The missing link/intelligent design

[JYJ]

There is both positive and negative criticism. Positive criticism and skeptical inquiry are things of the formal lab. Negative criticism is done on internet forums usually by those with limited education and experience but with lots of chutzpah.

Thank you for your courteous responses.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There is both positive and negative criticism. Positive criticism and skeptical inquiry are things of the formal lab. Negative criticism is done on internet forums usually by those with limited education and experience but with lots of chutzpah.

Thank you for your courteous responses.

You're welcome. My questions still stand, though: if you admit your ideas have no empirical support, why do you believe them? How did you conclude them? Why should I have faith in them?

 

[JYJ]

You're welcome. My questions still stand, though: if you admit your ideas have no empirical support, why do you believe them? How did you conclude them? Why should I have faith in them?

You should never believe anything until it rings true in your mind. As for empirical processes.... The gap 'tween what I propose and what is provable grows smaller every time a physicist discovers another particle and every time a psychologist is confronted with accounts of past lives when unlooked for by a patient in hypnosis. The desires for proofs are also abetted by the prayers of the believer when he/she asks for God's help in understanding something. Indeed it is often the means by which prayers are answered.

It is perhaps not logical but it is widely believed that a thing may be known for a very long time before it becomes provable. I look forward to the proofs of my contentions as much as anyone else. They have to come from recognized and respected sources in institutions of higher learning. Even then they will be scorned for a hundred years or more. This has often been the case especially when science dared to interfere with religious authority long ago. This is because human egos are involved and they bruise easily.

They bruise equally easily on today's internet forums and my own is no exception.

Want to test human telepathy? OK try this. When in a crown of people pick out a person not too far away from you and stare at the back of his/her neck. Do this while trying not to think of any particular thing. Very often the subject will turn his/her head and look at you. They may say "I had the feeling I was being looked at".

For this experiment allow, even if you do not believe, that there are two parts to the human mind. The lower mind is a product of the brain and is ordinary in every respect, formed largely by circumstance and genetics. The higher mind, however, is altogether different. It has an existence which is not dependent upon the body or brain. The high mind can connect to the brain though as often happens. So in this experiment be sure to NOT use the lower, desire orientated, mind. Use the higher. The reason is because it is the higher which is employed in telepathy, not the lower.

To use the higher mind on purpose it is necessary to keep from thinking about what it is that you want to do. This prevents involvement of the brain awareness and opens the door to the higher mind to act. Direct, or rather, allow the higher mind to focus on the back of the neck of the person you select. Nature will do the rest. Try this ten times or so and do not make any hasty judgments. Give yourself a chance to get good at it. It takes practice. This sort of thing happens by "accident" very often in life but trying to make it happen on purpose is not quite so easy.

This experiment works best when both people are in a quiet mood. In church is as good a setting as anywhere because most of us are just listening or dozing off and are thus more receptive because our lower minds are quiescent.

You ask how I come to believe what I do. From personal experience. I have done these and other experiments. Once from Los Angeles to New York City with two people and verified by a third in Seattle who did not have personal knowledge of the test being made. I know they work.

If you care to, try this experiment but be sure to give it a fair go. Practice it often.

Note: This sort of thing has been tried by science with erratic results because they failed to account for the two "layers" of mind that we all have. When a thing is wanted, forcefully, the door to higher mind is closed. One cannot concentrate, gritting their teeth and expect any positive results. It simply does not work that way. I will offer the universal practice of meditation to support what I say. Through the ages men and women have found that in a meditative state their minds can "wander the universe". They never ask for proofs but it is the business of science to do so and for good reason. Science is correct to demand.

Of interest is the recent interest in something called "remote viewing". This had mixed results because the motives and lower mind involvements were all wrong. Instead of being studied by those of pure intent the military took over. It was desired to gain advantage over others by discerning certain things about them. This was an unpure motive which spoiled the effort. Why? Simple. The higher human mind is not the same as the lower, desire orientated mind. The high mind does not engage in jealous thinking and cannot, ever, be involved in any sort of action that would result in others being hurt. This is something which is largely an unknown in science. They do not know enough yet about the mind. As long as they insist on making high mind subservient to a brain they will progress only with the hardest effort.

When physics, psychology and religion act in concert in a stance of harmlessness (without the military) the doors will open....

So here is an experiment which can be done. If you try this and find that it seems to work even if only once in a while be sure to speak to the other person afterwards and ask them why they suddenly turned to look at you. Do this before you tell them that you were trying to make it happen. Most important is that you absolutely do not ever seek advantage over another in this way. That would clearly be what Christians call a sin.

Thank you for being patient in your responses....

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You should never believe anything until it rings true in your mind. As for empirical processes.... The gap 'tween what I propose and what is provable grows smaller every time a physicist discovers another particle and every time a psychologist is confronted with accounts of past lives when unlooked for by a patient in hypnosis.

How do you know? If this gap hasn't yet been closed, how is it you are able to make that leap?

The desires for proofs are also abetted by the prayers of the believer when he/she asks for God's help in understanding something. Indeed it is often the means by which prayers are answered.

It is perhaps not logical but it is widely believed that a thing may be known for a very long time before it becomes provable. I look forward to the proofs of my contentions as much as anyone else. They have to come from recognized and respected sources in institutions of higher learning. Even then they will be scorned for a hundred years or more. This has often been the case especially when science dared to interfere with religious authority long ago. This is because human egos are involved and they bruise easily.

They bruise equally easily on today's internet forums and my own is no exception.

Want to test human telepathy? OK try this. When in a crown of people pick out a person not too far away from you and stare at the back of his/her neck. Do this while trying not to think of any particular thing. Very often the subject will turn his/her head and look at you. They may say "I had the feeling I was being looked at".

Extensive studies have been done testing this alleged effect, and they score no better than chance.

For this experiment allow, even if you do not believe, that there are two parts to the human mind. The lower mind is a product of the brain and is ordinary in every respect, formed largely by circumstance and genetics. The higher mind, however, is altogether different. It has an existence which is not dependent upon the body or brain. The high mind can connect to the brain though as often happens. So in this experiment be sure to NOT use the lower, desire orientated, mind. Use the higher. The reason is because it is the higher which is employed in telepathy, not the lower.

To use the higher mind on purpose it is necessary to keep from thinking about what it is that you want to do. This prevents involvement of the brain awareness and opens the door to the higher mind to act. Direct, or rather, allow the higher mind to focus on the back of the neck of the person you select. Nature will do the rest. Try this ten times or so and do not make any hasty judgments. Give yourself a chance to get good at it. It takes practice. This sort of thing happens by "accident" very often in life but trying to make it happen on purpose is not quite so easy.

This experiment works best when both people are in a quiet mood. In church is as good a setting as anywhere because most of us are just listening or dozing off and are thus more receptive because our lower minds are quiescent.

Such a study should be very easy to test (as, indeed, as has been done before). Why don't you coordinate with a local university, run a few hundred controlled trials, and be hailed as the man who proved the paranormal?

You ask how I come to believe what I do. From personal experience. I have done these and other experiments. Once from Los Angeles to New York City with two people and verified by a third in Seattle who did not have personal knowledge of the test being made. I know they work.

That doesn't qualify as a controlled, double-blind trial. There are a host of psychological and methodological biases that corrupt the results of such experiments.

If you care to, try this experiment but be sure to give it a fair go. Practice it often.

Note: This sort of thing has been tried by science with erratic results because they failed to account for the two "layers" of mind that we all have. When a thing is wanted, forcefully, the door to higher mind is closed. One cannot concentrate, gritting their teeth and expect any positive results. It simply does not work that way. I will offer the universal practice of meditation to support what I say. Through the ages men and women have found that in a meditative state their minds can "wander the universe". They never ask for proofs but it is the business of science to do so and for good reason. Science is correct to demand.

Of interest is the recent interest in something called "remote viewing". This had mixed results because the motives and lower mind involvements were all wrong. Instead of being studied by those of pure intent the military took over. It was desired to gain advantage over others by discerning certain things about them. This was an unpure motive which spoiled the effort. Why? Simple. The higher human mind is not the same as the lower, desire orientated mind. The high mind does not engage in jealous thinking and cannot, ever, be involved in any sort of action that would result in others being hurt. This is something which is largely an unknown in science. They do not know enough yet about the mind. As long as they insist on making high mind subservient to a brain they will progress only with the hardest effort.

There is another, simpler explanation for the failed tests: the phenomenon isn't real.

 

[JYJ]

suit yourself friend

 

[Wiccan_Child]

suit yourself friend

There's no need to get snarky. Why should we take you seriously if you have no evidence for your claims? Why should we do the hard work for you? I have neither the time nor the inclination to perform tests on every claim that comes my way, especially when previous tests on thousands of trials show no significant results.

 

[Davian]

An example of circular thinking would be to say that something which the Bible is true because of another part of the Bible correlates it... Both the beginning and the end are in the same book.

No, circular reasoning is where you believe the bible is true as the bible says that it is true and you believe what the bible says is true.

To speak of an absolute in terms of cause and then to offer effects in evidence where the beginning and the end are in vastly different places logically speaking is not circular.

To test the viability of an underlying spiritual universe select one specific to use as a baseline. Then stay as close as is possible to that idea in testing and see what, if anything, results.

Circular reasoning may aslo be where you start from the presumption of the existence of something (the 'spiritual universe') and work backwards trying to explain how we get to that belief.

Example: Consider the human mind and how it differs from that of an animal. We can think in concrete terms yes. We can also imagine and think abstractly. We are aware of ourselves as thinking entities. Science has discovered areas in the human brain which are involved with these functions. None of this indicates any spiritual essence. This is the baseline.

Devise conditions which cannot be explained by baseline reasoning. This is the next step. How can this be done? We might begin with an unknown which may be distasteful to us. To make it a bit easier let's call it "intuition". What, exactly, is this? We all are familiar with the term but have we ever quantified it properly? Is abstract thinking the sum of acquired memory patterns or is there more? I contend that it is both because the human brain is well used to perceiving and then adding to what is know. Is it possible that intuition is a word which refers to information coming to our awareness from outside the usual cranial mechanisms? This will be the object of our questioning. What we are attempting is to discover whether or not we have any as yet unknown senses.

It is worthy to note here that science has been actively doing research in this area for a very long time. There is a rock solid body of evidence to suggest that humans are telepathic. Libraries in institutions of higher learning are well stocked with collections of these sorts of data. What is lacking is knowledge of the means of transmission, one mind to another or could I say "one brain to another"? I have stated that "intuition" will be the test vehicle but then I mentioned telepathy almost in the same sentence. I do this because it is my contention that the two are the same. What we will do in order to question the viability of some spirit universe in which we all move and have our essence is to allow, just for the purpose of investigation, that human beings, and some animals, are possessed of more sensory abilities than science yet knows about. Can we set aside our prejudices long enough to look further? It would be easy to here resort to a tabulation of documented human experiences which have never been explained but to do so would be to avoid our purpose of discovering the medium through which these manifest. The questions must be formulated by the two disciplines of physics and psychology together in a cooperation. They must be working in an established laboratory in order to carefully protect the setting and to insure reliable results. Only then can valid conclusions be realized.

Can we assume that you are unable to provide any of this "rock solid body of evidence to suggest that humans are telepathic"?

You do know that there is a million dollar reward for the demonstration of a talent like that? That $$ could certainly go to more research.

Challenge Info

The test question will be: Can two brains communicate with each other externally of any known physical sense? Simple enough I think. I say the answer is yes. I also say that we must be disciplined in our approach to this area of human experience and not summarily and cavalierly dismiss any options just because we do not like them.

What's not to like about demonstrating that telepathy is real?

I dream about the time when a physicist, a psychologist and a religious scholar will join forces and attempt what has heretofore been impossible. This effort will require tons of both liberal and conservative thinking. The liberal minds will lead the way and the conservatives will check all advances with measures of caution. You see?

No. Liberal? Conservative?

This is way that God intends us to go forward... God gave us our minds which as so very like His great arch-type in the knowledge that sooner or later we would use them to bring religion and science together. This, also, is my dream and it is why I am here on a Christian forum in the first place.

The physicist will devise the means of measuring what the psychologist brings to the table. The religious scholar will moderate by citing what God has alleged through scripture. The result of this cooperation will be the discovery of something new. The ability of science to actually measure, externally of a human brain, something which is being emitted from it and received by another. It is already suspected that this occurs all the time but never before has it been expressed mathematically. You may ask who I am and I will say that my years of training and area of expertise is philosophy. Of all the sciences the world has known philosophy has always led the way.

I suppose what I am hoping here is that someone who has both the education and the means will bring it all together. Scripture tells us of the coming Kingdom of God.

Now you have descended into preaching.

When it gets here it will bring with it sure knowledge of what the human soul really is. It will be found that the soul is not something which is in the body or subordinate to the personality. It is not. The human soul has a complete existence on it's own plane in spirit.

And how do you know this?

This soul plane is where Jesus ascended to after He arose from the dead.

Are you just making this stuff up?

It is the heaven of the believer. Religion and science will then be in perfect harmony just as God has intended all along. An unlooked for bonus to all this will be the sudden reconciliation of all three of the great Abrahamic religions of the world. Judaism, Christian and Islam will finally realize that it is God's wish that stop fighting over theology and build a new body of scripture based upon those things which they have in common only. Out with the old and in with the new. Until this is done religions will continue on their present paths of crystallization, gaining nothing. We hear talk of a "new world religion" all the time. It will come to pass.

Do you have a date for that?

Perhaps you could update the wiki page on that subject, here.

List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You ask "how does one test the circular reasoning of another". One cannot. Circular reasoning is inclusive and pointless. One must avoid it at all costs.

Then one should follow one's own advice.

 

[JYJ]

No, circular reasoning is where you believe the bible is true as the bible says that it is true and you believe what the bible says is true.

Circular reasoning may aslo be where you start from the presumption of the existence of something (the 'spiritual universe') and work backwards trying to explain how we get to that belief.

Can we assume that you are unable to provide any of this "rock solid body of evidence to suggest that humans are telepathic"?

You do know that there is a million dollar reward for the demonstration of a talent like that? That $$ could certainly go to more research.

Challenge Info

What's not to like about demonstrating that telepathy is real?

No. Liberal? Conservative?

Now you have descended into preaching.

And how do you know this?

Are you just making this stuff up?

Do you have a date for that?

Perhaps you could update the wiki page on that subject, here.

List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then one should follow one's own advice.

All this from a guy who believes in a talking snake? Wow!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

All this from a guy who believes in a talking snake? Wow!

Don't Muslims believe a flying horse called Buraq flew Muhammed from Mecca to Jerusalem?

 

[Davian]

All this from a guy who believes in a talking snake? Wow!

Where did I say that?

 

[JYJ]

There are two elemental divisions in the human mind. First is the lower which is produced by both life experience/condtioning and genetics. Second is the higher, the abstract. This is where the dreaming, the intuition comes from. The lower is purely of the brain. The higher is more directly of God. It is that lofty ingredient which promises that someday we will all be godlike. May I please remind the critic of what I say that this is not a science forum but a Christian one. Christians commonly believe things which are rejected by science. Further they are known to eschew the doubter while encouraging faith and belief. Therefore my mention of God in close association with His created beings should not be difficult or controversial. Is what I say scriptual? Well scriptures very commonly reference the spiritual existence where God is and to where we all aspire so I'd say yes.

 

[Davian]

There are two elemental divisions in the human mind. First is the lower which is produced by both life experience/condtioning and genetics. Second is the higher, the abstract. This is where the dreaming, the intuition comes from. The lower is purely of the brain. The higher is more directly of God. It is that lofty ingredient which promises that someday we will all be godlike. May I please remind the critic of what I say that this is not a science forum but a Christian one. Christians commonly believe things which are rejected by science. Further they are known to eschew the doubter while encouraging faith and belief. Therefore my mention of God in close association with His created beings should not be difficult or controversial. Is what I say scriptual? Well scriptures very commonly reference the spiritual existence where God is and to where we all aspire so I'd say yes.

Special pleading? Did you just ask for a free pass just because you are posting claims on a Christian web site?

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Science is the business of asking questions. When a proposition is forwarded by one it is tested by others. Does the idea survive the questioning? If it does it may truly be considered "evidence". Does what I say have merit? Test it by throwing questions of your own at it. Your mind will not value what mine accepts as being true. Test it for yourself in the accepted manner and see where it leads. Thus are evidences produced or strengthened. Before you can accept what I say you have to be willing to work personally. To merely sit and make demands of those who assert is not the way science achieves. Put what I claim to your own tests... You will never accept anything otherwise.

An idea surviving the questioning process does not give it merit or demonstrate it as evidence.

The idea, life exists on the surface of Saturn.
No one knows for sure either way, but special pleading answers to it so as to make it "survive" the questioning, doesn't make it plausible, possible, evidence, or likely in any way whatsoever.

 

[pjnlsn]

There are two elemental divisions in the human mind. First is the lower which is produced by both life experience/condtioning and genetics. Second is the higher, the abstract. This is where the dreaming, the intuition comes from. The lower is purely of the brain. The higher is more directly of God. It is that lofty ingredient which promises that someday we will all be godlike. May I please remind the critic of what I say that this is not a science forum but a Christian one. Christians commonly believe things which are rejected by science. Further they are known to eschew the doubter while encouraging faith and belief. Therefore my mention of God in close association with His created beings should not be difficult or controversial. Is what I say scriptual? Well scriptures very commonly reference the spiritual existence where God is and to where we all aspire so I'd say yes.

There's no reason to think that there is a God at all, or that there is any ethereal realm to which human creativity/spirituality 'belongs' to.

Even if man's spiritual nature is something apart from his rational/calculating nature, in the psychological sense, there's no reason to think that because man is capable of both there must be a God who is somehow responsible for such.

 

[JYJ]

There's no reason to think that there is a God at all, or that there is any ethereal realm to which human creativity/spirituality 'belongs' to.

Even if man's spiritual nature is something apart from his rational/calculating nature, in the psychological sense, there's no reason to think that because man is capable of both there must be a God who is somehow responsible for such.

I agree. The belief in gods or a God are ancient. Some say that ancient aliens (humans from other worlds) came here long ago and made such an impression on the local mono-brows that they were feared as gods. Then the tradition of gods overseeing the earth became a long term thing. Some say that Jesus is God, some that He is the Son of God, some can't make up their minds. There are striking differences in beliefs between liberal and conservative minds. Some say that people in UFO's are the gods of old who watch over us (when they're not busy doing anal probes:o). Personally I am quite convinced of the viability of a spiritual universe which supports and informs this physical one because of the many otherwise unexplainable experiences I've had during my lifetime. I have learned not to mention these too often because, on these forums, there are always those who attack, demanding either evidence or proof. Trouble is that no matter what one might offer they will reject it. I've learned to avoid these good folks like the plague. They have no real interest in any fun and enjoyable exchange of ideas with their fellows. All they want to do is to be spoil sports. But is there really a god who is responsible for everything? I have considered that there is a source, just to see what might happen. I discovered that leaving out the divine personality makes things a lot easier to understand. The last point in this response is something we don't often think about. People are not the same in terms of abilities to think, to reason, to understand, to express themselves... Often to understand a thing we have to be able to look behind or below it to see what might be hidden. Scientists and philosophers do this. The average religious person does not. Most people are content to believe what they are told to believe and since they receive support from all their friends they grow comfortable, feeling safe in their group, and will rise to defend the body of beliefs to which have given them such happiness. This is both irrational and rational depending on one's perspective. Then there is the question of spiritual age. This is based on experience in living and is much more difficult to discover. Blah Blah I'll stop here. Man I need a beer after all that.

 

[Davian]

I agree. The belief in gods or a God are ancient. Some say that ancient aliens (humans from other worlds) came here long ago and made such an impression on the local mono-brows that they were feared as gods. Then the tradition of gods overseeing the earth became a long term thing. Some say that Jesus is God, some that He is the Son of God, some can't make up their minds. There are striking differences in beliefs between liberal and conservative minds. Some say that people in UFO's are the gods of old who watch over us (when they're not busy doing anal probes:o). Personally I am quite convinced of the viability of a spiritual universe which supports and informs this physical one because of the many otherwise unexplainable experiences I've had during my lifetime. I have learned not to mention these too often because, on these forums, there are always those who attack, demanding either evidence or proof. Trouble is that no matter what one might offer they will reject it.
...

How would you know this?

Why should one not have to provide support for their assertions - particularly in a forum dedicated to philosophy?

Perhaps you should try the Exploring Christianity forum.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How would you know this?

Why should one not have to provide support for their assertions - particularly in a forum dedicated to philosophy?

He does that a lot: make grandiose claims, and then refuse to give any evidence because he's sure we'd just ignore it anyway. He either genuinely confuses criticism and scepticism with close-mindedness, or he knows his ideas are without merit and without evidence and is inventing stories to protect his ego. Either way, the bottom line is he has presented no evidence for his claims, so I'm happy dismissing him as talking nonsense .