Is there a real science of spiritual effects? (page 3)

Introspection

Isn't that why we left where we were and incarnated?

Nobody has ever left anywhere, from what I can see it's simply a matter of going unconscious. You can say that, but just because you have a body doesn't mean you have to fixate on it. To put it another way, you can dream and believe everything in the dream is real, or you can have a lucid dream - I suppose in some ways it's more fun to believe everything, but there's something to be said about knowing that it's not real, or that it's just a matter of identification. Going back to the metaphor of a movie, it would be like going from a suspense to a comedy I guess. You can't get into a suspense, a drama or anything serious unless you believe in it, but a comedy on the other hand is just as good if not better when you see it's just an act - or that the joke is that it's an act taken seriously.

larc

Rem,

I don't know if you remember this or not. About a year ago, bboi neko stated that his girl friend was an expert at remote viewing. I offered to set up an experiment. I would send an image of the the picture on the wall above my tv to a neutral third party. (I see this picture every day and it is one of my favorites.) Well, he never did agree to test out his girl friend's abilities.

Now, if remote viewers are so good, why did they not warn the government about 9-11?

It is all a bunch of foolishness.

Abaddon

Mary;

Perhaps, but IMHO, this doesn't explain how someone who flatlines on an operating table, and who has an NDE, can accurately describe what's going on in the operating room, or see people and/or hear conversations going on in other rooms at the hospital, or accurately read tags off the lights above the operating table. Many doctors and nurses will relate stories like this that can't just be dismissed as imaginative thinking.

Flat liners they might be, but their brains are active, or their brain activity wasn't being recordrd during the NDE and is inknown. If the brain is active, then sensory data can still be recorded as it is perceived, and the NDE can be explained as happening IN the brain. Thus, whilst anecdotal evidence for NDE's abound, for the most part it doesn't prove anything about anything.

There HAS been an instance of an NDE when someone had no brain activity, but this hasn't been duplicated.

Psychologists have debated for years as to whether a persons mind is separate from the brain, or intricately linked to it. Some think it is separate (which would explain alot of NDEs), some think it's not. It's one of those things that you can't either prove or disprove, but one things for sure: we'll all find out on our own one day..................

Psychologists have normally assumed that the primative beliefs related to after-life existence that posit a non-corporeal element of consciousness are unproven until proved. If they haven't, then they weren't good scientists. Almost all experimental data points to the physical brain being the source of consciousness.

In the absence of conclusive data, one should look at the nature of NDEs to infer whether they are internnal or externally directed; this is where the negative NDEs being associated with someones self-esteem is important.

Note that it is not the person's conduct or religious afiliation that influence the negative nature of NDEs, it is their self-esteem. IF they have bad self-esteem, then they CAN have elements of their belief structure feature in the NDE, just as those with good self esteem have have elements of their belief structure feature in their NDEs.

As NDEs nature is controlled by an internal factor, it would seem that in the lack of concrete evidence to the contrary, it is an internal experience that is internally directed. As NDE-like expereinces can be stimulated in people with drugs or electrical stimulation of the brain, this seems a sound suppostion.

metatron

I've read some of the books written by skeptics.

While I respect the logic they present, I'm often disgusted by the sheer prejudice and arrogant generalizations they

make. They often follow a strict pattern of debunking that is wildly biased and almost blindly religious in itself.

Many of them treat religious belief as if it were the greatest evil - which it generally isn't.

They often adopt the same logical fallacies as the people they criticise ( frequent example: ad hominen attacks)

I was surprized to see a recent skeptic magazine publish an article by Rupert Sheldrake - MAYBE they

finally are willing to listen to other voices - and not just those they already agree with ( and if otherwise, what good would

skepticism be, anyway?). What logic is there in rejecting opinions of people simply because what they suggest

ruins our neat and tidy view of the universe? Are we seeking truth - or merely the confirmations of our preconceptions?

Health care, nutrition, and the drug industry are among the worst subjects for anyone to personally

discern the truth - and yet, if modern statistical studies can't plainly expose what's real and what isn't in this practical

area, THEN BROTHER, everything's up for grabs - from physics to vitamins. All of it may be bunk, in one way or another.

In part, out of this desperation, I am only willing to adopt as true WHAT WORKS FOR ME.

Subjective as that sounds, I'm sorry - but I can't even read a summary of current science news most days

and feel that what's presented is much different from listening to a collection of politicians.

metatron

DannyBear

Met,

Oh boy did you hit on what has been my opinion of so called expert's/scientists, scholars, as respects spiritual matters.

You said;****Many of them treat religious belief as if it were the greatest evil - which it generally isn't.

They often adopt the same logical fallacies as the people they criticise ( frequent example: ad hominen attacks)****

Over and over on this board an others this very senario is repeated. Often those attacking with ad hominens are those who consider themselves very well informed, studied and astute. You can feel the superiority ooozing from the words they choose, attitude towards those who take exception.

Very glad to read your conclusions as respects this very obvious trend.

Danny

rem

I think that people who complain that well informed people act superior are, themselves, insecure about their own beliefs. Instead of taking the time to study them with an open mind, they use the superior attitude as an excuse to carry on with irrational beliefs.

This is just my own 'superior' opinion. Why start a thread about scientific evidence if you don't want to hear it?

rem

acsot

Met: I know exactly what you mean, and I've been trying to figure these things out also. Synchronicity – does it happen? Of course! Why it happens – haven’t the foggiest clue and I doubt anyone else knows either. Like you postulated

and yet, if modern statistical studies can't plainly expose what's real and what isn't in this practical

area, THEN BROTHER, everything's up for grabs -

I agree completely. I don't think we've evolved enough to even know where to begin our research about spiritual/metaphysical effects.

Rem states:

The evidence spoken of here is actually no evidence, e.g. since we can't explain it, it doesn't exist. A s Abaddon stated:

Does that means it's the end of the road as far as such research/questioning/probing are concerned? Perhaps for some, but not for me. I'd rather say that we don't know and probably in my lifetime we won't ever know, but I'll keep exploring these and other phenomena and enjoy the ride while I'm at it.

I believe that as humans evolve we will be able to explain these types of occurrences, one way or the other. We're not there yet.

Scott Peck speaks of something similar in The Road Less Traveled and the book “The Sense of Being Stared At” by Rupert Sheldrake is also one I want to read.

http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/SensoryStaredat/sensefulltext.html

My two cents.

metatron

I love Sheldrake because he asks questions that no one wants to answer - or hear.

A New Science of Life and Presence of the Past are among the greatest books I've ever read.

There's others like Arp - who questions modern astronomy - and is refused publication or observatory time.

If memory serves me, How to Think about Weird Things hesitated to condemn the statistical basis

of ESP - because some of it is difficult to overcome.

metatron

rem

The problem is that we do know more than people think we do. Science that shows negative results of psi is not exactly sexy and newsworthy. Scientists have been getting negative results for all types of psi for decades now. I think it's safe to say that until there is some really good positive evidence (and anecdotal evidence is not 'good' evidence) psi probably doesn't exist.

Yes, people feel like it exists and there has been much study in this area too. Our brains are facinating organs that are extremely complex. With complex things come some strange phenomenon - you might even call them bugs in the system. Scientists have done many interesting experiments which show that many of these strange phenomenon can be traced back to psychological illusions.

An interesting read about some of the tricks the brain plays on itself is Consciousness Explained, by Daniel Dennet. His book doesn't exactly explain consciousness, but it does point out several fascinating experiments on the brain and how our physical makeup can determine how we perceive things. As it turns out, it's very easy to perceive things incorrectly.

rem

nilfun

The Sense of Being Stared At and Other aspects of the Extended Mind:

One of the things Sheldrake deals with is why the subject that he's studying is often met with great hostility; "the existence of psychic phenomena violates powerful taboos."

Fascinating read, haven't finished the book yet...

Is there a real science of spiritual effects?

Share this