Random forum fighting thread

No, I'm accusing them of being anti-science because their language is explicitly anti-science. One of Alex's recent podcasts was entitled "Why We Shouldn't Trust Science". Stan said on another thread that a phenomenon was for religious/spiritual types to ponder, because "scientists" had exempted themselves - he suggested it couldn't be investigated scientifically because "scientists" didn't believe in it. David Bailey continually criticises "science" when what he means is the scientific establishment.

Do they think parapsychologists aren't scientists, or do they think they are but we shouldn't trust them?

Others might correct me but my impression is still that it is the ideology shared by many scientists that is in contention which, inevitably, influences the kind of research carried out. Your example of parapsychologists is a case in point. Richard Wiseman and Caroline Watt call themselves parapsychologists but anyone with a finger to type a google search can see that they are, in fact, dedicated debunkers. So, in their case, no - I don't trust them.

Otherwise, I am very fond of science. I'm not well educated but have read many science books as a layman and have enjoyed them immensely. It is when the science class lectern becomes a pulpit and the lecture becomes a sermon about the righteousness of materialism that I lose interest and respect.

See: http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-50...ml#pid9509 (Materialsim as a Religion)

Perhaps people mean different things when they refer to science. I still have a rather quaint view of science starting from evidence. I also consider the other subjects of interest such as psi, consciousness, survival, reincarnation ... all of those start with evidence as the foundation.

Here's the problem. I'm not picking on you, nothing personal.

You (pl) start with a (mis)understanding of reincarnation. You back it with evidence ala Stevenson/Tucker. Stevenson thought reincarnation was (possibly) the returning to a new incarnation after an ended one. Live, die, reincarnate.

N. B. after

Time is an illusion we co-create as part of the rules of the Earth Game (physical reality). There is no past, no future. What the evidence fails to suggest is that this information exists Now as do these so-called "past lives". That these "past lives" are 'real' lives happening Now in another parallel reality. The evidence suggests we 'remember' them if the circumstances are appropriate. We don't 'remember' anything, we have those 'real' lives to hook into anytime it is relevant to do so.

In one sense, T, in the earthly sense, you are correct. People do appear to reincarnate, access those other lives, bring them forward under hypnotherapy.

In a truly functional, operational sense, the mechanics are wrong.

Wrong but not invalid. You (T) desire to create a physical reality where you believe in reincarnation as it is often understood, as it is understood by you, in a time-linear manner. Who am I to fault your decisions?

The point is that evidence can lead you to many different conclusions...and fail to lead you to the most accurate ones.

Time is an illusion we co-create as part of the rules of the Earth Game (physical reality). There is no past, no future. What the evidence fails to suggest is that this information exists Now as do these so-called "past lives". That these "past lives" are 'real' lives happening Now in another parallel reality. The evidence suggests we 'remember' them if the circumstances are appropriate. We don't 'remember' anything, we have those 'real' lives to hook into anytime it is relevant to do so.

In one sense, T, in the earthly sense, you are correct. People do appear to reincarnate, access those other lives, bring them forward under hypnotherapy.

In a truly functional, operational sense, the mechanics are wrong.

And there's the rub!

I've long struggled with this myself. Linear reincarnational timelines and the reality that time is an illusion have my mind in turmoil. I usually end up coming to the conclusion that these things are beyond my ken - perhaps beyond the ken of most, if not all, humans in this physical sandpit.

My best stab at an answer is that we ignore time and picture experiences as discrete events. A bundle of these events make up a lifetime and lifetimes themselves can also be considered to be events. They are interconnected by associations - psychic, emotional, feelings, karmic, relationships, etc., - and so make up a coherent story which appears to take place along a timeline. Yet these events can, apparently, be revisited and re-lived by those involved. And the "future" events can influence and change past events. 

I'm just relaying channelled material so you can take it or leave it but there do seem to be hints at such a reality in certain philosophies too. Even Einstein claimed that time is an illusion.

Here's the problem. I'm not picking on you, nothing personal.

You (pl) start with a (mis)understanding of reincarnation. You back it with evidence ala Stevenson/Tucker. Stevenson thought reincarnation was (possibly) the returning to a new incarnation after an ended one. Live, die, reincarnate.

N. B. after

Time is an illusion we co-create as part of the rules of the Earth Game (physical reality). There is no past, no future. What the evidence fails to suggest is that this information exists Now as do these so-called "past lives". That these "past lives" are 'real' lives happening Now in another parallel reality. The evidence suggests we 'remember' them if the circumstances are appropriate. We don't 'remember' anything, we have those 'real' lives to hook into anytime it is relevant to do so.

In one sense, T, in the earthly sense, you are correct. People do appear to reincarnate, access those other lives, bring them forward under hypnotherapy.

In a truly functional, operational sense, the mechanics are wrong.

Wrong but not invalid. You (T) desire to create a physical reality where you believe in reincarnation as it is often understood, as it is understood by you, in a time-linear manner. Who am I to fault your decisions?

The point is that evidence can lead you to many different conclusions...and fail to lead you to the most accurate ones.

Ok. I'm not really so concerned with external evidence, Stevenson/Tucker and all the vast number of reports from people here and there. That is for other people to explore. What matters is coming up with a workable understanding of this current existence. I happen to use the word reincarnation, it is concise. But I'm not concerned with the theoretical constructions behind it, they can fill the minds of others. My concern is only the practicality of living.

No, I'm accusing them of being anti-science because their language is explicitly anti-science. One of Alex's recent podcasts was entitled "Why We Shouldn't Trust Science". Stan said on another thread that a phenomenon was for religious/spiritual types to ponder, because "scientists" had exempted themselves - he suggested it couldn't be investigated scientifically because "scientists" didn't believe in it. David Bailey continually criticises "science" when what he means is the scientific establishment.

Do they think parapsychologists aren't scientists, or do they think they are but we shouldn't trust them?

Well, just try saying that 'the spirit body leaves the physical body and we should investigate this phenomenon' on a mainstream science show and see how far you get.

I'm not anti-science, far from it. Scientists have forced science down a road where it seems certain topics are not acceptable. They are limiting themselves. Just listen to Brian Cox call anyone who talks seriously about ghosts a 'nobber'. He's sciences mouthpiece in the uk. Neil deGrasse Tyson is the American equivalent.

Just because there are a few scientists that are free thinkers shouldn't detract from the way the mainstream generally sees things. As Kamarling has already said, Wiseman and Watt call themselves parapsychologists, but they are far from Archie Roy type individuals.

That having been said, I was very surprised to see Prof Cox on breakfast tv today, suggesting that the idea of us living in a virtual reality was a worthwhile theory. Maybe things are changing, but I'm not holding my breath.

And there's the rub!

I've long struggled with this myself. Linear reincarnational timelines and the reality that time is an illusion have my mind in turmoil. I usually end up coming to the conclusion that these things are beyond my ken - perhaps beyond the ken of most, if not all, humans in this physical sandpit.

My best stab at an answer is that we ignore time and picture experiences as discrete events. A bundle of these events make up a lifetime and lifetimes themselves can also be considered to be events. They are interconnected by associations - psychic, emotional, feelings, karmic, relationships, etc., - and so make up a coherent story which appears to take place along a timeline. Yet these events can, apparently, be revisited and re-lived by those involved. And the "future" events can influence and change past events. 

I'm just relaying channelled material so you can take it or leave it but there do seem to be hints at such a reality in certain philosophies too. Even Einstein claimed that time is an illusion.

In physical reality, everything is illusionary. All events are orchestrations, co-creations. simultaneous in existence.

We live within a network of information, soul-to-oversoul-to-soul, cycled. The only limitations to accessing information, regardless of where it is (dimensionally) :

1) is the belief that it is inaccessible or
2) it's not relevant to the main themes you are exploring.

I'm just relaying channelled material so you can take it or leave it ...

My point is that it's ridiculous to generalise about "scientists" being sceptics, when most of the scientists with an active interest in psi are not sceptics - and the fact that there's a handful who are sceptics doesn't change that.

Well, just try saying that 'the spirit body leaves the physical body and we should investigate this phenomenon' on a mainstream science show and see how far you get.

I'm not anti-science, far from it. Scientists have forced science down a road where it seems certain topics are not acceptable. They are limiting themselves. Just listen to Brian Cox call anyone who talks seriously about ghosts a 'nobber'...That having been said, I was very surprised to see Prof Cox on breakfast tv today, suggesting that the idea of us living in a virtual reality was a worthwhile theory. Maybe things are changing, but I'm not holding my breath.

We have entered an Age Of Accelerated Transformation, the only possibility is that things will change (5th Law)...relatively rapidly. This change will not be for those who have pre-planned a Life that maintains the solidity of physical reality. They will have that experience as they should.

As I have said before, there is a literal splitting of PR never-before in the history of the Earth. Like two trains leaving a station, side-by-side until...Those that embrace the illusion, those who do not.

My point is that it's ridiculous to generalise about "scientists" being sceptics, when most of the scientists with an active interest in psi are not sceptics - and the fact that there's a handful who are sceptics doesn't change that.

It is difficult not to generalise when, in general, scientists tend to marginalise their colleagues who do have an active interest in psi. Do you think that is true or some fantasy dreamed up by the proponents here? I'm really interested to know because it has been suggested in the past that the scientists interested in psi research (other than the debunkers) are not subject to ostracism but are, in fact, encouraged. Personally, from all the comments I have read online and in science based mainstream media (TV shows and newspaper articles), it is my impression that in active interest in psi is career suicide for most.

That having been said, I was very surprised to see Prof Cox on breakfast tv today, suggesting that the idea of us living in a virtual reality was a worthwhile theory. Maybe things are changing, but I'm not holding my breath.

I suspect Brian is not the Messiah.