I salute your open mind and resolving judgement ND, and I think this might be worth the time actually, and this article might make for a good start regarding this topic.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Tibetan monks eye-gouging their criminals
- Thread starter swimwithlove
- Start date
I salute your open mind and resolving judgement ND, and I think this might be worth the time actually, and this article might make for a good start regarding this topic.
Another idea:
If you see an apple on a table. Is the apple a product of your brain or is it an entity outside of the brain? It's both, because other people (if they aren't blind) can see it, too. Most people would say the apple is outside of the brain, yet you can process the information of the apple with sensory input interpreted by the brain.
So, if you tell somebody who has no concept of a microscope (e.g. a native jungle guy) about protein receptors, would he believe you? Not necessarily, he doesn't see them. If he applies our logical standards, he must think: dude, please don't tell me about wizards from the West with their magical apparatuses, I can't see them. Unless you present him with a microscope and give him basic education.
Now to NDEs/OBEs/psi phenomena/entities induced by drug use, injury, meditation etc. Suddenly it all has to be a product of the brain and outside signals/information isn't allowed? Why? Why not allow the brain to perceive outside of the 'ordinary' perception by different methods/incidents?
All this doesn't prove life after death, I guess it never can be proven objectively, but this narrow thinking isn't clever either. The more OBE/Psi phenomena reports you read, the more you come to the conclusion that there's something to it. That's at least my conclusion. Of course, real proof can only be obtained by subjective experience.
If you see an apple on a table. Is the apple a product of your brain or is it an entity outside of the brain? It's both, because other people (if they aren't blind) can see it, too. Most people would say the apple is outside of the brain, yet you can process the information of the apple with sensory input interpreted by the brain.
So, if you tell somebody who has no concept of a microscope (e.g. a native jungle guy) about protein receptors, would he believe you? Not necessarily, he doesn't see them. If he applies our logical standards, he must think: dude, please don't tell me about wizards from the West with their magical apparatuses, I can't see them. Unless you present him with a microscope and give him basic education.
Now to NDEs/OBEs/psi phenomena/entities induced by drug use, injury, meditation etc. Suddenly it all has to be a product of the brain and outside signals/information isn't allowed? Why? Why not allow the brain to perceive outside of the 'ordinary' perception by different methods/incidents?
All this doesn't prove life after death, I guess it never can be proven objectively, but this narrow thinking isn't clever either. The more OBE/Psi phenomena reports you read, the more you come to the conclusion that there's something to it. That's at least my conclusion. Of course, real proof can only be obtained by subjective experience.
I also think that there's something to it, as you put it. But there's a difference between saying that there may be more to it than science would make it seem, or treating something as factual knowledge.Ufostrahlen said:
I think i'm on dreads side with how occam's razor applies here: when the human brain, of wich we already have made the assumption that it exists, would be sufficient to explain a certain phenomenon (theoretically), then adding any kind of extra element would be unnessecary. Not that this logic would prove anything ofcourse. It's just that the theory that relies solely on the brain, is a more simple theory.
But in any case, i think the agnostic point of view is just the wisest to adopt here. I Always tend to doubt all my own personal believes anyway. It's Always refreshing to exchange arguments and such, but in the end i don't think any one of us realy knows.
I have nothing to add, but only a small exception from the Solipsism Wiki article.
'It's all a product of the brain' is Solipsism, which isn't a falsifiable hypothesis.
However, minimality (or parsimony) is not the only logical virtue. A common misapprehension of Occam's Razor has it that the simpler theory is always the best. In fact, the principle is that the simpler of two theories of equal explanatory power is to be preferred. In other words: additional "entities" can pay their way with enhanced explanatory power. So the realist can claim that, while his world view is more complex, it is more satisfying as an explanation.
Solipsism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
'It's all a product of the brain' is Solipsism, which isn't a falsifiable hypothesis.
Hmm..i think the two theories actually have equal explanatory power. After all, in the end, none of the theories mentioned have been falsifiable. Theoretically, the 'brain' theory could be falsifiable to some extent: if we could replicate a brain (maybe digitally), and see if it could behave exactly as the theory predicts. Ofcourse the first and major ojection would be that if indeed, you would believe that 'it's all in the brain', such an experiment would be incredibly unethical (as you would actually 'cage' a human being, in case the theory would be true). And secondly, this would not definately exclude the possibility of there being extra entities, though they would be sort of redundant.Ufostrahlen said:I have nothing to add, but only a small exception from the Solipsism Wiki article.
However, minimality (or parsimony) is not the only logical virtue. A common misapprehension of Occam's Razor has it that the simpler theory is always the best. In fact, the principle is that the simpler of two theories of equal explanatory power is to be preferred. In other words: additional "entities" can pay their way with enhanced explanatory power. So the realist can claim that, while his world view is more complex, it is more satisfying as an explanation.
Solipsism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
'It's all a product of the brain' is Solipsism, which isn't a falsifiable hypothesis.
I'm also pretty sure that 'it's all in the brain'-theory's not nessecarily all would have to equal solipsism. Solipsism means that you have to doubt everything, except your own existance, in a cartesian way. I can believe that 'it's all in the brain' (not that i nessecarily do, as i made clear in a previous post), and that at the same time, you have a brain as well.
Swayambhu
Rising Star
Nathanial.Dread said:
I presume you addressed this to me in error?
But, seeing as you did address it to me, I fell entitled to point out that in the paragraph I quote above you address the "perhaps" delusional beliefs of another forum user, under the pretence of being "helpful" in some way, while somehow, astonishingly, referring almost exclusively to your own opinions and feelings on the matter. And, indeed, offering instructions on how the other person should feel about your feelings!
I thought that was interesting.
Wow, I just took a look at this channelingerik.com website, sometimes I like to cringe and maybe be surprised.... but wow...
If that woman would have thought about her son that much, when he was still alive, maybe he wouldn't have killed himself?
That's the worst coping mechanism I have ever seen on the internet, I mean... I bet there are a lot of families, who create websites for their dead kids, but to blow ones own child to Chain-Mail dead little girl is going to haunt you- proportions is just unethical in my opinion.
Also, on the page where she writes about herself, I didn't notice one shred of acceptance, that it was her, who raised a suicidal 20 year old internet troll in the afterlife.
I didn't want to derail this thread any further, sorry for that.
I feel exactly the other way around. The less I gather about people who claim to have had these phenomena the more I'd like to believe that it is true.
Most of them tend to mistake normal sensory illusions as psychic, over dramatize their experiences out of proportions, or are telling stories that should easily be accompanied by solid evidence, yet they always fall short on that.
On top of that, a lot of the most credible reports are reading like creepypasta.
I feel like most of the people who promote psychic happenings are damaging the "real thing" and do not really get it, they just want to sell it.
If that woman would have thought about her son that much, when he was still alive, maybe he wouldn't have killed himself?
That's the worst coping mechanism I have ever seen on the internet, I mean... I bet there are a lot of families, who create websites for their dead kids, but to blow ones own child to Chain-Mail dead little girl is going to haunt you- proportions is just unethical in my opinion.
Also, on the page where she writes about herself, I didn't notice one shred of acceptance, that it was her, who raised a suicidal 20 year old internet troll in the afterlife.
I didn't want to derail this thread any further, sorry for that.
I feel exactly the other way around. The less I gather about people who claim to have had these phenomena the more I'd like to believe that it is true.
Most of them tend to mistake normal sensory illusions as psychic, over dramatize their experiences out of proportions, or are telling stories that should easily be accompanied by solid evidence, yet they always fall short on that.
On top of that, a lot of the most credible reports are reading like creepypasta.
I feel like most of the people who promote psychic happenings are damaging the "real thing" and do not really get it, they just want to sell it.
I am pretty sure you are referring to me and three years ago I would have probably agreed with you but that all changed in 2015 when I was hit hard with this stuff. I know that what I am experiencing is real and not a nervous system malfunction. It's not even a belief, its something I know 100% true. To me its like a person with really bad eyesight trying to convince me that stars (other than the sun) don't exist because they can't see, feel, hear, taste or smell them. I am also not of average intelligence. I have a law Master Degree at one of the top universities in Australia and I am very left brained and good at critical thinking.
I want to stress that I don't even consider myself very psychic, just enough to be able to easily feel and occasionally see and hear spirits. I will give you a few of more anecdotal examples. I was talking with a psychic medium once and a spirit advised her that I have osteoporosis. I am a 30 year old male and due to that fact it would be extremely unlikely for this to be the case. This woman didn't know a lot about me and I never brought up anything about my bones. When I told my doctor I really had to push to get the test done because he didn't believe I would have it. Well the test showed that I did in fact have Osteoporosis.
Another example relates back to entities. I have had three separate psychics/energy healers advise that I had an entity bothering me that has tentacles and looks a bit like an octopus. None of these practitioner knew each other and one was even in a different country.
Another example: I was on a job site one day taking photos when all of a sudden I got a thought in my head out of nowhere that I should do a google search on something about life after death. When I got home I forgot what it was but then all of a sudden it came back to me. It kind of felt like it was put there by something but not me. Anyway this was immediately prior to me becoming psychic. I did the google search and wound up finding the Channeling Erik website mentioned above. Shortly after I started reading the website I felt spirits touching me for the first time. About 1 month later I opened my computer to find that my windows background screen photo had changed. This had never happened before my computer or since that time. Out of the 2000+ photos I have stored on my computer, the image that was put on the background was the same one that I took on the job site the day that I had the thought. I literally took the photo at almost the same time as the thought came into my head.
Now onto the voices that I sometimes hear. I only ever hear them when I am in a Theta brainwave state (either meditating, just waking up or almost asleep). It is usually only a few words or a few sentences as I have a tendency to block the communication. The voices are distinct from my one inner voice. Some are male and some are female. The clarity of the voices will be choppy (increasing then decreasing like when you are in a car and the radio is on but almost out of range) and I will find that I don't clearly hear some of the words. If I was suffering psychosis I would be hearing voices loud and clear and all the time (not just in those narrow circumstances).
Taken individually you could chalk any one of those anecdotal examples up to be just a coincidence but considered together with the other ones mentioned above, it becomes a lot more difficult to discredit it. There are quite a few more examples like these which have happened to me as well.
Skeptics will always point to the illusionist James Randi as proof that psychic phenomena don't exist. But James himself is a fraud. He very selectively chooses who to test, sets the bar for evidence very high with standards being very open to his interpretation, and makes a hundreds of thousands of dollars each year through speaking fees and donations to his foundation. He has a strong monetary incentive to keep disproving psychic phenomena and shouldn't be considered as a reliable source. There is even a counter $1 million challenge by a former Australia High Court judge (Victor Zammit). Victor has complied a lot of scientific evidence relating to life after death and psychic phenomena. The challenge is for any skeptic that can prove, to a court standard, the evidence that he has collected to be incorrect. Refer to this link: SKEPTICS ARGUMENTS WRONG
I will finish by saying that I respect atheists and don't get angry or triggered by people having a different view to me on the subject. I like to convince them but I also understand that this is one of those subjects where it is very difficult for people to change their views.
I have seen and spoke with him clearly in a dream. I have also spoke with him and seen flashes of him when meditating (though it was choppy). BTW if you read the blog enough you will realise that he had bad bipolar and his mum did try really hard when he was alive. She was a doctor BTW.
This book actually "proves" nothing, I have read it, but I see it as a good trip report. Also NDEs aren't really desirable for scientific proof.SAP111 said:
You might want to add "Vistas of Infinity - How to Enjoy Life When You Are Dead" to your list, it's really a good collection of OBE reports. From an Amazon review:
I second this. Of course this proves nothing as well, but life long mediators frequently report OBEs, that's a fact. Reading about the Qualia of such experiences is necessary if you want to form new hypothesis.
And if the trip reports are true and not made up, I really wonder how the brain wants to generate such rich experiences. Generating a body image near the bed while watching yourself sleepn all from memory? This is very unlikely imo. So we have trip reports of rich experiences merely generated by the brain vs. rich experiences generated by signals from the outside world. Life experience tells me the latter is more likely to happen since waking life is a 100% outside world experience for all humans.
You certainly want to treat the matters like a tricky murder case. The victim needs satisfaction and innocent people have to stay out of prison.SAP111 said:
I feel the same. Separating the nut cases from the real deal is hard, if you don't have the abilities as well.
Yes, I know... Her self-marketing skills are all over this site.
Would you agree, that there are two possible ways to look at your described "meetings"?
1 - You have seen and spoken with him clearly in a dream
2 - You have dreamed clearly that you have seen and spoken with him
And, regardless of whatever stance you preserve for yourself, I would like to ask you, if this Man told you in your encounters anything, that his mother has not already layed upon the world.
And if so, did you tell her about it, with the resulting confirmation that it really happened and nobody but his family/friends knew about it?
Godsmacker
Rising Star
One of Western History's greatest philosophers/hypocrites infamously pointed out that "Religion is the Opium of the masses." Doesn't that make the churches look warmer, kinder and cozier, then?
Nathanial.Dread
Esteemed member
Sorry my friend, I got lost in a sea of usernames. My bad.Swayambhu said:
A lot has happened in this thread since I was last on, but as SAP is no longer with us, perhaps it is time to lay this to rest.
I was actually quite disturbed by the website about the women who claimed to see her son. She seemed like she really needed some kind of help. It made me sad.
Blessings
~ND
swimwithlove
Rising Star
swimwithlove said:
I would like to add that the clumped-up-dates of these reviews are extremely suspicious, thus undermining the merit of both the Channeling Erik blog & the book inspired by Erik. Tim Ferriss used the same tactic with his book The 4-hour Body by paying for reviews over a short period of time and was publicly denounced as such.
swimwithlove
Rising Star
SAP111 said:
It seems Victor is just another quack, or just another lawyer out for a buck backed by poor research. If one thing on his site can be debunked, everything can be debunked. Also, I went through the reviews of his book on Amazon and it is suspiciously 5-star. There are almost no 1-star reviews. Must've been paid reviews. Never trust someone who's trying to sell something. If he's got something on Amazon, it's a dead giveaway.
I clicked through the links on his site and in his online book, and read through the Ouija section.
Near the end of that section, it mentions a "spirit" named Gustav Adolf Biedermann.
The Ouija operator's "contact" with Biedermann is easily debunked, and this post extracted from a skeptic forum explains it best:
Also, in the study done by Gauld, here is clear proof that Biedermann publicly sent a letter to the London Times:
Anyone bored out of their mind could've just gone through the archives of London Times, found Bierdmann's letter, and could've just mimicked Biedermann's arrogant personality during an Ouija session.
Nathanial.Dread
Esteemed member
I've got to say, I did quite a bit of reading into the things that UFO was talking about, and I may be a convert, at least where the phenomena of Predictive Anticipatory Activity is concerned.
The meta-analyses by Mossbridge et al. (2012, 2014) and Bem et al., (2015), both of which made very compelling arguments for the idea that there is at least some sort of predictive effect that's occurring even in circumstances of unpredictable emotional triggers, were what did the trick.
Blessings
~ND
The meta-analyses by Mossbridge et al. (2012, 2014) and Bem et al., (2015), both of which made very compelling arguments for the idea that there is at least some sort of predictive effect that's occurring even in circumstances of unpredictable emotional triggers, were what did the trick.
Blessings
~ND