Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 74
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?Page 6 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
Let me give you an example of why your premise is fallacious itsallinthesoul.

L. Ron Hubbard used "Deductive Reasoning" to come up with scientology...and now these people believe they have super powers.

Yes, you read that correctly, Tom Cruise thinks he has super powers because he is a Scientologist.

Science evolves because we test our hypothesis and update it with new information. Science evolves because we don't just come up with ideas but we rigorously try to disprove them. The point that was made was that the Greeks didn't make any advancements beyond what they had thought up, the big advancements and insights were made by the "doers", not the philosophers.

Its not that science "can't prove something today as fact" - its that there exists no reason to believe certain things at all. The same reason you would reject the idea of someone claiming to be Napoleon is the reason rationalists who require evidence reject spiritual and metaphysical concepts. This is a matter of consistency, and it might be interesting to find out just how internally consistent your methodology is, do you apply the same reasoning and logic to everything?

More importantly...and this is a biggie...what evidence would convince you that you are wrong? I have talked at length on a number of threads about the evidence that would convince me of the efficacy of spiritual and metaphysical claims - the standards that I would use to change my position. What about you [speaking to all claimants of the metaphysical or spiritual]? What evidence would you take that you are wrong, what makes your position falsifiable?

If there is no way to falsify your position, you might want to reflect on how useful the idea is, or how open minded you actually are. There should ALWAYS be criteria for changing your mind if you are in fact "open minded" to all possibilities.

Here's another puzzler, you said that you don't need evidence to be open to a possibility - does this mean that you don't need evidence to be open to the possibility that you are wrong? Also, are you open to the idea that the statement "While you may need to find evidence before you can accept a possibility...there are some of us who do not need that to be open to a possibility." is fallacious and illogical without any merit whatsoever...without my providing of any other information/evidence?
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 76
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/27/2009 2:33:18 PM
I'm definitely all for thinking outside the box! Evidence is only part of the equation, its the possibilities that arise out of the evidence is where the meat of science actually takes root. Evidence is just the fertile soil in which the seeds of an idea are planted, if you'll accept the analogy.

As you may have guessed, I covet the truth - truth is something that is very important to me so I am passionate about pursuing it. In fact, I can think of no higher goal to achieve than truth, because truth saves lives and solves problems whereas fantasy only serves as a temporary diversion from reality. For me its not about "me" being right so much as a genuine desire to know what the truth is, or at least as close an approximation as I can get to.

That is not to say that I reject any possibilities, but when trying to arrive at what is "true" I look to the usual suspects first. I don't reject the possibility of the supernatural or metaphysical out of hand, it just never makes it to the top of the list of possible explanations. Quite frankly, other explanations wind up having the evidence, so there has never been a reason to pursue what basically amount to at best "interesting thought experiments".

You are right about your atom supposition - I believe it was some monist philosopher who described a concept similar to atoms , and that idea had some neat correlaries to some modern aspects of atomic theory. However, the reason we arrived at atomic theory was by pursuing the evidence, not making a claim and looking for evidence to support it. That is what science is - detective work. By following the evidence we discover things. The problem with making up explanations and then looking for evidence to support them is that you can generate a lot of false positives that way.

False positives are not only misleading, they are also disruptive. They slow down investigations and rarely reveal anything interesting or helpful. Instead, they cloud the issue with false possibilities, ridiculous possible correlations, and waste efforts at investigation. Even worse, when they are discovered, most of the general public never hear about their falsification, so instead they simply remember the original findings. This is how misinformation about science begins.

This is why even though being unable to prove something is real doesn't mean it isn't real, this idea doesn't mean that it IS real either. In fact, we have to look at what makes the idea worth pursuing or compelling in the first place. What makes an idea with no evidence compelling...that is my question for this post. ;)
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 78
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/27/2009 8:08:22 PM
I think I understand what you are saying itsallinthesoul. I'm a big proponent of the Zen-style philosophy of just accepting life as it comes, being in the moment. I believe there is plenty to explore in the areas of spirituality, I just don't see how the numinous parts of it are necessary to these experience - like the ones that are ubiquitous when recounting tales of prayer, meditation, etc. As an area that is rather sparsely explored I can see a lot of merit in investigating that phenomenon, however there are certain assumptions that are tied into it which I don't see as having any worth because there is no reason/mechanism for them actually being true.

Ok Rehxfei, let's get down to brass tacks. I'm glad that we both agree on the merits of deductive reasoning! Surprise, no points of contention there, lol

I don't think philosophy is inherently necessary to scientific investigation, but I do believe that the philosophy of science does add value to what we understand. Please don't mischaracterize this statement - philosophy still has nothing to do with science beyond understanding things like falsification on a higher level. Guys like Popper had some valuable insights, but in the end the ultimate value of the scientific method comes from its results.

As for my "reputation", lol, I don't try to "manufacture" a reputation - that would be dishonest. Instead, I like to be consistent because I find that there is value in consistency, and as I have said before, I too covet the truth. I don't feel that the supernatural or metaphysical have merit because there isn't any evidence to support the idea that they actually exist beyond man's imagination. If there was evidence, I'd be all over it, but from what I have seen there just isn't any, or the evidence that is claimed does not meet the minimum standard of credibility.

As for you not answering my question about what would make your claims falsifiable, this is rather telling. If there is nothing that would make your claim falsifiable than your claims by definition are not scientific. This is contradictory to your position that you value science and its methodology as this is a fundamental principle of all scientific investigation. Based on your statement I have to conclude that in direct contradiction to your professions you actually find little to no value in the scientific method, and instead use scientific findings to add credibility to your personal flights of fancy.

In short, your inability or unwillingness to provide an avenue for falsification betrays your lack of understanding and appreciation for the scientific method in favor of ideas which you find appealing on a personal level.

Also...you're "Au contrar" response was the equivalent of, "No YOU!". I wouldn't have mentioned it but it made me giggle when I read it. :D

In your final statement you expressed that you are open to the possibility of being wrong, made the claim that you've never been wrong, and then qualified it by saying that only small details have changed with positive results. This is a moderately interesting statement, and right in line with your other unfalsifiable claims. I for one have been wrong more times than I can remember, I have tried to adapt the new information in place of the old, and I know I'll be terrifyingly wrong many times in the future. I look forward to it honestly, it reminds me of the importance of humility and the limits of my understanding.
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 80
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/28/2009 2:51:41 PM
LOL, no worries mate, I don't think I could conceive of taking offense at anything - even if there were insults about me and my mother and our unnatural activities being bandied about - so long as its taking place on an internet forum.

Here's my problem with your position in a nutshell...

Your essential position is that you are in pursuit of the truth. I can appreciate this because I too am in search of truth, I find it a more precious thing than fame and fortune. However, and this is the crux of the matter, your approach to knowledge appears to be one of "If you can dream it its possible."

While on the surface I can't disagree with this statement, this at best seems a backwards way of investigating truth. Understand, I'm a writer, so I can imagine all sorts of possibilities. Turning reality inside out, manipulating coincidence and manufacturing the impossible into the compelling is my bread and butter. However, this is a poor substitute for the actual process of investigation when trying to get to "truth", and here's why.

The human mind is capable of amazing creativity, we can even imagine things which aren't yet real. For example, the title of the book eludes me, but it was the one where the author spoke of space travel and other technological feats which had yet to seem possible in the time that the book was written. While on the surface this seems to support your argument, I instead look even deeper. While he spoke of the implausible that wound up becoming reality, there are plenty of things that the human mind creates which can never be. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able dual-wield shot guns with surgical precision. It is impossible for Superman to catch a falling Lois Lane the way he did without at least shattering her body. Keanu Reeves has NEVER been good in anything except Point Break and those Bill and Ted movies - yet he keeps getting cast.

The impossible exists, and man has the ability to conceive of it, and even make it seem like it isn't impossible when it actually is. This is why conceiving of something and then looking for evidence is a backwards approach. Science creates a strong foundation to reach the next level of knowledge. Making assumptions about things which have no evidence, which are not falsifiable, and which are conceived out of pure speculation only appear to serve science in the off chance that they happen to be true. However, the reality is that what amounts to idle speculation detracts from the real discoveries of science and the boundaries that is placed on the possible.
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 82
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/28/2009 8:53:49 PM
Well itsallinthesoul, its because belief is the impetus for action. The belief that it will rain in spite of living in the desert and weather reports to the contrary will put an umbrella in a person's hand. Likewise the beliefs that prayer can heal the sick or injured has kept children out of hospitals.

However it goes deeper than that. The belief that stem-cell research is "playing god" or any other religious argument is stifling one of the most promising medical fields that we can advance in today, research that has such enormous potential that it could actually repair nerve damage and a host of other possible uses.

Even further, martyrdom is not a rational belief, yet it can kill countless non-combatants through the person who acts on that belief. Since belief is not contingent on the evidence, the potential for harm as well as good is based on a coin-toss, whereas actions based on rationality and evidence allow you to have a bit more control - sometimes not much more but any amount of control is better than random chance.

When we pursue the evidence, while it may destroy a bit of our innocence, we are still better equipped to deal with reality. Take your reverence for the Dalai Lama. Are you sure he is the man that he appears to be? Have you looked skeptically at the claims...they are awful one-sided. Here is another view: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200006/01/eng20000601_42058.html

Do I say that this means the Dalai Lama is a terrible person. No. Just that a realistic look at this man who is a leader might allow us to come to a more accurate picture of the world around us. Perspective is important and absolutes along with beliefs without evidence are dangerous. When we believe something without thoroughly examining it there is the potential for harm in supporting a monster or even supporting an idea that can motivate truly good people to commit atrocities.

So going back to your initial question, when someone holds a belief that they have no reason to expect to be true, that belief can directly harm me because of how it directs their actions. Some beliefs may be perfectly harmless, while others are terrifying in their potential to cause harm. While scientific beliefs can also cause harm, their exists a greater ability to mitigate that harm because a scientific approach requires consistency, so each decision must be based on the evidence available.

Oh and Rex...lol, god save us from self-fulfilling prophecies
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 85
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/29/2009 6:58:23 AM
Is that a dangerous belief? Well, it can be. Let me make a hypothetical to illustrate my point.

Let's say that Dalai Lama ultimately DOES want bring back serfdom, etc. This is an insanely backwards political ideology that basically uses human beings as an animal work-force. While labor is cheap in China today, it isn't free, and the face of the economic and educational strata within China is much different from the decades when serfdom took place.

China, and don't laugh at this idea, is demonstrating the effects of an industrial revolution. People are moving from the farms, from being "coolie's" towards working in factories and living in cities. While this is not an endorsement of Chinese politics, the realistic approach demonstrates that a return to serfdom would be a backwards step for China. So maybe the Dalai Lama isn't advocating all sorts of evils, but if he supports the return to serfdom than the change he wants for China could not be considered positive.

This is what I mean by looking at all the evidence. I'm not saying that the very biased article written by the Chinese propaganda machine was Q.E.D. - far from it. However, its hard to write such very convincing propaganda without basing it on SOME fact, and if even PART of that article contained truth then almost saint-like belief of the Dalai Lama is not just erroneous but likely harmful as people support a belief system which hides behind some nice philosophy.

Think about it...."Free Tibet"....so we free Tibet from the Chinese, and we give back to who? Once given back, what are the intentions of the new "ruling class"? If you HAVE done this research before I put the question, kudos to you on your skeptical attitude. If you haven't, and you still supported the idea, ask yourself if supporting an idea of whose consequences you are ignorant of a safe or dangerous practice.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 87
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/29/2009 9:33:59 AM
>>>I do not doubt for a moment that the Tibetan people have been subjected to human rights violations, I do not know with a certainty at whose hands.

It has most definately been done by both the Chinese when they invaded and took over, and the Tibetian ruling party prior to the invasion. The Tibetians basically used the entire country as slaves to build elaborate palaces, whilst the country was starving- meanwhile, the Chinese invaded and commited numerous other human rights violations at the people of Tibet.

The question you should really be asking isn't at whose hands are these people suffering, or "is the enemy of my enemy my friend"(since we've clearly learned that lesson in the 80's with Iraq)- but would you actually be helping the Tibetians by helping the Dalai Lama get back into power?

So yes, in that example, it could be very, very dangerous to wildly offer support to anyone who offers peace, if all you need for your support is a King to promise he'll rule over you beneviolently- and hope to god he keeps his promises.

>>>this is precisely why I believe it is essential to look inwards of one's self for spiritual awareness and not look outside. Hitler had his followers but the rest of the world leaders turned a blind eye

You DO know that Hilter and his inner circle were highly spiritual, right? They spent alot of time looking inward, in acts trying to ressurect Norse spirituality. Not all spirituality leads to a peaceful existence.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 95
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/31/2009 9:44:38 AM
>>>Ever wonder why animals seem to sense events before we do? Could it be that they are indeed more connected to that consciousness than we are? They are certainly more aware of their environment than we are for the most part...it is a matter of their survival that necessitates that awareness.

I think you already answered your question- the reason animals have better senses isn't because they hold a mysterious sixth(or, in some cases, seventh) sense, but rather, they need to make use of their senses to survive. They seem to sense events before us not because they are psychic or can see the future, but rather are more adapt and senstive to noises, to movement, to smells. As you've said, their survival necessitates it.

If animals held a "collective consciousness", then if I quietly hit a bird with an archery kit, and it was injured, but not dead, then that bird would then phsyicly contact all the other birds in the area to warn them of my presense- instead, unless the bird were to audioly warn other nearby birds, they are completely unaware of the change.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 97
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 1/31/2009 5:54:31 PM
Animals more heavily rely on instinct. Having an instinct to interpret foreshocks, or interpret air currents makes more sense than animals talking to each other telepathically, or being given a heads up by mother nature......
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 104
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 2/1/2009 12:13:24 PM
You're assuming the only thing stopping animals from acting like animals is language skills- and thats simply not the case.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 106
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 2/1/2009 1:27:51 PM
>>>do you always take things literally?

Naw, but in this circumstance I choose to.
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 107
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 2/3/2009 5:28:22 PM
Hehe....I thought this was amusing so I figured I would pass it along! Enjoy! It IS topical!

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_data_so_far.png
 transcend
Joined: 1/13/2007
Msg: 111
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 2/5/2009 3:09:36 AM
Thanks Laurie and Inicia for the comments leading us back to a topic that was posed as "what we think".. I understand the nature of discussion here but its refreshing to just see shared, ideas that arent second hand but arise from observations that meld anecdotal and some attempt to take a longer look.
It takes courage to step outside and pose questions along with making some attempt to string thoughts together leading to a greater understanding. Not every gap can be filled with a study , not every study is designed to do a specific task. The people paying for the study expect to get their money's worth and those that deliver..get more studies..
Setting that path aside is there a place to consider the effects of inputting the energies of our activites and the ritualistic repetition in groups of coalescing thought and intent toward one purpose or in one direction.. is that sharing the beginnings of a consciousness? Can it impact reality?

Even though Im not catholic or pagan, i have been at ceremonies that moved me in inexplicable ways..is that mass hysteria? am i tuning in to a destination or to an energy flow ..i don't know ..is there a reality we can alter with will or a collective intent?
How different is that from building the visible, the tangible and isn't ideation a precursor there as well? Thanks OP for the inspiration and thread
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 113
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 2/5/2009 9:10:44 PM
Actually, that experience is fairly well-characterized, from a scientific viewpoint.

Look into neurotheology. Mostly, what you're experiencing is a biochemical imbalance in your brain. It feels like electricity or touching Godhead, but it's really just a misfire. Much like DMT is just a powerful hallucinogen that destroys your ability to distinguish rational and completely irrational thoughts. Not always a bad thing, but not touching Godhead, either. :)
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 115
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 2/6/2009 6:44:59 AM
Actually a 12 year old girl proved that humans can't sense subtle energy.

She performed an experiment on therapeutic touch for her school science fair which was then published in a scientific journal. Her premise was that since practitioners claim to be able to manipulate energy in a human body, they should therefore be able to sense the presence of a human body at all. So she created a cardboard screen and placed a towel over their hands, and she surveyed a number of practitioners by placing her hand over one of theirs from behind the screen.

Yeah, on this 50/50 experiment, they guessed correct about 50% of the time.

So yeah, a 12 year old girl proved that humans can't sense subtle energy......yeah.

See, this is what I don't get, when we have perfectly reasonable explanations for things, why do we instead look for fantastic ones? Fun fact - the studies done on the effectiveness of 12 stepping show that a person is no more likely to quit from AA then they are to quit without AA.
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 118
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 2/6/2009 8:43:04 AM
Hmmm, maybe you misread what I wrote, or I wasn't clear (I'm really sick right now, so I'm a little spoostad), but when she put up the screen it was so the tt practitioners couldn't see which hand of theirs the 12 year old was holding her hand over. The towel was so that they couldn't use body heat to "cheat", something that all the practitioners agreed to.

So basically, 12 year old scientist held her hand over either their left or right hand. She then said, "where is my hand?" and they would wiggle their hand and say right or left. The results were no better than if they were guessing blindly....which they were.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 119
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 2/6/2009 3:04:56 PM
>>>um no tomosama, a 12 year old girl proved that she can't sense subtle energy.

No, Tomo is right, although he may be correct that you misread him.

In 1998, the 11 year old Emily Rosa(who is now, let the record note, is incredibly hot) became the youngest person ever to have a research paper published in a peer-reviewed medical journal

She didn't attempt to test if she could sense peoples biofields- she attempted to test to see if these people were simply guessing- and they were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Rosa

Its important to understand that the existence of a "biofield" or "bioenergetic field," a necessary component of TT theory, directly contradicts many principles of modern physics, chemistry, and biology.

------

>>>. And if you had a group of people who were optimistic and cheerful and considerate of eachother, it would be a very different group than pessimistic, glum and inconsiderate ones.

That doesn't prove people are psychically connected, and are able to alter their surroundings by simply feeling- if I'm an ***hole to someone, they won't be angry because I'm angry- they will be angry because I allowed my feelings to be expressed through my actions, not solely because of my feelings. There is nothing psychic about your analogy.

Allowing your emotions to be a phsyical force through your phsyical actions can cause phsyical reactions, yes- but simply feeling cannot affect reality.
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 121
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 2/6/2009 6:13:12 PM
Yeah, Infinity Mine, its disturbing that I know more about the woo you believe in than you do. Practitioners of TT feel that clothes do NOT get in the way which is why they do not require their "patients" to disrobe, at the very least their "patients" get to wear a TOWEL to cover them.

Also, considering the nature of the experiment, AND the nature of the treatment itself, what variables needed to be accounted for that would inhibit the TT practitioner's abilities that wouldn't ALSO inhibit their abilities to perform their "therapy" with a patient? If a TOWEL can disrupt this ability to SENSE energy, what is the likelihood that they would even be able to manipulate it?

No, the sad truth is that you don't like the fact that a 12 year old was able to come up with a simple experiment that demonstrates how ridiculous the concept of "energy manipulation" actually is.

It never ceases to amaze me how people like yourself make the childish claim that "science" is a religion, when its obviously just a methodology for understanding the world. Like any effective tool, its used reliably because it produces reliable results consistently. It isn't eager to prove ideas wrong - its eager to find out the truth - impartially and completely apathetic to what you would LIKE to be true. While there ARE things that science and technology are not adequate to explain right now, if we keep on pursuing the evidence and walking the same path that has been so effective for the past few centuries, we just might get those answers.

And NO, most peop who entertain spiritual concepts DO hold them to be absolute truths and they DO act as if they ARE absolute truths. These beliefs can KILL people, that's why its important to verify the veracity of the claims.

Life is what you make it, cold hard facts and logic have opened a wider range of the amazing and entertaining for me, there is more to learn in this world that is real than I could ever hope to master in a dozen lifetimes, let alone the one that I have.
 Tomosama
Joined: 1/13/2009
Msg: 123
view profile
History
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 2/6/2009 9:57:24 PM
Ah, assumptions are neat! Without knowing anything about me you automatically assume your basis for knowledge is better than mine!

Well, let me break it down for you, most of my life I grew up around practitioners of therapeutic touch and other new age beliefs - I've actually had first hand experience with everything from past life regression to psychics and channelers of shapes and sizes. My own mother is a 12th (maybe 14th?) degree Reiki Master who truly believes in her own healing powers to help others. Still think you associate with more of "those folks" than I do?

As a rationalist however, I DO think I'm better equipped to recognize the dangers that these baseless beliefs can pose - allow me to lay out an anecdote as an example.

My mother has had heart problems her whole, complicated by the rheumatic fever that she had as a child, the state of heart surgery her first go round, and other contributing factors. She was due for some heart surgery about 20 years back, the doctors told her that she wasn't likely to survive 10 without it.

Of course, my mom didn't trust doctors by this point, she assumed that they just wanted to get her money, and she much preferred want her "natural medicine" doctors told her over what her cardiologist said. They talked about balancing her PH levels, chelation, and a multitude of other "non-invasive" procedures and treatments, and every year that she continued to live she considered it "proof" that the doctors didn't know what they were talking about.

Until this past year.

Oh, she's still convinced that the heart surgery did nothing for her health, that it only made her worse, etc. etc., but there are objective differences in her appearance of health since she had the surgery (ultimately it was a stay bed-ridden until you die in a few months decision, or take the surgery and your health will improve). The fact of the matter is that within a month of having the surgery, she was back to dancing, yelling, and doing things she hadn't done in about 15 years....and if she would have just had the surgery 15 years ago she might be doing better even now.

Because she believed so fervently that her "natural" and "spiritual" beliefs worked, she almost killed herself. That's just one example, its close to home, but their are countless others. Beliefs that are not true CAN KILL, which is why it is important that we take responsibility for those beliefs because often enough it isn't just us who pays the consequences.

As for truth...your questions about truth are answered by your own question....science explains how things work within the scope of it's own limitations, and that's quite good actually. Think of how vast those limitations really are. Within the limitations of science we can travel through space, explore the very building blocks of reality, slow the progress of disease, and increased transportation and communication speeds beyond our wildest imaginings...and that's just a start. Are you implying that my scope of what's possible is limited because I consider things that cannot be replicated in a laboratory or do not have consistent and measurable results to be nothing more than a flight of fancy? I believe you are limited by what you want to be true in place of what is to complicated for you to understand. I base this on your obvious lack of the philosophy and methodology of the scientific method, and your preference for things like kinesthesiology.

This of course is why you don't like the 12 year old girl's experiment, because it completely invalidates this unaccredited quack Donna Eden and her magnet therapy and "energy medicine". Allow me to give you a little insight into my complete and utter DISDAIN for Donna Eden and the multitude of leaches like her. There is a saying that goes, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

For Donna Eden to prove she was right - and mind you like all fantasy and charlatanism it would be awesome if "miracle tonic" was the real deal - all she would have to do is perform a single double-blind experiment and then publish the results. Oh wait...the establishment is against her, right? So...that means she HAS done the double blind experiment but they wouldn't publish her work? No? You mean, she only has testimonials? Sorry, that doesn't cut, she wants to revolutionize the world and really help people get this "better alternative" then she should prove it actually works, and all that would take is a single double-blind study.

I won't hold my breath for her to put one of those out though, lol
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 127
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 2/7/2009 9:48:43 AM
>>>what if there is no truth?

I swear to god Tomo- Rand had it right- this is a conspiracy in the sense that people are drawn to one another by the desire of denying that truth and reality exists- they are drawn to one another in the hope that, if they can dismiss all of reality, they can in fact alter it. That if you do not define a thing, a thing does not exist.

>>>wouldn't you research ALL the angles and aspects of a subject before you make up your mind?

Foolish Tomo- you must know everything, everywhere, at all times, and equally must prove that reality exists and that existence exists- only then are you in the position to judge anything and can reach any conclusions.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 129
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 12/17/2009 5:47:17 PM
I agree that treating people and your surroundings with respect creates a more positive atmosphere- but its through your actions that this positive atmosphere is created- not positive thoughts.

Your thoughts can only alter the phsyical world if you yourself caused it. Thinking of something to happen does not cause it to happen, and thinking happiness does not create happiness.
 Rawesome
Joined: 4/26/2009
Msg: 131
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 12/20/2009 6:14:32 PM
You should look up Masaru Emoto and his ice crystal experiments. Also look up the documentary "What the Bleep!". It get's into this along with some confusing quantum mechanics for a vague connection that is strong enough to leave you curious and wondering by the end of the long movie! I don't know if I can say definitively that I'm a believer in psychokinetics, but a Collective Unconscious, which is what I think the main thread was attempting to refer to, is more believable.
 ea┬«ly
Joined: 11/7/2006
Msg: 132
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 12/20/2009 6:49:28 PM

Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?


Yes, but not the way other people do.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 134
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 12/21/2009 9:38:57 AM
>>>The only explanation is that somehow, the monkeys from the isolated island shared knowledge with the monkeys on the other island through collective consciousness.

But....monkeys already know how to peel banana's- granted, theres a chance not all of them, esspecially the ones who aren't exposed to banana's- but If there was one monkey who did(and we already know there are thousands who do), couldn't they share their knowledge with all the others? Couldn't a monkey in Tanzania teach a monkey in Madagascar how to eat a banana through Collective Consciousness? And thus, how could any experiment such as this be proved true if the evidence could be invalidated so easily?

What about teaching monkeys how to smoke? Teach one monkey on one island how to smoke- then, all over the world, we should start tossing monkeys a pack of smokes and a lighter- see if they IMMEADIATELY pull out a cigarette and start puffing. THAT would be evidence of something worth looking into- but the fact that millions of monkeys already know how to eat a banana would imply that teaching a couple how to eat a banana, then turning around and going "omg- these monkeys over here also know how to eat a banana"- just doesnt add up- because if collective consciousness is true, then you wouldn't need to teach them that in the first place, because they should already know through CC

Hell, if CC is true, then we should be able to go up to an orangutan with sign language, and they should immeadiately respond, since we've taught other orangutan's sign language in the past

>>>Despite the distance two connected electrons have, they can instantly communicate with each other as if there is no distance at all.

Do....Do electrons exchange information?

And isn't this like saying that our sun exchanges information with another sun on the other side of the Galaxy? I mean, a few hours trip from one island to another for us may seem like a long journey- imagine how long that journey would be to atoms.....

>>> I could be a leech and exploit the group, but that would suicide in the long term.

Exactly- it isn't about a psychic bond- its about common sense and self-interest/preservation.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 136
Collective Consciousness - Do you believe?
Posted: 12/21/2009 12:18:29 PM
>>> It could be more of an electron being at two location at once.

Granted, but you are making three huge, unsubstainiated claims;

A) That an electron can affect a Atom that it is literally miles away from the atom- while the Quantum Mechanics addresses how an electron jumps about directly around an Atom, you are claiming these Atoms are effecting each other on different islands
B)That electrons can hold information, possibliy complex instructions, and can exchange it between atoms
C)Atoms can give US instructions

All three of these have no real evidence to support such claims, and rather is used to justify flimsy beliefs without any real observed data

>>>which is limited to species

Why? At what point is this bond severed and a new one is made? If a bird develops a beak 1/4 of an inch longer than its fellow birds, does a new link appear? What about if their feathers are a slightly darker? What if you take a penguin and put it in the north pole- would a new bond be made?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >