A question of The Force.

An alternative explanation arises from conflicting evidence. Neither of which I've seen..

As far as those tests you mention. I'd love to see them. The negative results could've come from a number of sources. My bet is the participants themselves less than the actual experiment.. though, it could be the experiment as well.. as a mere suggestion to the mind for it to dwell on could result in skewed results..

However, doesn't the scientific community have a current problem with repeatability? That and the whole peer-reviewed process being corrupted now? Being a result of things like ClimateGate?

Uzima Moto wrote: An alternative explanation arises from conflicting evidence. Neither of which I've seen..

There can be any number of different models trying to account for the same evidence, and there can be evidence unaccounted for by any of them. The presence of evidence conflicting with one model does not automatically make a different model fall from the sky. And if it did, I still don't understand how that new model does anything to falsify the former one.

As far as those tests you mention. I'd love to see them. The negative results could've come from a number of sources. My bet is the participants themselves less than the actual experiment.. though, it could be the experiment as well.. as a mere suggestion to the mind for it to dwell on could result in skewed results..

Sure. Pick your poison. What's the claim? I hope this won't be the generally beneficial health effects of meditation, seeing as those were never in dispute here.

However, doesn't the scientific community have a current problem with repeatability? That and the whole peer-reviewed process being corrupted now? Being a result of things like ClimateGate?

Psychology has a problem with repeatability because of the ridiculously small sample sizes available to them and poor access to even those samples. Medicine still has the sample size problem, though at least the quantities they measure can be assessed with more rigor. I don't know what ClimateGate is or what it has to do with either of those fields. It really depends on the particular field what technicalities can get in the way of peer review as intended and to what extent. In my field getting a paper to be even sent out to peers for review (i.e. past the journal's editor and staff) is challenge enough, let alone satisfying the referees.

At any rate, the solution to poor standards is better/higher ones, not further reductions or no standards at all.

The conspiracy that never was.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

Uzima Moto wrote: Of course you're confused lol you haven't understood a word I said too focused on trying to disprove me.. or at least the validity of my claims..

As I have explained, due to the dynamic and conscious nature of the Ethereal, each phase behaves slightly different from the others. Depending on the activity level of consciousness. In other words, in other phases your thoughts affect what you see..

So, your preconceived idea of a unicorn is entirely possible for you to see and interact with. It's called lucid dreaming.. also, for you to use a unicorn is intellectually lazy. As far as I know, unicorns were a mythological creature taken to be literal by the Greeks.. which puts them in one of two categories. Entirely made up, or entirely physical.. neither are the category in question..

In my experience with Astral Projection. I never had the idea of separation from my body. In fact, those types of ideas were highly discouraged in my family. No witchcraft, no other gods or religions, no different philosophies, none of it..

What you're trying to describe is actually how we get legends of angels and demons. What I'm describing is the process by which we now understand that non-physical ethereal constructs appear to people as their minds will allow in forms familiar to it.. People throughout history have actually misinterpreted a lot of these experiences come to find out. We know this because two subjects can be speaking on the same construct yet describe it completely different.. Superstition came from the misinterpretation of both the Natural and Supernatural..

Im not trying to disprove you but actually add to your theory with a yet still deeper layer of reality. The originator of conscious activity is the Tenuous Unicorn Herd that gifts this ability to the ethereal realms. And yes it was a Lucid dream in which I discovered them but now I can interact with them through the ancient Sumerian texts in a deep meditative state of trance.

As for unicorns being intellectually lazy, I fail to see why you view them this way? Just because they existed before my discovery of them? The Greeks misunderstood the nature of the Unicorn which before was was common knowledge in the Sumerian cultures. The Greeks only touched the tail of the elephant, so to speak. I, on the other hand, have explored the entire beast!

You say you had no idea of astral projection before you discovered it just like I had no concept of the Tenuous Unicorn Herd so I fail again to see the relevance in that statement. You obviously state that even though you did not know about it, it was still a well known phenomena right? Or are you claiming you actually discovered Astral Projection? If not I see no difference in the existence of a phenomena vs the discovery of it by an individual that had no knowledge of it before.

Are you saying that my experience gives rise to angels and demons and legends? If could be true but how is that, once again, any different than your experience giving rise to the concept of the soul, heaven, ghosts, energy beings and legends like the bible? I see no difference here.

I agree that misinterpretation can give rise to superstition. That is why I propose we setup our own experiment to test your astral projection abilities in a controlled environment. You have yet to answer this challenge and even now seem to be avoiding it. Surly you would not be opposed to such testing if what you say is actually true, right?

Gisteron wrote: Well the odd thing about it is that John Hagelin actually isn't a Deepak Chopra. He actually understands much of the physics he references. That makes it all the more disturbing when he employs it as a pulpit to preach his religious sermons from. The connections he draws appear forced and artificial but they are nonetheless sure to impress many who wouldn't know any better. Many who run the quantum consciousness script at least have the excuse of not knowing any better themselves, of being as much victims of the woo as they are perpetuators. But Hagelin is not like them. He knows he is misleading his listeners. I sure hope the profits thus collected can buy him restful sleep at night...

I have to agree. I think it's generous to pretend we don't know the motive when a person uses their degree for profit. When I was young and more impressionable I fell for a number of conspiracy theories. I was basically guilty of trusting other people and not understanding or not seeing corruption in their motives. For some it may simply be the fame; to be known or remembered for having a controversial theory. Doctors sell their credentials all the time on the internet to push some new weight loss pill. And they'll carefully and lawyerly tell you that x,y, and z have been tested to show a,b,c. And while some of it is true they hide their assumptions and anything that might disprove them. You see one side of the argument. Theirs.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:
Im not trying to disprove you but actually add to your theory with a yet still deeper layer of reality. The originator of conscious activity is the Tenuous Unicorn Herd that gifts this ability to the ethereal realms. And yes it was a Lucid dream in which I discovered them but now I can interact with them through the ancient Sumerian texts in a deep meditative state of trance.

As for unicorns being intellectually lazy, I fail to see why you view them this way? Just because they existed before my discovery of them? The Greeks misunderstood the nature of the Unicorn which before was was common knowledge in the Sumerian cultures. The Greeks only touched the tail of the elephant, so to speak. I, on the other hand, have explored the entire beast!

You say you had no idea of astral projection before you discovered it just like I had no concept of the Tenuous Unicorn Herd so I fail again to see the relevance in that statement. You obviously state that even though you did not know about it, it was still a well known phenomena right? Or are you claiming you actually discovered Astral Projection? If not I see no difference in the existence of a phenomena vs the discovery of it by an individual that had no knowledge of it before.

Are you saying that my experience gives rise to angels and demons and legends? If could be true but how is that, once again, any different than your experience giving rise to the concept of the soul, heaven, ghosts, energy beings and legends like the bible? I see no difference here.

I agree that misinterpretation can give rise to superstition. That is why I propose we setup our own experiment to test your astral projection abilities in a controlled environment. You have yet to answer this challenge and even now seem to be avoiding it. Surly you would not be opposed to such testing if what you say is actually true, right?

you're going quite far with this unicorn thing.

I do agree with you on this one. Anything experienced by the mind is kind of its own reality; like a simulation existing inside a computer. You cannot take that simulation out of the computer to say its real but the computer can simulate something outside of itself to the degree that it seems real within the computer. Dreams can be so intense that you don't know the difference between dream and reality except that something happens that wouldn't happen in reality.

When I had sleep paralysis my mind conjured an image one time similar to a succubus. This doesn't offer proof of the existence of succubi; merely proof that my mind was able to fish something out of my memories to construct this simulation of me being attacked by a demon in order to explain/communicate the fact that my brain wasn't getting enough oxygen. And at that time, me as a believer who was disenchanted with my denomination, I called on God and used the name of Jesus and lo and behold "I was saved?" Except that it was merely a coincidence. I conjured one image to fight another. But sleep apnea isn't immediately life threatening. So even though you stop breathing you don't necessarily have to consciously do anything to start again. But the experience taught me that the mind can basically manufacture infinite possibilities in a dream. You can dream of unicorns or you can dream you are out of your body. That doesn't mean you are out of your body or that the unicorns exist. Now if you can go outside of your body and go into your neighbors house and see what color towels are hanging in their bathroom, write down the color, and go there the next day and see those same towels, then yes, I would consider that proof. If I give you an address you've never been to before I should be able to confirm that you are able to actually astral project there.

I'll tell you another strange phenomenon.

My horrible ex-wife was into numerology and astrology and would talk about synchronicity all the time and use that as some kind of actual guidance. I could look down at the clock on my PC at exactly 3:23 on many days which was her birthday. Now the question is... did my subconscious mind see it already because it was in my field of view but not in focus and then because the birthday was a trigger it actually caused me to focus once my subconscious had already taken note of the time? Because understanding it one way would make it seem like a supernatural power and the other just a normal aspect to our amazing brains.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: The conspiracy that never was.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

Yeah, right.....

"We investigated our allies and found nothing wrong. They were just being tenacious.. Trust us!!"

Yeah, nah, let me see them 2011 emails. The excerpts look bad enough, I need to investigate myself..

Uzima Moto wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: The conspiracy that never was.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

Yeah, right.....

"We investigated our allies and found nothing wrong. They were just being tenacious.. Trust us!!"

Yeah, nah, let me see them 2011 emails. The excerpts look bad enough, I need to investigate myself..

Hmm, probably I'd say "competitors" rather than "allies", but I see your point. After all, if eight different organizations/committees, both scientific and political in nature, all thought to be independent of the CRU until then concluded after their investigations that sufficient evidence of the scientific misconduct alleged could not be recovered from the leaked data, there is every chance they were all in on it all along. I'm not sure I would trust myself more than those whose job it is to check such allegations, but perhaps you have expertise I lack and are right to trust yourself as much as this. What I do wonder though, is, just what kind of content must the documents contain that actually would fail to verify the allegations? If you come back and say that you, too, didn't find anything, would it be unreasonable of me to conclude that you too were in on it? If any and all reports can be dismissed based on what they say rather than on the reasons why they say it as far as those reasons can be verified to be such, is the claim at all falsifiable at that point anymore?

And, more importantly for this discussion: What exactly is the relevancy of the ClimateGate allegations? Are the accused researchers known to be involved in investigating the Ethereal? Perhaps more broadly, assuming the worst scenario, where the CRU and broader climate research community is rotten to the core, what other fields of science can we then conclude suffer from the same problem to a similar or to any extent?

ZealotX wrote:
When I had sleep paralysis my mind conjured an image one time similar to a succubus. This doesn't offer proof of the existence of succubi; merely proof that my mind was able to fish something out of my memories to construct this simulation of me being attacked by a demon in order to explain/communicate the fact that my brain wasn't getting enough oxygen. And at that time, me as a believer who was disenchanted with my denomination, I called on God and used the name of Jesus and lo and behold "I was saved?" Except that it was merely a coincidence. I conjured one image to fight another.

Are you suggesting that my Unicorn Herd is merely a confirmation bias brought on by me leading the evidence to a preconceived conclusion? A conclusion that I found in other areas of my life such as literature and ancient texts? Hmm do you suppose that Uzima Motos concept of subtle energy bodies that manipulate the physical universe could be the same thing? In effect just confirmation bias and wishful thinking and not based on any sort of actual explanation based in reality at all!!??

My god... THE HORROR!!!!!!!!!
How will we go on with out an explanation to the most basic concept of reality? I don't see how anyone can live with this question without making SOMETHING up! Even if its not true, at least we would have an answer... a belief! Yes that's it a belief based in logical fallacy, that is what we need in order to move forward. Wouldn't you agree?

Kyrin, you are really reaching. The difference between my theory and yours is that you pulled yours out your ass.. excuse my French.. but your constant insistence on creating strawmen out of my arguments is getting highly annoying..

The fact that you use unicorns made your argument look foolish. Unicorns literally have no historical basis as being literal creatures unless it's the Greeks.. and their account was second or third-hand at best. You could have used Bigfoot and better served your point.. though it would have still fallen short..

You keep insisting that I'm avoiding wanting to test these theories when I've actually tested them and called for more testing. There's your go to strawman. Others are you insisting that I have no evidence or that I lead it.. How can I lead evidence I don't have or about a subject I didn't know of before hand? Nobody told me the technique for astral projection. I figured it out independently through my experience. I had never studied OBE's in modern or historical writtings before my experience. In fact, it was my experience that inspired me to look at them years later. It's inspired be the REAL FACT that scientists still can't say what consciousness is, yet occultists have studied it for generations. The reason there's more interest now is there are technologies that can study the effects of these phenomena on the body.. like monks raising the surface temperature of their skin..

Kyrin, you're not as good as you think. You suffer under your own confirmation bias.. if a novice projector fails one test, or 10, you'll take the evidence from that one source and run with it..

Uzima Moto wrote: Kyrin, you are really reaching. The difference between my theory and yours is that you pulled yours out your ass.. excuse my French.. but your constant insistence on creating strawmen out of my arguments is getting highly annoying..

The fact that you use unicorns made your argument look foolish. Unicorns literally have no historical basis as being literal creatures unless it's the Greeks.. and their account was second or third-hand at best. You could have used Bigfoot and better served your point.. though it would have still fallen short..

You keep insisting that I'm avoiding wanting to test these theories when I've actually tested them and called for more testing. There's your go to strawman. Others are you insisting that I have no evidence or that I lead it.. How can I lead evidence I don't have or about a subject I didn't know of before hand? Nobody told me the technique for astral projection. I figured it out independently through my experience. I had never studied OBE's in modern or historical writtings before my experience. In fact, it was my experience that inspired me to look at them years later. It's inspired be the REAL FACT that scientists still can't say what consciousness is, yet occultists have studied it for generations. The reason there's more interest now is there are technologies that can study the effects of these phenomena on the body.. like monks raising the surface temperature of their skin..

Kyrin, you're not as good as you think. You suffer under your own confirmation bias.. if a novice projector fails one test, or 10, you'll take the evidence from that one source and run with it..

Lets not get our panties in a bunch here. This is a friendly conversation and there is no need to get annoyed. I want to keep it friendly and stick to the subject at hand. In that spirit I want to ask you a few questions.

How is my unicorn any more foolish than an invisible energy being? Unicorns have no historical basis, it may be true but can you show me the historical basis for an invisible energy being being a literal creature?

I did not ask if you had tested them. Anyone can make that claim. I can claim I tested my Unicorns as well. Do you believe me? I would think not. What Im asking for is current new testing under controlled conditions to further this theory. Im willing to do what it takes to make this happen. Are you? You had a sleep paralysis event or two. Later on you read about astral projection and conflated the two concepts into one event. There is evidence of sleep paralysis, there is no objective evidence of astral projection outside of your own claim. So lets dispel that discrepancy if we are able.

You say that scientists cant explain what consciousness is. But you make the claim that you do know what it is and you support this by saying occultists have studied it for years. So what if they have studied it? How does that prove your claim that invisible energy beings exist? If scientists have not found evidence how did the occultists and exactly what is that evidence? You say that monks raise the temperature of their skin. This may be true and it may not be. But lets say it is true. What can we say about this observation? Well all we can say is that some people can raise the temperature of their skin for some reason. What is that reason? We don't know - however you take that one step to far and say its because of invisible energy beings. This is the exact thing I'm speaking of, you took this conclusion of energy being and inserted the evidence that they are responsible for this skin temperature raise. Its an argument from ignorance. You cant think of a better reason so it must be energy beings. That is a fallacy. All we can really say is we don't know why they can do this.

As for the testing of novice projectors that fail tests, that is not evidence I take to disprove their ability. It is actually lack of evidence I understand to reject their claim. Do you see the difference. Its not my burden to prove the claim false, it is the claimants burden to prove the claim true. I do not say energy beings dont exist, however I do reject your claim that they do exist because you have not met the burden of proof that they do exist.

Gisteron wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: The conspiracy that never was.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

Yeah, right.....

"We investigated our allies and found nothing wrong. They were just being tenacious.. Trust us!!"

Yeah, nah, let me see them 2011 emails. The excerpts look bad enough, I need to investigate myself..

Hmm, probably I'd say "competitors" rather than "allies", but I see your point. After all, if eight different organizations/committees, both scientific and political in nature, all thought to be independent of the CRU until then concluded after their investigations that sufficient evidence of the scientific misconduct alleged could not be recovered from the leaked data, there is every chance they were all in on it all along. I'm not sure I would trust myself more than those whose job it is to check such allegations, but perhaps you have expertise I lack and are right to trust yourself as much as this. What I do wonder though, is, just what kind of content must the documents contain that actually would fail to verify the allegations? If you come back and say that you, too, didn't find anything, would it be unreasonable of me to conclude that you too were in on it? If any and all reports can be dismissed based on what they say rather than on the reasons why they say it as far as those reasons can be verified to be such, is the claim at all falsifiable at that point anymore?

And, more importantly for this discussion: What exactly is the relevancy of the ClimateGate allegations? Are the accused researchers known to be involved in investigating the Ethereal? Perhaps more broadly, assuming the worst scenario, where the CRU and broader climate research community is rotten to the core, what other fields of science can we then conclude suffer from the same problem to a similar or to any extent?

Competitors, how?... They're a part of the academic elite who invariably promote the tenants of technocracy and transhumanism. Their competitiveness is illusory.. most may have good intentions, but that's what paves the road to Hell..

I want to read them for me to know for myself.. not to prove anything to anyone else.. I don't think they were criminal, just unethical and bias..

Uzima Moto wrote: Competitors, how?...

Funding is finite. Showing that a team in a similar area of research to yours that you are not on is incorrect or - better yet - unethical, is not only an effective way to get rid of yet another drain on the common resource pool one depends on oneself, it is also an effective way to gain public and especially sponsor attention.

They're a part of the academic elite who invariably promote the tenants of technocracy and transhumanism.

First of all, citation needed, especially on the US Dept. of Commerce. Secondly, therefore what? I don't care what political opinions individual agents in the eight different investigations had. Their task was to investigate the allegations of corruption in the CRU. What else they promote or don't is not relevant to your point or to mine. In fact, if the CRU or the organizations that investigated them after the leak was not researching the Ethereal, then none of this is relevant to the topic at all.

I'd have to read back in the thread to see why I brought it up..

However, their competition is like the competition between major Corporations or the GOP and Democratic Party..

They'll screw each other over, but not the game. When the game is threatened, they'll close ranks..

Yes, the US Dept. of Commerce probably was secretly in bed with a British climate research institution. Why wouldn't they be? They sure have a common game to play, common ranks to close, obviously. Otherwise how come the verdict wasn't "guilty and also in league with Satan", right?

I remember why you brought it up, but seeing how you have clearly (again) no clue what you are talking about, I too must question if not the motive, at least the wisdom of that choice. And yes, I should be sorry for speaking so harshly again, but I'm just not. There is only so much patience anyone can be reasonably expected to show for this meal made of deliberate derailment salad with conspiracy theory for a dressing, hot laziness for spice, and plain raw ignorance as the main dish.

Gisteron wrote: Yes, the US Dept. of Commerce probably was secretly in bed with a British climate research institution. Why wouldn't they be? They sure have a common game to play, common ranks to close, obviously. Otherwise how come the verdict wasn't "guilty and also in league with Satan", right?

Do you think the Department of Commerce is going to tell you that a lot of the Commercial Laws aren't based off the original meaning of a non-living Constitution? No.. Why, because it threatens the power structure.. how do I know a lot of these laws for Commerce aren't constitutional.. BECAUSE I'VE READ THE DAMN THING.. from different perspectives.. however, the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of the matter is "regulation of interstate commerce" doesn't mean Congress can make any laws on any subject just because they MAY slightly affect it.. There are liars, opportunists, and charlatans all over Governance.. but after saying that you'll still mistake me for saying it's the institutions themselves.. when it's the people in charge..

I remember why you brought it up, but seeing how you have clearly (again) no clue what you are talking about, I too must question if not the motive, at least the wisdom of that choice. And yes, I should be sorry for speaking so harshly again, but I'm just not. There is only so much patience anyone can be reasonably expected to show for this meal made of deliberate derailment salad with conspiracy theory for a dressing, hot laziness for spice, and plain raw ignorance as the main dish.

I have plenty clue what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a class of people who think themselves so smart, and the rest of us so uneducated, that they feel they deserve to run society and regulate our everyday lives..

I know that the original plans for the Green Revolution were different than those who came to co-op and steal the movement for their own purposes.. mainly to tighten their control of resources..

I probably brought it up as an example of my point. Seeing as how you two clowns keep misrepresenting it. You lack fundamental understanding of a concept you're trying to combat.. but you can't fight an enemy you don't understand.. which is why you would make that "in league with Satan" comment. No real occultist I know of thinks Satan is an actual being.. THAT shows your FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of the entire idea..

Now, what conspiracy "theories" have I peddled?.. 9/11, chemtrails, Global Governance, WW1?.. as filled with conspiratorial evidence as they are.. I don't think I've brought any of that up on this thread..

So, you can either stop being condescending and have an actual discussion without the automatic assumption of your intellectual supremacy.. or you can STFU replying to me.. every time I came across new information in our discussions I looked it up.. you've only admitted to it once.. and that was just to prove how right you are.. I'm willing to learn, exchange, and test ideas.. but, as a convert from science to spirituality, I'm not going to tolerate a demeaning posture against a subject you CLEARLY don't know shit about nor will I entertain it..

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Lets not get our panties in a bunch here. This is a friendly conversation and there is no need to get annoyed. I want to keep it friendly and stick to the subject at hand. In that spirit I want to ask you a few questions.

How is my unicorn any more foolish than an invisible energy being? Unicorns have no historical basis, it may be true but can you show me the historical basis for an invisible energy being being a literal creature?

No, don't wimp out on me now. This is what passive aggressive disrespect gets you with me. I don't play that game..

For STARTERS, since you can't grasp the concept, the premise of Ethereal Theory is that it is an energy, or Force, that takes on forms other than the material one you're familiar with.. this "energy" is semi-conscious, able to make intelligent constructs on different levels.. it IS matter and is BEYOND it simultaneously..

I NEVER, NOT ONCE, SAID THAT "INVISIBLE BEINGS" WERE THE SOURCE OF ASTRAL/ETHEREAL BODIES. I have constantly reiterated the opposite of that point, yet you gloss over it every time because you're trying to combat a concept you have no actual understanding of.. if you wanted to deconstruct a philosophy or book. You'd at least have to be familiar with the details within and source of inspiration..

I did not ask if you had tested them. Anyone can make that claim. I can claim I tested my Unicorns as well. Do you believe me? I would think not. What Im asking for is current new testing under controlled conditions to further this theory. Im willing to do what it takes to make this happen. Are you? You had a sleep paralysis event or two. Later on you read about astral projection and conflated the two concepts into one event. There is evidence of sleep paralysis, there is no objective evidence of astral projection outside of your own claim. So lets dispel that discrepancy if we are able.

No, you asked me if I would take someone's challenge. To which I said no.. since you seem to struggle with extrapolating from incomplete information.. let me detail why.. I DON'T WANT TO END UP AT SOME SECRET SERVICE BLACK SIGHT BECAUSE SOMEONE GOT THE BRIGHT IDEA TO EXPERIMENT ON ME.. this idea is even in movies.. now that is not to say, as I've said before, that I'm against testing. I've repeatedly made the point THAT WE SHOULD BE TESTING IT. Just within our order if possible, due to possible outside threats to the practitioners among our ranks..

I didn't have "a sleep paralysis event or two" then went to read about it.. AS I STATED BEFORE.. I learned how to Astral Project before I knew what it was. That's more than just sleep paralysis. I figured out the technique to accomplish Astral Projection, and tested it, without having a preconceived idea of it.

You say that scientists cant explain what consciousness is. But you make the claim that you do know what it is and you support this by saying occultists have studied it for years. So what if they have studied it? How does that prove your claim that invisible energy beings exist? If scientists have not found evidence how did the occultists and exactly what is that evidence? You say that monks raise the temperature of their skin. This may be true and it may not be. But lets say it is true. What can we say about this observation? Well all we can say is that some people can raise the temperature of their skin for some reason. What is that reason? We don't know - however you take that one step to far and say its because of invisible energy beings. This is the exact thing I'm speaking of, you took this conclusion of energy being and inserted the evidence that they are responsible for this skin temperature raise. Its an argument from ignorance. You cant think of a better reason so it must be energy beings. That is a fallacy. All we can really say is we don't know why they can do this.

Scientists say they don't know how consciousness arises. I just repeated their words. Just like I spontaneously had my experience. Others have as well, all throughout history.. and investigated it further in secret.. as to avoid low brows who might kill them out of fear..

Once again, I DID NOT SAY ENERGY BEINGS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING you illiterate hack. You don't know what you are speaking of because YOU MISSED THE WHOLE POINT.. You making strawmen, again.. I didn't insert anything into those monks' mouths. THEY will tell you that they can control their qi(Ethereal) which allows them to do seemingly supernatural feats.. I made no fallacy, at all.. you should take up a farming business. You make the best strawmen.. argument isn't your strong point..

As for the testing of novice projectors that fail tests, that is not evidence I take to disprove their ability. It is actually lack of evidence I understand to reject their claim. Do you see the difference. Its not my burden to prove the claim false, it is the claimants burden to prove the claim true. I do not say energy beings dont exist, however I do reject your claim that they do exist because you have not met the burden of proof that they do exist.

YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE CLAIM!!.. As for your "burden of proof" nobody is trying to convince you of anything. These discussions are between people who are usually already under the presumption or those who are curious.. don't come on here wanting evidence just because you think the claim is absurd. You literally go out of your way to find a combat these ideas without knowing a damn thing about them.. the burden of proof IS ON YOU..

Moto, I have no interest in having a political discussion at all. You said that the scientific community had a general problem with repeatability and a corrupt peer review process "as a result of" the ClimateGate conspiracy, a theory sparked by leaked data from the CRU, that states that climate researchers conspired to alter or fabricate data to produce an appearance of global temperature rises as well as filter contributions critical to that model out of the discourse. Several investigations were launched in an effort to substantiate the allegations, none succeeded, making this not only a conspiracy theory in virtue of being literally the theory that a conspiracy was afoot, but also an unsubstantiated one, for now. Now, you can of course conclude that because the investigators didn't end up confirming the theory, therefore they must have been in on the conspiracy itself. This can be done for absolutely every amount of further investigations. No amount of reason or evidence can disprove something designed to be unfalsifiable. To me, the belief in such a thing is unreasonable because of that. A belief no reason can shake is a belief no reason can warrant.
Within this discussion, I do not care what politicians or activists have to say on this matter or completely unrelated topics, because the context you brought it up for was to criticize the scientific publication process. Everything else is something else.


You are also no "convert from" science, as if it was some sort of religion in its own right that one could convert to or from. If you were, you would understand what peer review is like at least in principle, if not in practice, and wouldn't ask something like "how can two different research institutions in the same field be in competition with each other?" and then just idly dismiss an explanation of how this can be with what amounts to just a "no". You wouldn't think that political activists made a substantive contribution to the outcome of scientific studies that are not researching political opinions in particular. You would understand that the scientific community is not monolithic and that the public debate about, say, climatology, has little to no bearing on the state of research in areas of psychology and neuroscience, let alone physics. You would know as any child does that opposite sides of magnets attract, and like repel, not vice versa, and you would know of examples that are just the other way around, too, like oil and water. You would know the difference between a law of physics and a natural constant, if you'll pardon me for borrowing that example from another recent thread. If I'm allowed go back to other threads further, I'm sure I could find more. You wouldn't think, for instance, that Kuhn had anything worthwhile to say on the subject of how scientific progress commences, had you ever been involved any. Your dedication to spirituality would not have erased or compromised any of that. Yet, here we are.

This is why I say I don't think you know what you are talking about. Maybe I am mistaken and you do. In that case, forgive me for being fooled so easily by your making every effort to have it look like you don't.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote:
When I had sleep paralysis my mind conjured an image one time similar to a succubus. This doesn't offer proof of the existence of succubi; merely proof that my mind was able to fish something out of my memories to construct this simulation of me being attacked by a demon in order to explain/communicate the fact that my brain wasn't getting enough oxygen. And at that time, me as a believer who was disenchanted with my denomination, I called on God and used the name of Jesus and lo and behold "I was saved?" Except that it was merely a coincidence. I conjured one image to fight another.

Are you suggesting that my Unicorn Herd is merely a confirmation bias brought on by me leading the evidence to a preconceived conclusion? A conclusion that I found in other areas of my life such as literature and ancient texts? Hmm do you suppose that Uzima Motos concept of subtle energy bodies that manipulate the physical universe could be the same thing? In effect just confirmation bias and wishful thinking and not based on any sort of actual explanation based in reality at all!!??

My god... THE HORROR!!!!!!!!!
How will we go on with out an explanation to the most basic concept of reality? I don't see how anyone can live with this question without making SOMETHING up! Even if its not true, at least we would have an answer... a belief! Yes that's it a belief based in logical fallacy, that is what we need in order to move forward. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, of course, but I think you're getting push back from Uzima because the concept of astral projection wasn't invented to explain their personal experience while you made up the unicorn herd. I think that's where the disconnect is. A lot of people believe in conspiracy theories and "occult sciences" and I even though I said "occult science" its really more like occult beliefs because there is no rigorous system in place to prove these things. People simply use open mindedness to believe these things are possible.

And then when multiple people present experiences of the same kind then the idea gains credibility within the occult world. And there's a tinge of conspiracy theory implied because it goes along with the notion that the normal fields of science don't want to explore these "hidden" things and have some ulterior motive to oppose them. So I get where you're coming from but I think you'd need a different tactic here.

For example, take numerology. Do I believe in numerology? Absolutely not. What I believe in, however, is the ability of the mind to make it look like numerology actually works. It's the MIND, not whatever thing or totem used as a medium for whatever answers or psychological product that you're supposed to take away from it. If the mind is trying to communicate something to you via dream or vision, it would be unwise to argue that the dream or vision never happened but rather that it was an experience of the MIND.

As an experience of the mind, one person may have an experience that cannot be shared (and therefore cannot be tested or duplicated) by another because it isn't part of everyone's reality, but rather just that person's experience which includes their dreams.

Now take astrology. It's very much like numerology. What scientific basis does it have? Are our personalities actually different because of how the planets are aligned? Could there be some subtle influence on us based on time and season? Perhaps, but it doesn't have to be for the same reasons suggested by astrology. But almost everyone I know believes in astrology to some degree. So I think that's the deeper issue. How do you dispel experiences of a kind that have been experienced by others? Uzima didn't invent astral projection. His experience just falls into that category and therefore, for him, creates verification.

Of course the experiences of many do not prove a thing true. Every religion is supported by a great many people, living and passed, who have had experiences that fall into the category set up by their religion.

And then there's ayahuasca and the fact that more than a few people have seen similar visions as if tapping into some older memory of earth, having to do with serpents.

https://psychedelictimes.com/the-universal-archetypes-of-ayahuasca-dreams-and-making-sense-of-your-own-visions/

How do you debunk these shared experiences? Is it possible that people, before they have them, are primed and told what they might see which then has an effect on their experience? Or is it something else?

At some point, perhaps it makes more sense, not necessarily to debunk "astral projection" in general because it operates on the same fundamentals that all religions do, but rather understand the subtext or premise of the actual experience. Perhaps, the mind's reaction to the physical restraint of sleep paralysis was to create a vision of being completely unrestrained (even by the laws of physics). To me this would make perfect sense. Consider how a loss of sight may increase that person's perception of hearing. Once the person understands why something may be happening that is within the mind's natural toolkit they will naturally give less weight to alternatives that seem to be more supernatural.

Can I ask you as a serious question how do you establish the difference between the two, no offence to you but ive seen a lot of mither from that community that call Star Wars satanic with things like The Force and darth Vader even had vigilante christian send me a 64 pade PDF telling me the likeness of Star Wats yo the devil obviously I wouldn;t to you but I have to really start pulling theirs apart, I'm just wondering have you encountered this & I;m from England where less religous if anything, and what would you say to that, just to help me out with out me offending them again & again, As i saw in this sites PDf o a lot of anti-religious views by members but now just seen this and would love with respect to know your opinion if you do not mind, Its just so I have something else to say well theres Christians in it, get me? thanks