This Forum is For Your Experiences

[Onlychild]

What are we talking about there aliens or ghosts ( discarnate personalities of the deceased )? Sorry, I lost track someplace. I'm no longer certain.

In that case - paranormal "personalities of the deceased."

 

[Randall]

In that case - paranormal "personalities of the deceased."

Thanks. Okay then, there's a logical problem that seems to be getting glossed over that makes it impossible for these alleged personalities of the deceased to actually be the personalities of the deceased. They can only be copies or recreations. This is proven by deduction stemming from the evidence of neuroscience. What part about this situation isn't connecting with you. Why? Please help me understand how you have solved this problem.

 

[Onlychild]

1) Redfern has totally lost the thread on this as far as I'm concerned, and just published entertainment. His last few books put forward are contradictory to say the least. To put it frankly, I've put everything Redfern has ever published into file 11. And everything similar. QAnon has taught me how far conspiracies can go from entertainment to people's foolish reality. So, nope as far as I'm concerned on that.

That was the only work I was concerned with. The early time period and the off-track connection to "demons" makes sense to me ... that was the thinking of the day.

2) 'Sadistic' also does not cover it. It just doesn't. Been terrified for sure, but it does not at all seem that terror itself is the goal, more simply a tool. It's more akin to total apathy. They literally don't seem to care, and just have a job to do. No idea what that job is. They've never said anything to me.

"Two studies led by psychological scientist Erin Buckels of the University of British Columbia revealed that people who score high on a measure of sadism seem to derive pleasure from behaviors that hurt others, and are even willing to expend extra effort to make someone else suffer."
"...sadism is a distinct aspect of personality that joins with three others — psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism — to form a “Dark Tetrad” of personality traits.

If you look at "experiences" ... that pretty much sums it up.

Not sure what you mean 'the sum and substance of what we are supposed to know' means?

We'll get into it ... but the bottom line is that history should have preserved certain information regarding this event - but - we lost it.

100% don't believe it. At all. I do believe that the military/industrial complex has tried to give the illusion it has happened - for many reasons. I totally don't think it's ever happened.

Well like I said ... the outcome should have been different if they did.

I'm not at all sure what that means. Can you go into it more?

People's "experiences" regarding being "told things" (best topic is the end times experiences) are in a format of classical teaching - which is what we got in school. In other words, here's the truth - just believe it - don't think - just remember what I told you. Constructivism points in a direction that you have to look into ... and then you are given another piece of information ... on and on until eventually - you "get it."

It can take A LONG TIME to figure stuff out ... but once you do, you have a more complete understanding regarding how everything comes together.

 

[Onlychild]

Not in my experience. At all.

My sense is that it's more akin to an ant demanding that the local human appear to explain why the anthill was just kicked. Even if the human could understand the ant, it probably wouldn't bother to explain itself. And if it did, the answer wouldn't make any sense to the ant.

That's a pretty giant leap.

Everyone needs to create their own picture / understanding. I can only tell you what's gone on with me ... other people can tell you what's gone on with them. The deeper you go, the more info you get ... and, the more problems can pop up.

 

[Onlychild]

Thanks. Okay then, there's a logical problem that seems to be getting glossed over that makes it impossible for these alleged personalities of the deceased to actually be the personalities of the deceased. They can only be copies or recreations. This is proven by deduction stemming from the evidence of neuroscience. What part about this situation isn't connecting with you. Why? Please help me understand how you have solved this problem.

It isn't a case of solving ... it's a case of putting the picture together slowly over time. You take in information from all sources and over time consider everything. Where I am - I don't see "copies" ... I simply see "spirit" as a part of the whole.

And now - time to hit the porch for a ciggy

 

[marduk]

That was the only work I was concerned with. The early time period and the off-track connection to "demons" makes sense to me ... that was the thinking of the day.

Why are "demons" a better label than "ETs" or Strieber's "Visitors?" It's the last one I like the best, because it's the most ambiguous.

"Two studies led by psychological scientist Erin Buckels of the University of British Columbia revealed that people who score high on a measure of sadism seem to derive pleasure from behaviors that hurt others, and are even willing to expend extra effort to make someone else suffer."
"...sadism is a distinct aspect of personality that joins with three others — psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism — to form a “Dark Tetrad” of personality traits.

If you look at "experiences" ... that pretty much sums it up.

Not for me. Or for many others that I've read. Sadists derive pleasure. None of these seemed to derive any kind of satisfaction by doing whatever it was that they were doing. More like they had a job to do and a set of tools to do it with. Fear being a big one.

We'll get into it ... but the bottom line is that history should have preserved certain information regarding this event - but - we lost it.

Not sure what you mean?

Well like I said ... the outcome should have been different if they did.

I think if a hive mind organism encountered a military structure they wouldn't understand it. There would be no frame of reference. Power hierarchy would be meaningless. Interacting with a five star general or with a private would be the same thing to a hive mind that is essentially one individual. Not that I think that's what's happening, but as an example that might be understandable.

People's "experiences" regarding being "told things" (best topic is the end times experiences) are in a format of classical teaching - which is what we got in school. In other words, here's the truth - just believe it - don't think - just remember what I told you. Constructivism points in a direction that you have to look into ... and then you are given another piece of information ... on and on until eventually - you "get it."

Oh I understand the difference between the two. I just don't understand how it relates to the topic at hand.

It can take A LONG TIME to figure stuff out ... but once you do, you have a more complete understanding regarding how everything comes together.

Except we've been trying to figure this stuff out for 50+ years and gotten nowhere. Maybe even gone backwards.

 

[Onlychild]

Why are "demons" a better label than "ETs" or Strieber's "Visitors?" It's the last one I like the best, because it's the most ambiguous.

All it boils down to is that's where people were back then.

Not for me. Or for many others that I've read. Sadists derive pleasure. None of these seemed to derive any kind of satisfaction by doing whatever it was that they were doing. More like they had a job to do and a set of tools to do it with. Fear being a big one.

Well that's what sadistic behavior is all about ... they enjoy tormenting.

Not sure what you mean?

There's a ton of stuff to go into ... and a ton of explanational material missing. The bottom line boils down bits and pieces of "our" information, totally turned into something else via the cultural religions that made them up.
There isn't even any information concerning the Zoroastrian 12,000 years reference, and the connection to the Indian Yuga cycle (via a recomputation that was done) that seems to have come in by the Aryans and was part of the Aryan split.
We were supposed to know about this coming event ... and ... we lost the information. Just to paint a weird picture, that 12,000 year reference I mentioned ... this event was half way here back then. ET sure as hell would have known.

I think if a hive mind organism encountered a military structure they wouldn't understand it. There would be no frame of reference. Power hierarchy would be meaningless. Interacting with a five star general or with a private would be the same thing to a hive mind that is essentially one individual. Not that I think that's what's happening, but as an example that might be understandable.

Someone did know something ... there were esoteric references I tripped over some time back that talked about a coming event. Does this connect to Redfern's Collins Elite? I have no clue ... but it is weird.

Oh I understand the difference between the two. I just don't understand how it relates to the topic at hand.

Because people are misled via experiential lies. What I went through boils down to - if there's a screw up - I did it, and it can be corrected with proper information. .

Except we've been trying to figure this stuff out for 50+ years and gotten nowhere. Maybe even gone backwards.

The idea is - keep going. I've gone down more wrong roads than I want to even think about. Had to walk all the way back to road I came off of ... and start all over again.

 

[Randall]

It isn't a case of solving ... it's a case of putting the picture together slowly over time. You take in information from all sources and over time consider everything. Where I am - I don't see "copies" ... I simply see "spirit" as a part of the whole.

And now - time to hit the porch for a ciggy

Okay, if we go with that, then the questions are:

1. Which spirit? Regardless of how we ourselves want to define it, there's more than one "spirit", if not for the very reason that assuming I have one someplace, it belongs exclusively to me ( barring any contracts with Liz a.k.a. The Devil or other similarly minded entity that may or may not exist. )
2. The whole what? ( A person? Or just a particular "part of a person"? Or something else? )

 

[Onlychild]

Okay, if we go with that, then the questions are:

1. Which spirit? Regardless of how we ourselves want to define it, there's more than one "spirit", if not for the very reason that assuming I have one someplace, it belongs exclusively to me ( barring any contracts with Liz a.k.a. The Devil or other similarly minded entity that may or may not exist. )

Yes - YOUR "spirit" ... MY spirit ... everyone's spirit. The part of the self that continues on after death. I'm not saying this is right, but to me it makes more sense because it has an origin point ... it was there "as part" of sperm and egg (the physical build) and simply developed with the child. This is why children ghosts are - still children.

1. The whole what? ( A person? Or just a particular "part of a person"? Or something else? )

The whole person. It's always been there and is simply passed down like everything else via conception.

 

[marduk]

Well that's what sadistic behavior is all about ... they enjoy tormenting.

My point is that they have never appeared to enjoy anything. My experience is quite limited, but at best I sensed a sardonic curiosity. If anything, an absence of emotion. Not happy, not angry, not pleased or displeased.

 

[Randall]

Yes - YOUR "spirit" ... MY spirit ... everyone's spirit. The part of the self that continues on after death. I'm not saying this is right, but to me it makes more sense because it has an origin point ... it was there "as part" of sperm and egg (the physical build) and simply developed with the child. This is why children ghosts are - still children.

The whole person. It's always been there and is simply passed down like everything else via conception.

Okay. Take it easy. We're just doing this methodically and those little ambiguities make an important difference. Now we can continue to to part where things breakdown:

1. If all afterlife entries that are assumed to be "whole people" after they die, how come their bodies are left behind? Is the assumption not that our bodies are part of "who we are"? Is your arm not YOUR arm? Is your brain not YOUR brain? It's certainly not someone else's, so if you don't get to take it with you, afterlives as you yourself has defined it, are not possible.

How do you propose to get around this problem?

 

[Onlychild]

My point is that they have never appeared to enjoy anything. My experience is quite limited, but at best I sensed a sardonic curiosity. If anything, an absence of emotion. Not happy, not angry, not pleased or displeased.

There are humans like that.

 

[Onlychild]

1. If all afterlife entries that are assumed to be "whole people" after they die, how come their bodies are left behind? Is the assumption not that our bodies are part of "who we are"? Is your arm not YOUR arm? Is your brain not YOUR brain? It's certainly not someone else's, so if you don't get to take it with you, afterlives as you yourself has defined it, are not possible.

How do you propose to get around this problem?

The body and the brain creates the individual. When the body no longer functions (dies) the spirit part would simply continue to be. Why? It doesn't follow the rules of physical breakdown and death ... which doesn't mean it doesn't have it's OWN rules to follow. Like I've mentioned ... there aren't any spirits around here that seem to be older than a couple hundred or so years. There are no "ancient" spirits ... I wonder where they went?

Like I said too ... I'm not saying "this is the answer" ... it's just the simplest place to begin.

 

[Onlychild]

With regard to "non-empathic" people ... it doesn't automatically mean you are "evil." This seems to be linked, at least in part, to how good or bad your life was growing up. This video is the best example of this I've seen. Dr James Fallon explains his part in this picture in this.

 

[Randall]

The body and the brain creates the individual. When the body no longer functions (dies) the spirit part would simply continue to be. Why? It doesn't follow the rules of physical breakdown and death ... which doesn't mean it doesn't have it's OWN rules to follow. Like I've mentioned ... there aren't any spirits around here that seem to be older than a couple hundred or so years. There are no "ancient" spirits ... I wonder where they went?

Like I said too ... I'm not saying "this is the answer" ... it's just the simplest place to begin.

Okay. Then we agree that a "whole person" ≠ just someone's "spirit". From there we then need to ask what part of us is this "spirit"? As indicated in previous posts, it seems identical to personality. Or is personality something else ( in your view )?

You might want to read my article on this: Why Afterlives Are Impossible

 

[Onlychild]

Okay. Then we agree that a "whole person" ≠ just someone's "spirit". From there we then need to ask what part of us is this "spirit"? As indicated in previous posts, it seems identical to personality. Or is personality something else ( in your view )?

You might want to read my article on this: Why Afterlives Are Impossible

I simply think you and I are going different ways because of the breakdowns of the picture. I believe the "physical brain" creates the person as we grow up, and the "person" is both physical and "spiritual" at the same time. When the brain figures something out, this information is also absorbed by the "spiritual" aspect, and this would be how it learns. There's probably a point where we get information from this developed spiritual aspect, as it's part of the picture, and capable of thinking too. This would also cover people with psychological "problems" and why these "ghosts" have some severe attitude problems. The brain wasn't working correctly ... hence the spirit wasn't taught correctly.

If a three day old child dies - this "spirit" hasn't developed either ... and it cannot function on it's own. What happens at this point is unknown, but just as this 3 day old baby cannot function on it's own, this spirit hasn't developed either.

We inherited everything from our parents, as they did, generation after generation, going back to who knows where in this picture.

Since this "spiritual" aspect is not part of our physical laws, when the body stops functioning, this "spirit" aspect isn't affected ... it just keeps going.

 

[Randall]

I simply think you and I are going different ways because of the breakdowns of the picture. I believe the "physical brain" creates the person as we grow up, and the "person" is both physical and "spiritual" at the same time.

I'm not "going a different way". I'm pointing out a logical inconsistency. If "all of us as a person" is both biological and "spiritual", but only the "spiritual" part survives death, then it means that not "all of us" makes it to the afterlife. There's no getting around this, and it's part of your original argument. So you can't move the goalposts. That part of your reasoning is now proven to be in error. You need to accept it or else we're just arguing logic versus belief and faith.

If you do accept it, from there it only gets worse, until virtually nothing can make it to an afterlife other than a copy.

When the brain figures something out, this information is also absorbed by the "spiritual" aspect, and this would be how it learns. There's probably a point where we get information from this developed spiritual aspect, as it's part of the picture, and capable of thinking too. This would also cover people with psychological "problems" and why these "ghosts" have some severe attitude problems. The brain wasn't working correctly ... hence the spirit wasn't taught correctly.

Personality has been proven by neuroscience and psychology to be brain dependent. Therefore any "spirit" would be dependent on a functioning brain in order to have any personality. However because the original brain is dead, that cannot happen. Therefore if the spirit does possess personality, something else has taken over the role of their functioning brain. This "something else" can only be a copy or other replacement. It cannot be their original personality, even if they think otherwise.

If a three day old child dies - this "spirit" hasn't developed either ... and it cannot function on it's own. What happens at this point is unknown, but just as this 3 day old baby cannot function on it's own, this spirit hasn't developed either.

And again we cannot tell the difference between a 3 day old's personality and a three day old's "spirit". The word "spirit" is a word that imparts an air of mysticism to various brain dependent psychological states.

We inherited everything from our parents, as they did, generation after generation, going back to who knows where in this picture.

Okay. There is also however not simply the inheritance aspect ( nature ), but also nurture ( socialization ). Most people actually learn more from people who aren't their parents via the educational system and life experience.

Since this "spiritual" aspect is not part of our physical laws, when the body stops functioning, this "spirit" aspect isn't affected ... it just keeps going.

There is no evidence for that claim, but even if we suppose it's true, then we run into all the other problems that reduce whatever this "spirit" is to nothing of any consequence, while 99.9999 percent of the rest ( the really important stuff ) cannot possibly have survived the death of the body.

This isn't simply an "opinion". It is a logically deducible truth. Afterlife believers refuse to accept this, and have offered no counterpoint sufficient to change the outcome. Instead they tend to do what you're doing, which is to shuffle the issues around and repeat the same logical fallacies. Neither of those methods will advance this discussion further.

I'm sorry if you find this irritating, but that's just how critical thinking works. It doesn't always result in the answers you want. That probably had something to do with why they sentenced Socrates to death.

 

[Onlychild]

I'm sorry if you find this irritating, but that's just how critical thinking works. It doesn't always result in the answers you want.

And that's probably why no one posts anything in here anymore ... instead of having conversations regarding topics that we have no data for - they get hammered by people being obsessive about being right.

I'll see myself out thanks. Bye.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Sorry to see you go. But one of the hallmarks of The Paracast in the nearly 15 years we've been around is to question everything to better understand the paranormal world in which we live.

I hope you'll reconsider. If you don't wish to respond to another member, you are always free to ignore them.