A question of The Force.

Uzima Moto wrote: Or maybe he's actually ahead of the rest of his community.. since one cannot falsify his claims, or that of others, you can't classify it as woo..

Pardon? No. That's exactly why we can classify them so. Unfalsifiability is the single most defining criterion of pseudo-science. Outlandish claims that are either designed to evade or protected from examination and potential falsification is literally what we mean when we say woo.

and that's a highly derogatory term.. like saying science is uptight and rigid, unkind to major changes that would usurp their careers.. like fake ACC science.. any rebuttals to the Zeitgeist are treated as blasphemy..

Except they are rejected (or at any rate not accepted) due to a lack of evidence in their support, rather than the offense they cause any King of Science™ or their gods. You call my referring to it as woo "highly derogatory". I do not call his woo any kind of offensive at all. I may call it outlandish, woo, or many another name that's either about how unbelievable the claims are given what we know or how untestable they appear to be. None of them are rejected for being an unwanted challenge.

Just as he could or could not have ulterior motives. So to [sic] can his more agreeable colleagues..

Correct. I'm pretty sure that when he gives a sermon about a religious movement he is the head of, a fair bit of his motivation may lie in the furthering of his religion and possibly material profits that come with it, and I shall make no effort to hide that suspicion. However, I do not think that his true motives, what ever they may be, are any kind of argument for or against the veracity of the content of what he is saying and thus I wouldn't present them as any kind of rebuttal.

I said they couldn't falsify it with an alternative explanation, not that it can't be tested..

That's what I mean by misrepresenting my point..

I've never come across any knowledge of the Ethereal that you couldn't test out for yourself. That's the reason there is so much knowledge behind it. There are certain phenomena that we've been better able to understand BECAUSE people have tested them. So your claim that these claims are designed to be unfalsifiable or are protected from scrutiny is patently false..

I've never come across any knowledge of the Ethereal that you couldn't test out for yourself. That's the reason there is so much knowledge behind it. There are certain phenomena that we've been better able to understand BECAUSE people have tested them. So your claim that these claims are designed to be unfalsifiable or are protected from scrutiny is patently false..

There are thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies published over the last hundred years on meditation and revelatory or mystical experiences. While in my university library I would often read books and articles on the subject. I don't have access to those materials right now, but I can guarantee that certain things such as the no-self experience have already been subject to scientific inquiry. Whether those experiences are indicative of ontic truths or purely neuroscientific and epistemic is not known. Even the physical definition of consciousness is unknown; no neuroscientist in the world can tell you exactly when, where, and how consciousness occurs in the brain. The actual significance of experienced phenomena such as Samadhi is not well-understood by modern science, but it is a matter of fact that those experiences happen and have correlative neurological traits. I do not think it is reasonable to say that such things are unfalsifiable or beyond research, even if the terminology isn't in-line with the current scientific zeitgeist.

You can definitely test these things yourself, anyone and everyone. Read the gitas, the vedas, the Upanishads, they are full of techniques. The claims that people make within these mystical experiences are common over time and between different subjects. Nothing about it is unfalsifiable or untestable. Interpreting the information that you gain from such experiences, e.g. "is this real or is it a mental phenomenon" is perhaps more difficult. But I've read plenty of peer-reviewed physics, chemistry, psychology, and medical science -- personal interpretation is difficult in basically any area, regardless of the subject of research.

Uzima Moto wrote: I said they couldn't falsify it with an alternative explanation, not that it can't be tested..

Okay. An unfalsifiable model is one that makes either no testable predictions at all or predicions so vague as to be fulfilled trivially irrespective of any observations that may be made. I don't know what "falsify it with an alternative explanation" means. One falsifies a model by making observations that are in conflict with the model's predictions.

I've never come across any knowledge of the Ethereal that you couldn't test out for yourself. That's the reason there is so much knowledge behind it. There are certain phenomena that we've been better able to understand BECAUSE people have tested them. So your claim that these claims are designed to be unfalsifiable or are protected from scrutiny is patently false..

Point granted. On a few occasions controlled tests of claims of this nature were made, with negative results. For some reason these are entirely dismissed by the faithful and personal experience or personal testing is instead referenced, as if the personal biases controlled against in controlled studies are something to be kept for "better" results by some metric.

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.