duendy said:
depends WHOSE 'show' ya mean.......i have tried and tried to point out to the materialists here, gung ho'ing--that trhey are seriousy behind the cusp.....tere not not with it....old fashioned are they, indeedo. OTHERWISE they would know that presently the IMPORTANT question concerning SERIOUS scientific inquiry is to do with C O N S C I O U S N E S S...!!
SEE how the know-it-all here who accuse others of being 'ignoramouses' conveniently I G N O R E this when i bring it up. my question/inquiry about this suddenly becomes invisible to them as they continue prattling on within the limitation s of their rusty old shared- worldviews
well this question is not going ANYwere. it is a vital inquiry, and if not even acknowledged, your limited inquiires just go round nd round in sad fruitess loops ad nauseum. so as...painful as it may be for you'll itis wise to acknowledge about it
now QQ, how does what i say relate to what you askin?
well, the important insight is that this inquiry about consciousness is now acceptining SUBJECTIVITY into the equation, whereas before for many centuries it has been denigrated and dimissed entirely. NOW it is FOREMOST for study.
It implies that there is a connecting factor btween subjectivity and objectivity, between matter-energy and spirit/consciousness.
I have shown with the chart i mentioned (see philosophy forums) 'The Evolution of Dualism' that the parevious patriarchalreligios paradigm AND the present materialsitc paradigm swapped the emphasis from 'spirit' to 'matter', howefver whe you look closely at how the former religos paradgim UNDERSTOOD spirit and dogmatized about it they ALREADY had split 'spirit' from 'matter'
so the ting yo need to seriously consider is that all the wway down the patriarchal line of seemingly differnt religios belief systems and thewn humanism and science there hasbeen a MAINTAINANCE of theidea that 'spirit/conscious' and 'matter-energy' are separate, and i stress that wit materialistic science , it totally dismisses 'spirit' altogther and believes consciousnessis a product of MATTER. is this clear
so your question about unconscious scents. why should that deny the realy of even deeper awareness? why cannot you see a continuum. fori matter-energy is ALWAYS with consciousness, there is nodivision between sensual awareness and deeper levels of conscious awwareness
Duendy, I must admit I was being a little, how should I say it, ....contraversial...hmmm ...please excuse me I was just acting out of a little frustration at reading all these posts in this thread.
It struck me as ironic that the scientists have so readilly dismissed physical causality for the telephathic experience and that it may yet prove to be a valid pheno even if rooted in the physical and non-predictive due to it's nature.
The other point that comes to mind with your post is that I do not see any difference in saying that all is physical and yet at the same time hold the view that all is imagination and yet at the same time hold the veiw that all is spirtual......to me it is not all that important as to which is what except that to work with the physical or material is merely a convenience simply because that is the fashion at the moment. For me the spiritual is just as material as material is spiritual. So I do not need worry about from which perspective one wishess to view from as in the final wash it is all the same stuff.
The Material could be explained in consciousness terms amd consciousness could be explained in materialistic terms. What is needed though is tolerance for all POV's. as we can learn a lot more from each other if we allow for the differing perspectives. I do understand that this is your fight, to open minds to a bigger view point.
For example I could argue that everything is imagination and that imagination obeys certain rules or laws which we have called physics which of course is also a construct of imagination etc etc.
I could argue for collective imagination and thus consciousness and so on, but how does this benefit me or others.
To me it is better to work with all perspectives and see if they can be unified into a more holistic approach some time in the future.
However I bring up the issue of pheromones to show that even the most ardent scientist can miss the most obvious. And all this talk about how effective science can be is shown to be lacking simply because of not being open to possibilities beyond the narrow perspective of deciding what is material and what isn't.
You see that if pheromone induced imaginings are taken seriously then there could be physical causality for the telepathic experience. Thus nothing mystical is occuring and therefore there is no cause for flaming and slandering someone simply due to our ignorance of that "physical" causality.
I know for one thing that the imagination is very easilly sturred by pheromones and symptoms such as paranoia and the other fear based responses could be caused to over sensitivity to those pheromones.
It begs the question however why we are so prepared to accuse someone of "flimsy" imaginations when in fact it may be phsycial in causality thus real and not fiction. [ just amplified sensitivity not coped with ]
So in my view neither camp in this debate is correct and neither is entirely wrong.
If we could only open our minds to the reality of our senses and their incredible nature we could make progress.
