Crimson
    StudyEvaluating Whether the Bispectral Index Prevents Patients at Higher Risk FromBeing Awake During Surgery and Anesthesia - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov
    Can Anyone Ever Design An Experiment to ‘Prove’ Life AfterDeath? « Paranormal Housewives

    So that all I've got on it so far.

    Some of these links might not be entirely impartial science on the subject but the all offer references or insights in some way so I feel it is fully acceptable to share them on a Science forum. Some of them are clearly very scientifically robust researchers into these phenomenon.

    If you have any references to other interesting articles on any of this mind/consciousness/after life phenomena then please share and hopefully we can get a decent conversation going. I think for some, this evidence might open upnew ways of thinking etc.

    I can't imagine what type of person would not want to find out that an afterlife exists for us all and if this becomes accepted scientific fact then it would have far reaching consequences for cultures throughout the world. If this is true... it has to be the most profoundly fascinating subject doesnt it?

    Anyway, I find it all interesting, what do you think?
    Thanks A Question For You, this is quite a lot of reading but good reading.
    question for you likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Moody appears to be a money grubbing charlatan, with no published peer review scientific research. Much of the resting doesnt' appear credible either.

    Moving this to Pseudoscience.
    Come off it lynx!

    Sam parnia is doing an official study into it, the AWARE study... Sir William crookes is a highly respected scientific man. Moody has done a lot of research on peoples experiences and that kind of stuff belongs in psychology.

    It's no wonder people like Micheal Roll are campaigning for philosophical freedom is it?

    This could go into the philosphy thread couldn't it? I was attempting to get and objective discussion going...

    Reconsider this please? this is no more false science than anything else... I'm forced to think you have a preconcived bias on the issue and that is not scientific fella.

    You say he appears to be a money grabbing charlatan... give me some evidence, aka science, and i'll remove his links.

    The question of the afterlife is something that can be studied by the scientific method, as shown by Sam parnia et al... moving it to pseudoscience implies it is not a subject worthy of scrutiny... that seems to me anti-scientific.


    * the whole idea is that this is a place where peers of moody can publish there own reviews of his work. This is a place where psychologists who know about moody can inform me and others what they know and think of him.

    Putting it in pseudoscience will discourage many from contributing.

    I plead with you to not destroy the credibility of this conversation... I want to learn, and others to learn, from these men of science and from the men and women of science that join in discussions on this forum.

    Don't convince me that Micheal Roll is correct with his conspiracy theory which caused him to campaign for philosophical freedom... by bassically censoring and undermining this whole topic without even giving your evidence.
    Last edited by question for you; January 5th, 2013 at 10:45 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Thanks for your links. But its not okay if you open a new thread for links,rather bring something to talk about.
    The links containing the evidence of the afterlife and the ways in which we might be able to further study this kind of thing, is the 'something' that we can talk about merumario.

    Say whatever you would like to talk about... bring whatever references you have to further developments in this area.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    Thanks for your links. But its not okay if you open a new thread for links,rather bring something to talk about.
    The links containing the evidence of the afterlife and the ways in which we might be able to further study this kind of thing, is the 'something' that we can talk about merumario.

    Say whatever you would like to talk about... bring whatever references you have to further developments in this area.
    I think this is very good to talk about, and I appreciate the links.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    That's great abrakadabra... I thought this would be of interest to many and it's certainly of interest to me. I did my absolute best to provide references that are as scientific as I could find.

    I'm hurt but not supprised that it has gone straight into the false science forum.

    Anyway, one person has enjoyed my efforts, merumario seems to apreciate my efforts also... so that is a great consolation. I just hope others will have the courage and dignity to contribute to this discussion and area of study of which the results and outcomes have profound ramifications for us all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Does anybody know anything about the results of the AWARE study conducted by Sam Parnia et al?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    It's not "false science", it's pseudoscience. It's abstract. As such, I would expect a fairly loose approach to the discussion of the content. I don't think it was meant as a slight to you, this kind of 'research' just falls into the extremely soft category. We're talking baby duck soft.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    It's not "false science", it's pseudoscience. It's abstract. As such, I would expect a fairly loose approach to the discussion of the content. I don't think it was meant as a slight to you, this kind of 'research' just falls into the extremely soft category. We're talking baby duck soft.
    I didn't take it as apersonal insult Flick... but an insult to the study of spritual phenomena.

    I don't understand your choice of the words 'soft' to describe this kind of science... Although of course I understand it is an attempt to impress upon the audience that you are witty and funny, and that this subject is nonsense and wishy washy.

    I don't understand your interpretation of the meaning of speudoscience.... speudo means false....

    I'm sorry if this sounds abbrassive dude, but your displaying a bias towards the subject, a preconcieved bias towards the scientific study of spirituality.

    My argument is that this, is speudo scientific... it's false knowledge and it's not a way to go about dicerning the true knowledge of the subject.

    You think it is 'soft' because you think it is all subjective, rather than objective... that's just conditioning man. The AWARE study is attempting to get hard objective evidence, the results are as of yet not available to me.

    If I tell you I am typing this out on my laptop... will you refuse to believe I am telling the truth? will you think I imagined it due to my education and previous experiences?

    People know when something is real... sometimes the lines can be blured, and for that reason science has to be carefull what it accepts as hard evidence, I understand that.

    But multiple witnesses is always a very strong and hard form of evidence... Like in the case of the genius scientist Sir William Crookes and the witnesses who studied the medium florence whatshername? and the spirit katie King... and he took photos!

    Did they all lie? possibly, but how do we know any scientist is telling the truth? often we don't. Did he know how to do repeat exposures with his camera and how to fake photos? the photos must be around in some museum somewhere along with the camera that took them... these can be subjected to examination.

    Sir Williams crooks apparently invited the top men of science and the science community to witness his experiments, the man flat out refused to. He refuse Sir William Crookes!!! Do you know how great a scientist William Crookes was? How dare he refuse William crookes indeed??? it's unreal and it is hard evidence that spiritual evidence will be ignored by the powerful scientific materialists!

    Aint nothing soft about any of it really.

    Did you look into it Flick? because if you didnt mate, then I find your comments to be an insult to me, which doesnt bother me at all on this occassion, but far more insulting to the scientific endevour.

    I want hard science and facts to show me all this stuff is untrue... the comments you make are soft... i'm talking as soft as feces underfoot...

    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    It's not "false science", it's pseudoscience. It's abstract. As such, I would expect a fairly loose approach to the discussion of the content. I don't think it was meant as a slight to you, this kind of 'research' just falls into the extremely soft category. We're talking baby duck soft.
    I didn't take it as apersonal insult Flick... but an insult to the study of spritual phenomena.

    I don't understand your choice of the words 'soft' to describe this kind of science... Although of course I understand it is an attempt to impress upon the audience that you are witty and funny, and that this subject is nonsense and wishy washy.

    I don't understand your interpretation of the meaning of speudoscience.... speudo means false....

    I'm sorry if this sounds abbrassive dude, but your displaying a bias towards the subject, a preconcieved bias towards the scientific study of spirituality.

    My argument is that this, is speudo scientific... it's false knowledge and it's not a way to go about dicerning the true knowledge of the subject.

    You think it is 'soft' because you think it is all subjective, rather than objective... that's just conditioning man. The AWARE study is attempting to get hard objective evidence, the results are as of yet not available to me.

    If I tell you I am typing this out on my laptop... will you refuse to believe I am telling the truth? will you think I imagined it due to my education and previous experiences?

    People know when something is real... sometimes the lines can be blured, and for that reason science has to be carefull what it accepts as hard evidence, I understand that.

    But multiple witnesses is always a very strong and hard form of evidence... Like in the case of the genius scientist Sir William Crookes and the witnesses who studied the medium florence whatshername? and the spirit katie King... and he took photos!

    Did they all lie? possibly, but how do we know any scientist is telling the truth? often we don't. Did he know how to do repeat exposures with his camera and how to fake photos? the photos must be around in some museum somewhere along with the camera that took them... these can be subjected to examination.

    Sir Williams crooks apparently invited the top men of science and the science community to witness his experiments, the man flat out refused to. He refuse Sir William Crookes!!! Do you know how great a scientist William Crookes was? How dare he refuse William crookes indeed??? it's unreal and it is hard evidence that spiritual evidence will be ignored by the powerful scientific materialists!

    Aint nothing soft about any of it really.

    Did you look into it Flick? because if you didnt mate, then I find your comments to be an insult to me, which doesnt bother me at all on this occassion, but far more insulting to the scientific endevour.

    I want hard science and facts to show me all this stuff is untrue... the comments you make are soft... i'm talking as soft as feces underfoot...

    I do not think you should worry about some of the comments because some knowledge is esoteric for some people. Ones like me who knows what they are about will follow the topic no matter where it is. There are thousands, who know about your topic so feel pity for those that do not know.
    Anyway a lot of what we know in science today was brought into being by so called pseudoscience, It helps to educate and guide even with so much resistance.

    After reading some of the links you gave us I remembered while I was in Europe a man by the name of Agpoa from south America came to demonstrate how he saved the life of some patients that were operated on and given up by medical doctors as terminally ill. He claimed to be a spiritual sergeant and said there were tissues in the body that were not of the same material as the tissues that made up the physical body and could not be removed by mechanical tools such as scalpels shovels and such tools. He explained that the matter he removes is like cobwebs and the nature of the tissues were very light and one could see through them. He used his hands to draw the matter out as in some countries when the child has a cold and the mother draws it out with her mouth. They tested the matter but did not find out what it was and so began to ridicule this man until he left without telling them how he did what he did. The big question he left with them was that the most of the patience he operated on lived although the medical doctors gave them up.

    I have had the experience to talk to someone who died and came back to life through resuscitation and he told me he experienced a light, it was like nothing he knew on this side of his existence. He also said he observed the hospital staff running around trying to bring him back while he said he was afloat looking at them and then all of a sudden he was looking up at them but he was calm as a bat. How can we ignore such deep observation from individuals and hide behind not believable no proof.

    Some of these people have given detailed information on what was done to them while they were supposed to be dead non perceptive. This is proof that consciousness is not only in one state but also in the other state.
    question for you likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Anyway a lot of what we know in science today was brought into being by so called pseudoscience, It helps to educate and guide even with so much resistance.
    Nonsense.

    This doesn't belong in pseudoscience, it belongs in the trash.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Although of course I understand it is an attempt to impress upon the audience that you are witty and funny, and that this subject is nonsense and wishy washy.
    This is why I don't take you particularly seriously and I tend not to respond to you. You're overly sensitive and emotional, from what I've seen. I wasn't trying to insult you, but you're always insulted by anyone who doesn't immediately agree with what you have to say, so I guess my attempt at being polite to you was an exercise in futility.

    I was saying that your topic was moved here because it was a soft science in that it's extremely difficult to quantify. I work in a soft science so I meant no insult by it, yet you fired back at me then tried talking down to me. I would seriously suggest you reconsider your touchy attitude before discussing anything in a public forum. Not all of us are going to agree with what you have to say and you don't deal with that very well.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    37
    A question For You.

    I have read almost all of the links and cannot help thinking that no matter how we try to deny truths it will come out eventually. There can be nothing in the universe that is permanent, be it matter or antimatter. The human or living thing is all over the galaxies. If we attribute one side to knowledge the other side will be ignorance. If we regard balance we will be able to expand to both side of the equation be it fifty, fifty or twenty eighty. Quantum physics may be a part of the answer to observable science but I do not see it as the totality. There has to be a part of whatever we want to call this life/death that cannot question itself, or answer itself for that matter. I can hear my own voice although I do not move my mouth or use my voice box, and when I dream I come back from where I go back to the present time. The question I ask myself is this, does time have the same effect in my dream as it has when I am not dreaming. Some of the things I dream take seconds, I think, although it could be much faster, yet when I compare the time the same event would take in wake time would not be possible. I fly across mountains and I can change my state at a thought. What is it that is happening to me when I am still in the same body? Why some people are able to tell you what is happening while they are completely incoherent and as they say dead to the world. How can they be so accurate in relating the actions taken to revive them? I want to believe that science is not all too happy with knowing the other side of the equation. The big bang theory is what we should believe and pursue but in the end we will have to come back to the middle knowing that there will always be something to be revealed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Although of course I understand it is an attempt to impress upon the audience that you are witty and funny, and that this subject is nonsense and wishy washy.
    This is why I don't take you particularly seriously and I tend not to respond to you. You're overly sensitive and emotional, from what I've seen. I wasn't trying to insult you, but you're always insulted by anyone who doesn't immediately agree with what you have to say, so I guess my attempt at being polite to you was an exercise in futility.

    I was saying that your topic was moved here because it was a soft science in that it's extremely difficult to quantify. I work in a soft science so I meant no insult by it, yet you fired back at me then tried talking down to me. I would seriously suggest you reconsider your touchy attitude before discussing anything in a public forum. Not all of us are going to agree with what you have to say and you don't deal with that very well.
    Are you saying soft science is not important as hard science? I hope I am not misunderstanding you? Where does this tag come form?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Abrakadabra View Post
    A question For You.

    I have read almost all of the links and cannot help thinking that no matter how we try to deny truths it will come out eventually. There can be nothing in the universe that is permanent, be it matter or antimatter. The human or living thing is all over the galaxies. If we attribute one side to knowledge the other side will be ignorance. If we regard balance we will be able to expand to both side of the equation be it fifty, fifty or twenty eighty. Quantum physics may be a part of the answer to observable science but I do not see it as the totality. There has to be a part of whatever we want to call this life/death that cannot question itself, or answer itself for that matter. I can hear my own voice although I do not move my mouth or use my voice box, and when I dream I come back from where I go back to the present time. The question I ask myself is this, does time have the same effect in my dream as it has when I am not dreaming. Some of the things I dream take seconds, I think, although it could be much faster, yet when I compare the time the same event would take in wake time would not be possible. I fly across mountains and I can change my state at a thought. What is it that is happening to me when I am still in the same body? Why some people are able to tell you what is happening while they are completely incoherent and as they say dead to the world. How can they be so accurate in relating the actions taken to revive them? I want to believe that science is not all too happy with knowing the other side of the equation. The big bang theory is what we should believe and pursue but in the end we will have to come back to the middle knowing that there will always be something to be revealed.
    I think we've left pseudoscience behind and entered the realm of New Age Woo.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The question I ask myself is this, does time have the same effect in my dream as it has when I am not dreaming. Some of the things I dream take seconds, I think, although it could be much faster, yet when I compare the time the same event would take in wake time would not be possible. I fly across mountains and I can change my state at a thought. What is it that is happening to me when I am still in the same body?
    What about when we're not dreaming but just using our imagination or our memories? Same thing happens. When we're making up a story or remembering an event or a journey, we don't do it at the rate it would take in reality - otherwise we'd never get anything done. I occasionally tell a very long and involved story about an exceptionally long plane trip between here and Sydney. It can be very funny when you get to the punchline after a loooong lead up. But it takes only minutes compared to the 6+ hours the journey actually took.

    Same thing goes when you get an idea for a film or a comic or a game. You can envisage these things in seconds and describe them in minutes, whereas filming (or watching) , writing (or reading) , designing (or playing) can take hours .... all the way up to years.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,880
    The truth is: You will never know.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    The truth is: You will never know.
    The truth is we probably already do know, and it's more reasonable based on the complete lack of credible evidence to conclude that there's no external consciousness nor anything outside the brain-- just that many people refuse to accept it.
    Halliday, pyoko and adelady like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Abrakadabra View Post
    Are you saying soft science is not important as hard science? I hope I am not misunderstanding you? Where does this tag come form?
    Why would I say that? I work in a soft science. You know what? Forget the term soft science was ever even used.

    I was saying that this was probably moved to pseudo because it is on the fringes of what is actually testable. It's way too common for people to take something pseudo like telepathy or souls and try to link it to biology or physics in order to give it credibility. I find that not only irritating when it comes to a discussion, but very disingenuous when it comes to the subject matter. If your science can't stand on its own, don't prop it up on established mainstream science.

    In addition, if you're going to bring something to the table that is on the border of what can even be realistically considered a science, don't get all pissy when people are critical of the methodology and the people involved.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman Kompi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    74
    Well, I admit I have only skimmed over the linked content (because it is a whole lot and, quite frankly, some of the links express arguments that make me want to plant my forehead to my desk) so a question to those with greater fortitude than I: do any of these supposed examples extend beyond mere testimonies of personal experiences? Because at a glance, that seemed to be at the very least the vast majority I saw described.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Your intuition can deceive you - don't trust it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    It's always the case of it. In this age when the average person is starting to accept the idea that a scientific approach is more likely to be supported, the claims for UFO's, 'conspiracy theories,' psychic ability, ghosts (Ever watch Ghost Hunters on Discovery channel? Fancy schmancy cameras that record ghosts and the like- supposedly) and what-have-you have all tried to give the illusion of "scientific methodology" to their bunk.
    It's one reason why it's important to teach and impress upon people what the actual scientific method is and why shows like Ghost Hunters are not doing science, at all, they are jumping to wild and unfounded conclusions while using fancy equipment.
    Kompi likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,880
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    The truth is: You will never know.
    The truth is we probably already do know, and it's more reasonable based on the complete lack of credible evidence to conclude that there's no external consciousness nor anything outside the brain-- just that many people refuse to accept it.
    Probably is drying cement, close to being solid but not quite. And it will always be not quite. Hey I'm in your corner but like God there's a chance, albeit totally unrealistic, but it's there.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Probably is drying cement, close to being solid but not quite. And it will always be not quite. Hey I'm in your corner but like God there's a chance, albeit totally unrealistic, but it's there.
    There's also a chance that I will get arbitrarily sucked out of the Universe. Highly unlikely, but technically, it is possible.

    I don't really entertain it because it's irrational to bother. So is there, technically, a chance it might happen? Yeah, I guess you could nitpick the details and say that but if anyone were to ask me if it could happen, I'd just say, "no." Because it's a safe bet.

    Same thing with God- is there one? No.
    External consciousness? No. In fact, there's a greater chance (1 in many trillion) that I'll get sucked out of the Universe than there being an external consciousness.
    So, it's like mathematical Limit Theory. 0.9999~=1.
    The answer to the question = No.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Kompi View Post
    Well, I admit I have only skimmed over the linked content (because it is a whole lot and, quite frankly, some of the links express arguments that make me want to plant my forehead to my desk) so a question to those with greater fortitude than I: do any of these supposed examples extend beyond mere testimonies of personal experiences? Because at a glance, that seemed to be at the very least the vast majority I saw described.
    Photographs. Testimonials of very prominent scientists such as Sir William Crookes and witnesses of his experiments. Then also the AWARE study carried out by Sam Parnia, which is in spite of whta some have said, a scientific study seeking hard evidence. Though I'm not sure the results have been presented yet, it was one of the reasons for my postings.

    If you can't be bothered then don't be, i'd apreciate it if you don't give a perfect opportunity for the indoctrinated to share their dogmas and preconcieved beliefs on the matters... this is a science forum. Science means knowledge, the scientific method includes things like evidences subjective and objective... some people want to spout off at every opportunity about how much they know about science, but they will ignore any evidence and make out it hasn't been presented, likewise they will form opinions and beliefs before results have been presented. That's antiscientific isnt it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Although of course I understand it is an attempt to impress upon the audience that you are witty and funny, and that this subject is nonsense and wishy washy.
    This is why I don't take you particularly seriously and I tend not to respond to you. You're overly sensitive and emotional, from what I've seen. I wasn't trying to insult you, but you're always insulted by anyone who doesn't immediately agree with what you have to say, so I guess my attempt at being polite to you was an exercise in futility.

    I was saying that your topic was moved here because it was a soft science in that it's extremely difficult to quantify. I work in a soft science so I meant no insult by it, yet you fired back at me then tried talking down to me. I would seriously suggest you reconsider your touchy attitude before discussing anything in a public forum. Not all of us are going to agree with what you have to say and you don't deal with that very well.
    Hey, I only get touchy with people who talk rubbish Flick. I wasn't shooting you down... I was pointing out the nature of your sarcasm, it didnt offend or upset me.

    I can assure you you did not upset me and even though I find this post rude, you have upset my emotional state not one iota. I find it funny.

    I got what you meant about it being subjective, I don't feel that is a reason to call it pseudo science.

    You imaginations that my emtional state is affected by you is arrogance, it is ok for you to be sarcastic with me.. if I return the favour I am emotionally unstable? that double standardsa and thats the kind of thing that sometimes grates my nerves. What really grates my nerve is pure lies and and arrogance, and that is why I am hostile towards some people.

    I honestly don't know why any of you post on my threads. Unless you have something to contribute or inform me without all these assumptions and over bearing opinions, i'd really rather that you all didn't.

    My response to your post was quite well mannered, the sarcasm and put downs were only equal to your own previously. My post ended with a smiley face, what part of that do you interpret as emotionally unbalanced? The first sentence I made explained that I didn't take the previous comments as a personal insult, yet you still assume I did? Therefore I can only conclude their is an ellement of dishonesty, or a blindspot being displayed by yourself and even others.

    It's frustrating to have to argue against people who misinterpret what I say and display arrogant hypocrasy (i'm sorry they are hard words, i say it with a sincere look of compassion for you).

    To all those, including you flick, who genuinely feel I am touchy... I can only say I apologise if I have ever misread your comments, or have responded inapropriately. It's my intention to give a good impression of myself. I know with some people I go over board, because they disgust me, but that really is the exception. Most of you I feel are honest enough, don't endlessly say things that I have to work hard to show the falacy of, and just have a matter of fact manner in your words. I like the matter of fact manner and I tend to return it. I can be blunt with people, but I mean no offence, it's just impossible to be that cautious with my words. It's impossible to be completely untagonistic. Body language is the biggest part of comunication, perhaps I misinterpret your sentences, perhaps you misinterpret mine. But I am an excellent judge of peoples intentions and nature. I accept I have my faults and have been offensive when it was not due, you need to accept your faults too.

    On the other hand, it is quite alright imo to be blunt with people who are blunt with me, rude to those who are rude to me, argumentative and competative with those of that inclination. It might not make me look great but im only human and I prefer to act in a way that feels right to me. I suspect most of you have witnessed my rudeness to one or two in particular who I admit, I dispise as much as it is possible to despise a figment of my imagination.. and that reflects badly on me, I just have to live with it and see if I can avoid it next time.
    I also supect there is a strong ellement of hypocrasy from some of you who feel I am at fault... if thats sounds like an emotional response or whatever, live with it. I'm sitting here with a smile on my face as always.

    I'm a passionate guy I geuss even if I hide it well usually, i'm also a very astute guy and I will not be fooled easily by any means of deception. If I find you irritating, and I irritate you back, deal with it, don't come crying to me about it. Thats very general, I didn't find you very irritating at all flick, I simply attempted to illustrate my objections to the instant dismissal of this topic to pseudoscience even though it is the subject of what is to the best of my knowledge, a scientific study seeking hardish evidence. I just returned an analogy, I didn't mean to offend you.

    I take your points on board and will work on them, Thankyou. But still, people who are rude or arrogant with me deserve to be treated likewise... I'm not so big that I can rise above it for ever. Thats just how it is, i'm not one of these fake people, these pretenders. I like to say it how I see it. A few of you might not like it, that might say more about you than me. Others do apreciate it i'm sure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Moving swiftly on hopefully...:

    Sheldrake proposes a theory something along the lines of the mind interacting via a sort of resonance with a morphogenetic feild which could account for the 'very statistically significant' evidences of phenomena like telepathy, he gives an example of a mother with severely disabled and handicapped son partially blind who seems to be able read his mothers mind. Feeling of being watched, he gives testimonies of a US marine whose targets often looked up and down his lens within a second of 'terminal point' (before he pulls the trigger) from a mile away. Long lens photographer at the sun who is convinced his subjects feel themselve being watched. Also all sorts of similar stuff...

    Has anybody read the book 'the Science Delusion'? what are your thoughts? I promise I will be gentle with you if you are gentle with me and Sheldrake.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,590
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Has anybody read the book? what are your thoughts?
    I haven't read the book. I have read reviews of the book and his methodology. The obvious conclusion is a combination of self-delusion, cherry-picking, confirmation bias, poor methodology and bad statistics. AKA pseudoscience.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Hey, I only get touchy with people who talk rubbish Flick.
    You must touch yourself a lot.
    KALSTER and Flick Montana like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman Kompi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Photographs. Testimonials of very prominent scientists such as Sir William Crookes and witnesses of his experiments. Then also the AWARE study carried out by Sam Parnia, which is in spite of whta some have said, a scientific study seeking hard evidence. Though I'm not sure the results have been presented yet, it was one of the reasons for my postings.
    But the only photographs I saw referenced were ones that were of a person that was only though testimony claimed to be a spiritual or psychic apparition? Or in other words, to my understanding the photographs themselves simply show a person, and it is only through the claims of testimony that we are told they were special in some way?
    Your intuition can deceive you - don't trust it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Hey, I only get touchy with people who talk rubbish Flick. I wasn't shooting you down... I was pointing out the nature of your sarcasm, it didnt offend or upset me.

    I can assure you you did not upset me and even though I find this post rude, you have upset my emotional state not one iota. I find it funny.
    Thank you for pointing out to me what I was saying. I had no idea.

    By the way, THAT was sarcasm and slightly rude. Contrast and compare at your leisure.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    But still, people who are rude or arrogant with me deserve to be treated likewise... I'm not so big that I can rise above it for ever.
    Forever? Probably not. But once would be nice.

    But I digress. I will yield the remainder of my time to you, the king of the pseudo section.
    KALSTER likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Has anybody read the book? what are your thoughts?
    I haven't read the book. I have read reviews of the book and his methodology. The obvious conclusion is a combination of self-delusion, cherry-picking, confirmation bias, poor methodology and bad statistics. AKA pseudoscience.
    But at least you accept the importance of looking beyond the obvious in your pursuit for knowledge and truth. So thats good.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Hey, I only get touchy with people who talk rubbish Flick.
    You must touch yourself a lot.
    By talkish rubbish I mean leing deliberately in an attempt to decieve. I have no reason to do that.

    Nor do I need to resort to snide comments in the absence of a reasoned argument. I don't need to gang up into little cliques in order to defend my beliefs either.

    Though I am gonna delude myself that your comment was a friendly joke, rightly or wrongly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Kompi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Photographs. Testimonials of very prominent scientists such as Sir William Crookes and witnesses of his experiments. Then also the AWARE study carried out by Sam Parnia, which is in spite of whta some have said, a scientific study seeking hard evidence. Though I'm not sure the results have been presented yet, it was one of the reasons for my postings.
    But the only photographs I saw referenced were ones that were of a person that was only though testimony claimed to be a spiritual or psychic apparition? Or in other words, to my understanding the photographs themselves simply show a person, and it is only through the claims of testimony that we are told they were special in some way?
    You would need to carryout some kind of investigation into the 40 odd photos, who testified to them, if they were fakable etc.

    I only have evidence of Mars being red through photos and testimonies... I still have no good reason to doubt that assertation at present.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Life, consciousness and memory
    By geordief in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 6th, 2012, 04:23 PM
  2. Can Scientific Materialism Sufficiently Explain Human Consciousness?
    By galexander in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: December 17th, 2011, 04:40 PM
  3. Evidence for the presence of Extraterrestrial life?
    By Jumdd in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: December 8th, 2011, 01:51 AM
  4. Evidence of life Beyond the Physical Body
    By suziwong in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 16th, 2008, 04:31 PM
  5. Scientific evidence of parapsychological phenomena
    By kristian in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: May 9th, 2005, 04:48 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •