« Embracing God in my brain | Main | Religion, watch out for a grizzly bear with an EEG! »

October 28, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

“Since the approach presented in this book is firmly based on the neurosciences,”

Firmly based on neurosciences? Lets see: are those the people that call consciousness “the hard problem”?

“on neuroevolutionary theory” There is that word theory. Might want to look up some synonyms for theory.

“and on strict phenomenological analysis,”

When we humans do analysis it may be “strict” but our existing paradigms almost always determines what we see. Much research has shown that if data is revealed that disagrees with our existing paradigm we will either not see that data or even omit that data. Too painful to do otherwise. This applies to scientists and religious folk alike. History has given us an abundance of evidence of this phenomenon.

When a new discovery creates a new paradigm it almost always is made by someone outside the existing “accepted” paradigm. I.e. if we are a materialist going into our research we will almost always fine materialistic answers in our findings.

Try getting research grants (money) for doing research outside those “accepted” paradigms and see how well that goes. Read what William James and other paranormal researchers went though with their materialistic open-minded scientists’ peers to get a feel how the paradigm effect can affect human behavior.

I once read a book where the author stated that he had proved that Jesus was God. Guess what his research material was? The bible. His entire research was from the bible. Could not make this stuff up if I tried. If you were to ask this person if they were open minded he would state why yes and be upset with you for asking him or her that question.

“we hope that it will carry a compelling plausibility, indeed probability, to twenty-first century readers steeped in a scientific culture and demanding proof.”

Stated another way more research is needed. “Scientific culture” and what indeed is that culture? I was a professor at two universities and worked as a lecturer at the largest university in America with a lot of scientific folks and that is not a culture I want to claim as being a member of.

My strategy has been I am not a member of any organization religious or scientific or otherwise. I learned early in my research once we buy into a certain set of beliefs our beliefs overwhelm our rational mind, then we become defenders of our cherished beliefs, and our truths become thee truths.

I suspect that we humans are at a very early stage of consciousness development but communicate with one another as if we know the truths to these mysteries of life.

William, your anti-scientific attitude is distressing. Yes, it's shared by lots of Americans -- who are all too ready to believe that the Earth was created a few thousands years ago, that God hates the "abnormality" of homosexuals, and so on.

Do you believe in the reality of brain scanners? Do you believe that Tibetan monks have been scanned while they meditate and reach a self-described mystical state? Do you believe that the research shows changes to the parts of the brain predicted by the model described in this book?

You should believe all those things, because there is solid evidence for each. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But opinion that isn't based on facts is little more than fantasy.

That isn't the way I choose to approach life. I like reality. However, each to his own. Just recognize that your way of looking at the world elevates fantasy over reality, whereas science is our best means of uniting humans in a solid shared understanding of what is real.

Damn,

Your learned quite early something about yourself:

"My strategy has been I am not a member of any organization religious or scientific or otherwise. I learned early in my research once we buy into a certain set of beliefs our beliefs overwhelm our rational mind, then we become defenders of our cherished beliefs, and our truths become thee truths."

because the following "we become defenders of our cherished beliefs, and our truths become thee truths" seems a pretty accurate description of the impression that many people commenting on this blog have of you ...

You share entertaining fantasies though as a guy who considers a book on mediums as "solid and convincing evidence" ...

"But opinion that isn't based on facts is little more than fantasy."

Common atheist explanation. Scientists have facts but everyone that differs with their “facts” has fantasies. I speak from my experience as an organizational consultant for an international consulting organization working with hundreds of PhD’s in physics and electrical design (scientists) and from teaching at three universities in a science field. It may be opinion but it appears I may have some experience to support my opinion. You Brian I suspect are taking other scientists word that they have facts.

“The greatest skeptic concerning paranormal phenomena is invariably the man who knows the least about them.” (H.H. Price)

This has been one of the most fascinating parts of my research. People speak without doing the research. Scientists state such things, as there is no such thing as the paranormal and have done absolutely no research or reading into the paranormal and then they accuse others of speaking from opinion. Read the book “no living person could have known” then get back to me with an explanation other than the entire book is a fantasy.

Science is less about facts than it is about beliefs and until we come to realize that; our cherished belief will be materialism and we will continue to make science our god. Everyone has a god. For some it is materialism or Darwinism or capitalism or whatever. For others it is science.

To put me in the same category as those that believe the earth is 6000 years old is the fantasy. Show me in any post I have made where I made such a statement. Science works with a material world or at least the appearance of a material world and research into the paranormal will need a new research design to discover the mysteries of life. Scientists can see and measure 4% of the physical universe and you want to credit them with facts and give them an all-knowing status?

My research into the ultra skeptics has been that many have felt duped in some brand of religious beliefs they once bought into and then became disillusioned. They tend to swing clear to the other side and want materialism to be their truth or god.

Again please show me anywhere on any blog where I stated that I thought the earth was 6000 years old. Please. Thank you for commenting on my posts not sure you ever have before. Nice to communicate with you in this way rather than just respond to your posts, which are almost always interesting to read?


William, if you do not trust science, scientists or scientific methodolgy, would you not reject any scientific research on the paranormal that proved the paranormal is a load of old cobblers?

In other words, what evidence would you be prepared to accept on the non-existence of paranormal phenomena?

William, I didn't mean to imply that you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. Just that an anti-scientific mentality encourages this way of thinking -- which I see you espousing.

Here's the thing: paranormal phenomena, if they exist, would be part of the material world. They would be cognized through the human brain, for sure.

There's little doubt that a person exhibiting ESP capabilities would have certain special parts of his/her brain "light up" as he/she demonstrates these capabilities while hooked up to a functional brain scanning machine.

So everybody with a brain is a materialist, through and through. Someone who doesn't believe in materialism, fervently, should commit suicide. Otherwise, they're as immersed in materiality, through their physical brain, as the most atheistic scientist.

Helen you bring up an interesting question. What is valid evidence? I use a cross validation approach when I started this research too much variation in beliefs. It is not perfect but works for me. Most people I see express opinions not research.

Do you think Brian took the time to read the book I recommended? no. He has already made up his mind. I think he feels like he got duped once and never again. To seek is to read material that does not agree with our cherished beliefs. But to do that causes mental pain so much so Brian just suggested someone should commit suicide if they do not agree his materialist’s paradigm. I think he said that not sure if I read it right.

If I wanted to have people accept my ideas I would not post on this blog. I am treated like a heretic on here but one must always seek outside one’s accepted paradigms. Paradigms are like concrete around our beliefs and almost impossible to penetrate. It takes a bunker bomb to penetrate that much concrete.

My point is not that we do not need science my point and my experience has been not to make science our god. Be open to all incoming information. Check out William James and others and what they went though to seek outside the accepted circle of beliefs.

“In other words, what evidence would you be prepared to accept on the non-existence of paranormal phenomena?”

What evidence do you have? Surely not Darwinism or atheism? Studied atheism and Darwinism as part of my research. They say such things as science deals in facts. Yea right. Everyone has a god for atheists it is science. Science is needed as is scientists but they still have the human traits of paradigm paralysis.

We humans are at the very early stages of understanding the mysteries of life. Note Brian did not comment on the belief that we only see 4% of what we believe is material reality. Four per cent and we talk like we have the answers. Think you are here due to chance Helen? The two examples given to prove Darwinism at the Scopes monkey trial both proved to be invalid one fraud and one invalid.

If the paranormal researchers used the same amount of evidence that the Darwinists have, well oh my, another story. There are so many gaps in Darwinism one could drive an aircraft carrier though them. Now Brian will accuse me of being a creationist; watch. That is the power of paradigms.

"Do you think Brian took the time to read the book I recommended? no. He has already made up his mind."

--And would you, William, automatically read a book that Brian suggested? No, you have already made up YOUR mind.

"We humans are at the very early stages of understanding the mysteries of life."

--This is one of the things you say repeatedly. Since you, evidently, do not know the mysteries of life, how do you know there aren't humans who do? In other words, is it not possible, even though you don't know these mysteries, that there are humans who do? Maybe that is one of the mysteries of life you don't know. What you are saying is that just because you don't know, nobody else could.

"Be open to all incoming information."

As soon as someone explains something to you on this blog that is outside YOUR "paradigm" and "cherished beliefs" you accuse them of being stuck in THEIR "paradigm" and "cherished beliefs."

I think, William, that you are a student who stubbornly clings to the desire to be seen as the teacher.

Ditto. I think so too.


“And would you, William, automatically read a book that Brian suggested? No, you have already made up YOUR mind.”

Without realizing it you have proved my point. We humans don’t tend to read anything that challenges our existing beliefs. Until one begins to see the power of paradigms my words about paradigms will ring on deaf ears.

I suspect this will ring on deaf ears but here goes. In my seminars I showed the video “the business of paradigms” over 200 times. Somewhere at about the 80th viewing the power of paradigms became real to me. Insights occurred that I had not had before. Yet when I show the video everyone comes away thinking that they “got it” in one viewing.

“you accuse them of being stuck in THEIR "paradigm" and "cherished beliefs."” This has been my point all along we all have paradigms and until we come to accept that we do and that those paradigms alter/influence our view of reality we will continue to attack William.

What does Brian want a blog that everyone agrees with his paradigm? I recently tried to post on a Reagan loving neo con blog and she refused to even post my comments. Her paradigm was thee paradigm. This person would have made an ideal politician where ideology rules the day.

Surely one can see the power of paradigms in wash dc? We humans are only on the cusp of understanding the mysteries of the universe and life in this universe. It is interesting to me that Tucson and Tao come across as wanting us to believe they have figured it out. My premise is we humans know very little but our egos scream to convince others we know.

Would they read the book I recommended? No. Don’t need to their paradigm is thee paradigm. Check out the video at the local library and watch it 80 times it might change the way you view the world. Or not.

While you are at it study spiritualism for six years and try to explain all the unexplainable phenomena that defies explanation unless one considers other dimensions in the universe. Also may want to check out ira Stevenson’s work on reincarnation and try to explain some of his findings. Oh and then try and explain how children 3 years old can speak a foreign language. The list goes on.

“I think, William, that you are a student who stubbornly clings to the desire to be seen as the teacher”. We are all students on a journey and those that pretend to be teachers without admitting their student status in the universe are deluding themselves.

"It is interesting to me that Tucson and Tao come across as wanting us to believe they have figured it out."

I, speaking for this thing known as myself, have figured out nothing except a body of relative concepts, ideas and impressions. I am playing the role as a teacher to you right now, but I, as that entity, haven't a clue. As players of these roles, neither you nor I knows any more or less than the other.

I, as I really am, which neither is nor is not, has no quality or aspect that would need to figure anything out which ultimately there isn't anyway. Phenomena are just I, which I am not, manifesting. I have no need to understand manifesting. Manifesting is sufficient as it is.

You keep imagining there is this thing called William that will grow, evolve, reincarnate, accumulate wisdom, that feels pleasure and pain. But all this exists only as an idea, a mental process. As such, it does exist, but as what you really are, you are not as any sort of thing that can be known or defined.

All the galaxies, beings, gods and devils, psychics, ufo's and angels are just phenomena, a reflection, to itself, as itself, being dreamed by the formless source which you are.

“All the galaxies, beings, gods and devils, psychics, ufo's and angels are just phenomena, a reflection, to itself, as itself, being dreamed by the formless source which you are.”

We are form being expressed by this formless source of all phenomena that I call at this time pure awareness. This form we know as Tucson, Tao, Brian, or William. This pure awareness or god that most have made in man’s image is the vitality and intelligence that gives animation to all phenomena that most call spirit.

We the phenomena who are a reflection of this formless source do not have “its” perfection of pure awareness with attributes of vitality and intelligence, hence the journey. Consciousness appears to evolve/advance until we do have this vitality and intelligence.

How else could this formless source express itself without phenomena? It appears to be a necessity for this formless source to express itself; hence galaxies, beings, gods and devils, psychics, ufo's and angels. We are gods in the making realizing of course “intellectually” we are an expression of this oneness so we were always that that is.

Does this form (us) feel pain and suffering? Indeed we do; as experiences are real to us. Without this perceived reality there would be no advancement in vitality and intelligence or pure awareness.

The problem with the word intelligence, people confuse the concept of intelligence with intellectual ability. They are related but only slightly. Indeed intellectual capability can be a hindrance to intelligence as I observed to a greater degree in most scientists but not all.

Stated another way scientists are very smart but often not very intelligent. Intelligence is related to awareness whereas smart is related to the ability and attainment of knowledge.

Last try:

That which is objective is not at all. The only existence or being is being or existing as an object, for we can know nothing that is not an object. But when all objectivity is totally extinguished, that which to us is no thing at all shines like the sun, for absolute absence is pure radiance forever. When the sun shines is it we who break through the clouds to the sun, or the sun who breaks through the clouds to us?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.