Where do you fit in as a believer or skeptic?

[Randall]

My reply to you is very similar to Trained Observer. How familiar are you with consciousness research Ufology? What books on the matter have you studied? You see, when people come at something as if they KNOW about that something when in all reality, apart from their differing opinions, they have no clue, it gets old. I introduced you to DR. Elizabeth Rauscher, only to have you bring up the typical pseudo skeptical BS that the PRECISE SAME detractors use on your precious "ufology" continually. What kind of BS are you slinging Sir? You don't have a clue. Do you have ANY clue how important that paper was that you dismissed like some armchair expert? Take a guess where and to exactly who that paper was presented to. Substantiation? By belittling these individuals, you paint yourself a WOO WOO.

Because you make no reference to any specific points in any post of mine, I have no idea what seems to have gotten you so upset. In the future, could you please try to deal with specific issues by quoting them. Thanks.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Because you make no reference to any specific points in any post of mine, I have no idea what seems to have gotten you so upset. In the future, could you please try to deal with specific issues by quoting them. Thanks.

My point is that because you have no real familiarity with these theoretical materials, you lean on me to provide as much. That's the BS part, plain and simple. This is supposed to be a matter of hypothetical considerations among those of a discussion centered forum, not a right and wrong forum as if we were the empirical agency that would falsify as much. We do NOT possess that authority, only opinion.

As stated in question, how much of this data have you looked into directly?

 

[Randall]

Unless we are actually doing the research ourselves, most everything is a rendition of opinion - and even those who do the research - if they are worth their salt - have a healthy dose of humility when they present their ideas.

That is not an accurate assumption. Information and critical thinking can be accurate and applied to any subject matter whether we're directly involved in researching it full time or professionally or not. Authority and experience are advantageous but not absolute. So called experts can be wrong.

One of the foremost teachers of things occult and spiritual in the last century indicated the truism that nothing he stated when it came to 'spiritual science' was ever to be believed. Do the work for yourself, he said. In the future there would come others who would correct his investigative conclusions, he said.

We all temporize ('to act to suit the time or occasion : yield to current or dominant opinion') to an extent. No fault - just the way it is - and the 'way it is' is often to feel comfortable in a group, in a conversation - we all submit to the prevailing bully every now and again - or refrain from speaking for the same reasons.

Don't confuse a bully with someone who supports their position with reasons and examples and refuses to back down simply because you disagree with them. Also, falsely accusing someone of being a bully means you're the one who is resorting to bullying, not them. So if you're going to accuse someone of being a bully, then be prepared to back it up with facts and lodge a complaint with the moderator, otherwise you could find yourself in hot water.

I am aware I have not responded on this thread for a while - time is at a premium at the moment. A lot going on - but at some point my intention is to comment.

 

[trainedobserver]

What I am stating is that YOU DON'T KNOW. You have no clue whether consciousness is remote or not. None whatsoever. You also have no clue whether consciousness is a yet undiscovered form of energy. Demonstrate differently if that is not the case. Of course energy has a definition, and just as "of course" you cannot state that consciousness is unequivocally not a form of energy. You also cannot show the consciousness does not contain information. You also CANNOT explain the rise of information in the brain with your diagram. Not even close.

Well Jeff, you keep using the word "energy" in ways that make no sense, given the meaning of the word. What do you think that word "energy" means?

You've presented several false arguments here. I've never said consciousness doesn't contain information and the diagram illustrates that "information" about the environment is passed to the brain through the senses. You don't think that happens? What do you think the word "information" means?

One of the biggest complaints people have is that "mainstream" science shuns fringe science, UFOs, and the paranormal. Yet, one of the very basic reasons for this is the misuse, misunderstanding, and misrepresentation of some very basic concepts, "energy" being perhaps the biggest one.

I understand that you are very interested in this subject. So am I. In my attempts to understand it, I've had to develop some litmus tests to apply to determine where to spend my efforts and what to take in. One of those is terminology or language.

 

[Randall]

My point is that because you have no real familiarity with these theoretical materials, you lean on me to provide as much. That's the BS part, plain and simple. This is supposed to be a matter of hypothetical considerations among those of a discussion centered forum, not a right and wrong forum as if we were the empirical agency that would falsify as much. We do NOT possess that authority, only opinion.

As stated in question, how much of this data have you looked into directly?

I'm only asking that you respond with quotes from my posts that relate to your commentary. Otherwise I can't be sure I know what you're talking about. For that matter I still don't know what you're talking about. So if you don't think something I've said is accurate then please quote it and explain why. Simply saying that because so and so says so and he or she is an expert doesn't address the issue. Somebody's expertise or authority is secondary to the accuracy of their information. Experts and authority figures can be wrong and when there is evidence that what they say doesn't make sense, then that should take precedence, not their position of authority.

 

[Jeff Davis]

That is not an accurate assumption. Information and critical thinking can be accurate and applied to any subject matter whether we're directly involved in researching it full time or professionally or not. Authority and experience are advantageous but not absolute. So called experts can be wrong.

Don't confuse a bully with someone who supports their position with reasons and examples and refuses to back down simply because you disagree with them. Also, falsely accusing someone of being a bully means you're the one who is resorting to bullying, not them. So if you're going to accuse someone of being a bully, then be prepared to back it up with facts and lodge a complaint with the moderator, otherwise you could find yourself in hot water.

Sir, don't EVER confuse me with a bully. It's you that has offered no well reasoned arguments by resaerching this material in and of yourself. I pointed you to that exact material and as I described some of it's portents to you, you referred to them as woo woo claiming them to be unsubstantiated nonsense. You are just as big a duck in the puddle as ANYONE here. Well here's your chance to excercise your fair and righteous prudence. Get with it and falsify that consciousness research for us. I personally don't think you can in the least. But you're the expert here. Have at it, hot water and all. Otherwise QUIT GOING ON ABOUT THAT WHICH YOU DO NOT KNOW. Ok?

 

[Randall]

Sir, don't EVER confuse me with a bully. It's you that has offered no well reasoned arguments by resaerching this material in and of yourself. I pointed you to that exact material and as I described some of it's portents to you, you referred to them as woo woo claiming them to be unsubstantiated nonsense. You are just as big a duck in the puddle as ANYONE here. Well here's your chance to excercise your fair and righteous prudence. Get with it and falsify that consciousness research for us. I personally don't think you can in the least. But you're the expert here. Have at it, hot water and all. Otherwise QUIT GOING ON ABOUT THAT WHICH YOU DO NOT KNOW. Ok?

I still don't know what you're talking about. You'll need to be more specific by quoting relevant commentary and stating your objections in a clear manner.

 

[trainedobserver]

I'm inviting anyone, but certainly other professional writers, technical or otherwise, to comment on the use and misuse of the word "energy" in the types of discussions we have here in this forum and the paranormal/UFO "community" in general.

The next word to take on would be "quantum" which seems to have become interchangeable with "magic" in many people's eyes.

Is the blame on the "scientific community" for discounting and ignoring the "paranormal/UFO community" when it demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of concepts and terms crucial to their own arguments? This IS the answer as to why people like Lazar, Bearden, Burisch, and others aren't even looked at.

What does this have to do with whether you display healthy skepticism or are easily convinced of notions that are presented to you to the point where you "believe" things you can't properly articulate or understand? F*ing everything.

Here is an excellent website: A Glossary of Frequently Misused or Misunderstood Physics Terms and Concepts.

This is their entry on Energy with a misuse example:

Energy. Energy is a property associated with a material body. Energy is not a material substance. When bodies interact, the energy of one may increase at the expense of the other, and this is sometimes called a transfer of energy. This does not mean that we could intercept this energy in transit and bottle some of it. After the transfer one of the bodies may have higher energy than before, and we speak of it as having "stored energy". But that doesn't mean that the energy is "contained in it" in the same sense as water in a bucket.

Misuse example: "The earth's auroras—the northern and southern lights—illustrate how energy from the sun travels to our planet." —Science News, 149, June 1, 1996. This sentence blurs understanding of the process by which energetic charged particles from the sun interact with the earth's magnetic field and our atmosphere, causing the light seen in auroras.
Whenever one hears people speaking of "energy fields", "psychic energy", and other expressions treating energy as a "thing" or "substance", you know they aren't talking physics, they are talking moonshine.

In certain quack theories of oriental medicine, such as qi gong (pronounced chee gung) something called qi is believed to circulate through the body on specific, mappable pathways called meridians. This idea pervades the contrived explanations/rationalizations of acupuncture and other quack medical theories. The word qi is generally translated into English as energy. No one has ever found this so-called "energy", nor confirmed the uniqueness of the meridian pathways, nor verified, through proper double-blind tests, that any therapy or treatment based on the theory actually works any better than placebos. The proponents of qi can't say whether it is a fluid, gas, charge, current, or something else, and their theory requires that it doesn't obey any of the physics of known carriers of energy. But, as soon as we hear someone talking about it as if it were a thing we know they are not talking science, but quackery.

Note: Some medical researchers claim there is evidence that in some limited applications, sticking thin needles into a person can help alleviate chronic pain, backache, etc. And it doesn't matter whether the needles are inserted at the "correct" points predicted by "chi and meridian" theory, but can be inserted anywhere on the body. This does not in any way support or confirm the theory that chi flows along meridians, nor that the theory determines the best location for needling. You will notice that in the previous paragraphs I spoke of "quack medical theories" and I'll stand by that characterization of acupuncture.

The statement "Energy is a property of a body" needs clarification. As with many things in physics, the size of the energy depends on the coordinate system. A body moving with speed V in one coordinate system has kinetic energy ½mV2. The same body has zero kinetic energy in a coordinate system moving along with it at speed V. Since no inertial coordinate system can be considered "special" or "absolute", we shouldn't say "The kinetic energy of the body is ..." but should say "The kinetic energy of the body moving in this reference frame is ..."
Energy (take two). Elementary textbooks often say "there are many forms of energy, kinetic, potential, thermal, nuclear, etc. They can be converted from one form to another." Let's try to put more structure to this. There are really only two functional categories of energy. The energy associated with particles or systems can be said to be either kinetic energy or potential energy.

• The kinetic energy of a particle of mass m and speed v is ½mv2. The kinetic energy of a system of particles is ½MV2 where M is the system mass and V is the speed of its center of mass. One part of a system's energy may be thermal energy, the kinetic energy due to disordered motions and vibrations of particles, on the microscopic scale of molecules, atoms, and even smaller particles.
• The potential energy of a system is always due to some other system exchanging energy with it by forces moving the system or parts of the system. Potential energy is a way of accounting for the work done by or on another system interacting with the system of interest. Gravitational potential energy is the work we must do against the force due to gravity to move an object to a new position. Once we have accounted for the effect of other systems we can treat our system as if it were "isolated", which is often convenient.

Systems may exchange energy in two ways, through work or heat. Work and heat are never in a body or system, they measure the energy transfered during interactions between systems. Work always requires motion of a system or parts of it, moving the system's center of mass. Heating does not require macroscopic motion of either system. It involves exchanges of energy between systems on the microscopic level, and does not move the center of mass of either system.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Well Jeff, you keep using the word "energy" in ways that make no sense, given the meaning of the word. What do you think that word "energy" means?

fuel, the integral means to achieve process, a state of potential existence. I am certain that these definite examples only pale by your definitive understanding however. Just quackery.

Dude, get a clue. Unless you can falsify the information that I am merely echoing here, you're just flapping them gums my man! I would like to discuss as much, but with people that think they know it all, it's not much fun.

 

[trainedobserver]

fuel, the integral means to achieve process, a state of potential existence. I am certain that these definite examples only pale by your definitive understanding however. Just quackery.

Dude, get a clue. Unless you can falsify the information that I am merely echoing here, you're just flapping them gums my man! I would like to discuss as much, but with people that think they know it all, it's not much fun.

Jeff,

The English word energy does not mean "fuel", "integral means to achieve process", or "a state of potential existence." Where did you get that from? You seem to be using the word in some metaphorical or pseudo-scientific sense.

I would like to discuss consciousness with you, however at this point I do get that you are merely echoing things without an understanding of the basic principles and terminology involved, like what constitutes energy and information for example. You are using these words in such way that make no sense to me as someone who makes a living in technical communication. How can communication occur when basic terms are not agreed upon? We must speak the same language.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I too have a problem with the use of words like 'energy' which are often used just as 'vibrations' or 'frequencies' etc.

Some quack-types will natter on about a person, place or thing having 'energy' of myriad name and type, which really makes no sense scientifically - even though some pseudo-scientific explanation is more often than not given too.

Perhaps people are entitled to use the word 'energy' and not use it in its strictest sense, for instance, someone may enjoy the 'energy' of beautiful garden space or geographical location. That's all well and good as long as it's obvious the use is not scientific, but as I've just mentioned, it is usually those who misuse terms such as 'frequencies' that are doing it precisely to try and convey some science where there is none.

My 2 cents.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Jeff,

The English word energy does not mean "fuel", "integral means to achieve process", or "a state of potential existence." Where did you get that from? You seem to be using the word in some metaphorical or pseudo-scientific sense.

I would like to discuss consciousness with you, however at this point I do get that you are merely echoing things without an understanding of the basic principles and terminology involved, like what constitutes energy and information for example. You are using these words in such way that make no sense to me as someone who makes a living in technical communication. How can communication occur when basic terms are not agreed upon? We must speak the same language.

See, I told you. Pure quackery, don't listen to me! (and it's you have the face palm icon?)

Are you honestly stating that you would stop someone within a conversion to correct them that fuel is not synonymous with energy? That's utterly "not right" and I ain't talking grammatically here either.

Geez Louise, if you manage to reduce everything to it's purest technical meaning you are going to be one lonely conversationalist, not to mention that if you do manage to strike one up, it'll most likely turn out drier than a popcorn fart.

Yes great one, fuel is assuredly representative of a form of potential energy because it contains as much. Only someone seriously crippled via formal programming would contend differently. There are many devices that use just one type of fuel which means that specific energy is a requirement in that device's integral process, and yes, fuel cells do in fact represent an idle form of potential energy, which does in fact represent a potential state of energetic existence. So all and all, you are assuredly WRONG.

How could you ever expect to hold any form of a meaningful conversation if everything you discuss is reduced to a pedantic picnic, anyhow?

Holy Moses! (decent band BTW) Your imagination is TOTALLY absent from this conversation. Get it in the game. All I have witnessed you demonstrate here is a copy and paste mentality that's utterly handicapped by itself.

Answer these questions please, which so far you have been doing your best to evade, IMO.

Just how does such inaccurate wordage on my part keep you from falsifying the consciousness research that I have been referring to here? You shouldn't even require myself or anyone else to do that, yet you seem more intent on showing me to be a quack for whatever reason. Which IMO, is honestly incredibly ignorant because I am not claiming to be an expert, or a doctor.

Didn't you state that you had been down this road before? Do you recall that trip? What was it that you determined about this research that was wrong? Was that determination honestly free of learned bias? I am certain that my wrong understanding and usage of terms like information and energy should not cloud your memory.

@Goggs, I am glad you agree with trainedobserver. People like myself misuse terminology so often that it gets down right annoying. We are all really uneducated dolts that wish we wrote technical literature for a living, honest. Oh to be like those who govern such a mighty and proud intellect.

The word energy, as used by myself and MANY others as well, in the context of consciousness research and various hypothetical speculations at large, was being used PRECISELY as it should, can, and most definitely will continue to be so used in a most legitimate fashion. Now, don't go looking up the word legitimate or you'll also find that it actually is being used here improperly.

What is the point of such utterly ridiculous pedantic tantrums? Could a person that is used to "thinking of their feet" even bother with such BS? I seriously doubt it.

​

 

[trainedobserver]

Jeff,
I have just been trying to determine what you mean when you say consiousness. I don't grok your definintion, not because I disagree with it, but because I don't understand it. I can't parse "frequency based energy " brother.

My allusion to this type of thing being systemic in UFO and paranormal circles and a genuine source of communication and P.R. problems is good topic of discussion I think, but maybe better suited to another thread.

OK, jump past that. So, are you wanting me to falsify a hypothosis?
Is this the brain as receiver vs. generator argument?
Again, I do not understand the model as you and others describe it. I'm just dense I guess. I can't understand the terminology. It sounds like something is being said that is very technical in nature, I'm just applying some basic techniques in attempting to understand it and not getting anywhere. It just makes no sense.

If we jump on down the line further, are you talking about an unknown force permeating the universe giving rise to sentience in properly configured matter, I.e. brains? Is that close?

 

[Tyger]

See, I told you. Pure quackery, don't listen to me! (and it's you have the face palm icon?)

Are you honestly stating that you would stop someone within a conversion to correct them that fuel is not synonymous with energy? That's utterly "not right" and I ain't talking grammatically here either.

Geez Louise, if you manage to reduce everything to it's purest technical meaning you are going to be one lonely conversationalist, not to mention that if you do manage to strike one up, it'll most likely turn out drier than a popcorn fart.

[...]

How could you ever expect to hold any form of a meaningful conversation if everything you discuss is reduced to a pedantic picnic, anyhow?

Holy Moses! (decent band BTW) Your imagination is TOTALLY absent from this conversation. Get it in the game. All I have witnessed you demonstrate here is a copy and paste mentality that's utterly handicapped by itself.

Just how does such inaccurate wordage on my part keep you from falsifying the consciousness research that I have been referring to here? You shouldn't even require myself or anyone else to do that, yet you seem more intent on showing me to be a quack for whatever reason. Which IMO, is honestly incredibly ignorant because I am not claiming to be an expert, or a doctor.

Didn't you state that you had been down this road before? Do you recall that trip? What was it that you determined about this research that was wrong? Was that determination honestly free of learned bias? I am certain that my wrong understanding and usage of terms like information and energy should not cloud your memory.

[...]

What is the point of such utterly ridiculous pedantic tantrums? Could a person that is used to "thinking on their feet" even bother with such BS? I seriously doubt it.

Exactly so. You and I, Jeff, likely diverge widely in the wood - it's not about agreeing with each other's views - but your summation of what passes for conversation is dead-on. Especially the drilling down on words - a very curious deflection, very practiced.

I would like to discuss as much, but with people that think they know it all, it's not much fun.

Agree.

I'm going to tell a wee story from my time doing some post-graduate work.

We had a professor come over from Germany. It was his first visit to the US - and the first time he was totally immersed in English. He did an excellent job lecturing in English nonetheless - lecturing on some complex concepts, too.

After his three-week stint with us, we had an informal Q&A and questions came regarding his personal experiences in the US. Funnily, in answer to a question about what he found most astonishing about the US - he mentioned our toilets - particularly the spiraling down of the toilet action. (If anyone has been to Germany they will understand why this toilet action was so amazing/amusing to him).

One of the last questions was concerning his experience speaking and lecturing in English. His reflections are interesting given the conversation here.

His context was German where everything - ideas - are laid out with utmost precision. Words can be as long as supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Add to that the fact that one doesn't really know what is going on - the verb action - until the end of the sentence (or complete thought), so that one is held in suspense, in a sense, and must process all the 'preliminaries' before the 'will' - intent - is disclosed.

In English it was a very different experience - and he made an interesting remark that has always stayed with me - that English is a very intuitive language. He gave examples of just saying 2 or 3 very simple phrases - in an attempt to convey a complex thought - and then saying 'you know?' - and at once he would be understood. Heads would nod (and did so in the audience as he told the anecdote thus confirming his impression) - and it was clear from follow-up comments that he had been understood beyond a doubt.

Consequently, he found communication in English was lightening quick - and to him, genuinely proceeding on an intuitive level rather than the German experience of 'four-feet-on-the-ground' (in a manner of speaking).

He experienced words in English conversation as jumping-off places to deeper levels of meaning - one did not have to be exact in the German sense - one just had to suggest, arch the tone, play with metaphor - and the horses were off, the meaning divined.

To him English was an amazingly versatile language - in which complex ideas within dialog could proceed using words in ever newer and shifting ways. For him this was dynamic evidence of the value of English and why it is the current lingua franca of the world. (Lots of reasons for that but he was giving one in his opinion).

WOO-WOO ALERT! We are all pretty well versed with the 5 lower (physical) senses: hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling and touch. The organs for all of these senses are located within the head: ears, eyes, tongue/mouth, nose and skin - the last being the organ that covers the whole of the body, as well (not just the head). However, we have more than just those 5 physically based senses.

One of the higher senses is the 'sense of the word'. Without this sense we cannot come to language - but even if we do, we can have an impaired sense of the word. In education, teachers deal with children 'on the spectrum'. There is a literal quality to such a child's interpreting language. This is not a minor matter - it impacts the child's ability to access higher levels of thinking - not just abstract thoughts, but complex social cues, emotional cues - there is an inability to think metaphorically - to dance in-and-out of the words. Such a child will take literally any directions - and in fact needs directions to be precise and incremental.

'Drilling down into words' can be fun in Linguistic Anthropology - of which I have a smattering - and Semantics I find endlessly fascinating - but generally free-flowing discussion with the intent to share perspectives and little odd bits here and there is the stuff of all creative work - in science as well as in art. I have never been in a conversation with my science friends where words are used as anything other than freely tossed balls spinning in the air - aiding in leaps and flights of possibility.

In the end, no conversation is worth getting worked up about - especially on the internet. Yet there are posters here who seem to have an agenda - and are actually proselytizing that agenda. Sharing views is one thing - but as you say, Jeff, making every post about a right or wrong gets very old - and is no fun.

"In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: it goes on." ~ Robert Frost

 

[Tyger]

That is not an accurate assumption. Information and critical thinking can be accurate and applied to any subject matter whether we're directly involved in researching it full time or professionally or not. Authority and experience are advantageous but not absolute. So called experts can be wrong.

That is clearly your very strong belief, Ufology.

However, experience is key to conceptual life.

Don't confuse a bully with someone who supports their position with reasons and examples and refuses to back down simply because you disagree with them. Also, falsely accusing someone of being a bully means you're the one who is resorting to bullying, not them. So if you're going to accuse someone of being a bully, then be prepared to back it up with facts and lodge a complaint with the moderator, otherwise you could find yourself in hot water.

You are clearly responding to this that I said: "We all temporize ('to act to suit the time or occasion : yield to current or dominant opinion') to an extent. No fault - just the way it is - and the 'way it is' is often to feel comfortable in a group, in a conversation - we all submit to the prevailing bully every now and again - or refrain from speaking for the same reasons. "

How you read that and came to the response you did I find puzzling. Ufology, do you believe you are a bully on this site? Did you think I was referencing you as a bully? If so, that is something you need to look at - but I would suggest that how you read what I wrote has more to do with you than me. What I wrote is a social truism - it's why bad things happen in the world - because people 'go along' because they don't want to rock-the-boat, or they want to get stroked by the one they think is powerful. Or they don't want to be called names - like 'ilk', or 'them' or 'quack' or whatever the going slur is. Or because, as you seemed to threaten, one could 'find oneself in hot water.' Puzzling. What's that about? Where is that coming from?

Fact is people are brow-beaten into accepting ways of thinking and acting for lots of reasons. Most often the reasons are to placate 'authority' - to feel part of a group - to garner approval from a dominant personality. Unscrupulous religious types engage in this all the time (and give religion a bad name). There are a lot of people that are about power and ego-stroking, controlling others and garnering 'followers'. It pleases them. And so they brow-beat and bully - sometimes it's subtle, sometimes not so subtle. It happens. Happens a lot of places - in big ways and little ways.

 

[Randall]

That is clearly your very strong belief, Ufology.

It's also accurate.

However, experience is key to conceptual life.

And accurately interpreting those experiences means the difference between being deluded and being well informed.

You are clearly responding to this that I said: "We all temporize ('to act to suit the time or occasion : yield to current or dominant opinion') to an extent. No fault - just the way it is - and the 'way it is' is often to feel comfortable in a group, in a conversation - we all submit to the prevailing bully every now and again - or refrain from speaking for the same reasons. "

I'm not one to "submit to the prevailing bully". I'll either stand up to them or walk away from them, neither is "submitting" to them.

How you read that and came to the response you did I find puzzling. Ufology, do you believe you are a bully on this site? Did you think I was referencing you as a bully?

I'm persistent but fair minded. I've also been the victim of cyberbullying, so I felt that your comment deserved a response.

If so, that is something you need to look at - but I would suggest that how you read what I wrote has more to do with you than me. What I wrote is a social truism - it's why bad things happen in the world - because people 'go along' because they don't want to rock-the-boat, or they want to get stroked by the one they think is powerful. Or they don't want to be called names - like 'ilk', or 'them' or 'quack' or whatever the going slur is. Or because, as you seemed to threaten, one could 'find oneself in hot water.' Puzzling. What's that about? Where is that coming from?

Fact is people are brow-beaten into accepting ways of thinking and acting for lots of reasons. Most often the reasons are to placate 'authority' - to feel part of a group - to garner approval from a dominant personality. Unscrupulous religious types engage in this all the time (and give religion a bad name). There are a lot of people that are about power and ego-stroking, controlling others and garnering 'followers'. It pleases them. And so they brow-beat and bully - sometimes it's subtle, sometimes not so subtle. It happens. Happens a lot of places - in big ways and little ways.

I think your observation is correct. It also brings us full circle to the concept of submitting to authority. Those who dodge questions and expect blind obedience based on reputation or credentials alone deserve even closer scrutiny. You don't need a degree to learn the process of critical thinking and how to tell if someone isn't making sense, whether they have a degree or not. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard some "Dr. So And So PhD." on the radio spewing total nonsense, particularly politicians and lawyers. Scientists are usually better, but they're not exempt from leveraging their credentials to promote nonsense either.

 

[trainedobserver]

I'm not claiming to be an expert on consciousness, physics, or English for that matter. I'm just saying, on a fundamental level you have to have some agreement on terms. I guess one of my shortcomings is I have a hard time just saying "uh-huh, I understand you" when I don't. I don't understand what a consciousness consisting of "frequency based energy" means.

In physics words like energy, frequency, field and power all have very specific and technical meanings. When we are talking about how the brain works on a fundamental level we're certainly talking physics and not philosophy. "Philosophy" is something that occurs within the brain as a result of the physics.

Question: Why would the physics of brain function differ from the physics of the rest of human neurology? Why would an unknown force or process of some kind be needed to explain how the nerve tissue of the brain functions as opposed to how signals are sent to say, raise your arm and lower it? It doesn't seem like attributing it to an unknown force would be necessary or likely.

I think one of the problems with trying to pin down what the substance and mechanism of consciousness (by which I mean the brain generated 3D Virtual Reality experience of you in a "material" world) might be, is greatly hampered by the fact it is so hard to get past that the "observer" and the 3D Virtual Reality (hereafter referred to as "the illusion") he is experiencing are one and the same thing. Attempts to place the "you", the "I", the "observer" somewhere outside of the generated illusion are in my estimation at this point in my understanding dead ends. This is a big deal. We might want to think of it as something else, but it really does not appear to be the case. I certainly be could be wrong about that, but from my perspective, it seems the most likely situation. Your sense of you or however you want to express it, is only there to provide a POV within the illusion. (groans from the gallery)

 

[Stagger Lee]

I have some catching up to do, as far as the last several pages of this thread. I would like to comment on one of things often mentioned of the NDE's, and that is the final moment before "coming to" -where the subject experiences "slamming back into the body" often described feeling as if running straight into a brick wall. I find those who describe such similiar aspects of the overall experience, very interesting.

 

[Tyger]

It's also accurate.

I am reminded of the quote from Oliver Cromwell: "By the bowels of Christ I beseech you, bethink you, that you may be wrong."

You may be wrong, Ufology. We all may be wrong. We usually are a certain percentage of the time. You are too certain of your 'rightness' to be right. Why does it matter so to you to be right all the time? And that others bend to your 'rightness'? At whatever cost? What do you gain? Because there is a pay-off for you somewhere in all that.

 

[Randall]

You may be wrong, Ufology. We all may be wrong.

Then you agree with me. Very good .