Developing Telepathy

[Crunchy Cat]

me)))))))although you confess ignorance regarding the issue of mental health diagnnostic procedure, you yet atill seem to be maipulating the goalposts.....i am not really clear tough what you mean by the above. you SEEm to be suggesting that 'science' will soon discover some 'biological DEFECT' which will explain peoples experience of paranormal etc experiences...??

What I am asserting is that there is evidence that most forms of 'mental illness' are a result of biological defect (specifically brain defects). Light wrote an excellent post on this and I recommend reading it.

I am also asserting a prediction. I predict that the more we learn about 'mental illness', the more it is going to contradict the conclusions that are present concering related fantastic experiences.

me)))))of COURSEit has. it is THE MAIN contention of bio-psychiatry. that mental illness is biological disease/organic disease...!

The psychiatric field in general doesn't appear to agree with this assertion duendy... in fact it outright contradicts it. Maybe it's different where you live and this is not the case in the U.S.

me))))oh dear. you are simply changing terms whilst meaning same!

Disease is a result of infection by a microscopic organism (ex. malaria). Defects are flaws (ex. born without a leg, broken arm, marfan's syndrome, missing frontal lobe...). The meaning is clearly quite different.

me)))))))'UN-usual being theoperative term. WHO is claiming what is 'usual', 'normal'?you understand??

Of course, and any claimer of something which I consider unusual will be held accountable to produce evidence.

me)))))))well when somerthing DIRECT happens to an individual, how do you expect her to interpret it?? rathr one should look MORE closely at the INTERPRETER who has heard a person share their experience. you wit me? where is HIS interpretation being INFLUENCED from? materialist philosophy??

I expect people to be stupid and 'believe' what is attractive. I would like people to ask 'what was that' and hypothesize, experiment, observe, predict, and test. It's the ol' 'belief' vs. 'evidence' process again.

if i might--that is a rather generalized example that probably doesn't bear much resmblance to reality. From what i am awar, many people who hear voices do NOT assume 'talepathy'----many become worried they might have what this culture labels 'schizophrenia'

has Happeh said he was 'schizophrenic'? i think you are confusing about things

It was a generalized example and not intended as a blanket statement that is accurate of all scenarios. It is however an example that DOES bear resemblance to reality and here is an example (evidence):

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48723

The point is that 'believers' have a habit of taking an experience and forming claims around it that are not based on evidence, but rather emotion. As far as happeh is concerned, I have no idea if he's schozophrenic. He is a 'believer' through and through however.

P.S. Ozzie (from that link) is diagnozed with schizophrenia (feel free to verify with Quantum Quack).

 

[Crunchy Cat]

That is all quite correct, Crunchy Cat.

Again, as she does so often, Duendy's muddled thinking has led her down a primrose path (littered with LSD and mushrooms) to a totally incorrect conclusion.

No one, no serious professional in the field of psychology/psychiatry has ever claimed that mental illnesses are the result of biological infections. There are a few - VERY few - microorganisms (rabies is one) that can even make it through the barrier into the brain itself.

Duendy's warped thinking may be a result of the fact that many mental illnesses have been classed as "diseases" when "disorder" is actually the proper term to use. Why have they been classed that way (which I also disagree with)? Simple. It's all a result and a matter of medical insurance. Disorders can be covered but once it's classed as a disease it's more acceptable. Thus, alcoholism and drug abuse have also been placed in the disease category.

The only thing biological about mental illnesses is that the operation of the human brain has been physically impaired - and the brain is a biological organ.

That impairment is most commonly cause by physical trauma or by chemical substances - not microorganisms as Duendy wrongly seem to think medical science claims. It can also be induced by physical and mental abuse. Although the mind is an amazing thing, it has limits as to what it can tolerate.

It's too bad that Duendy will not see this post and what I have professionally explained here. Evidently she has placed me on her ignore list. It's actually of little consequence, though, because she wouldn't accept it anyway since it comes from someone who belongs to the "enemy" camp.

Thansk Light... 'believers' are a strange lot indeed. I have a hypothesis that I could use your thoughts on. It's quite apparent that placing truth in the path of a 'believer' will be avoided at all costs. What if we hold a 'believer' accountable (through real positive and negative reinforcement) for placing truth in the path of others? Think the repititon and experience would allow them to come to terms and eventually take ownership of a better way of thinking? Part of my rationale is that the ego may be able to put 'the old self' behind if a 'better self' exists long enough to establish self-credibility.

As an experienced professional, I would love to hear your take on this (and be absolutely and brutally honest).

Thanks.

 

[Light]

Thansk Light... 'believers' are a strange lot indeed. I have a hypothesis that I could use your thoughts on. It's quite apparent that placing truth in the path of a 'believer' will be avoided at all costs. What if we hold a 'believer' accountable (through real positive and negative reinforcement) for placing truth in the path of others? Think the repititon and experience would allow them to come to terms and eventually take ownership of a better way of thinking? Part of my rationale is that the ego may be able to put 'the old self' behind if a 'better self' exists long enough to establish self-credibility.

As an experienced professional, I would love to hear your take on this (and be absolutely and brutally honest).

Thanks.

You're welcome, Crunchy Cat, and you raise an interesting question that is certainly worth taking a closer look at.

Let's begin examining it by starting with what's known about this group of people in general. Remembering, of course, that that there can be a wide variation of these characteristics within the group but what we're about to consider is demonstrated by all the different individuals to one degree or another.

Perhaps the first thing to note is that they are comfortable with their beliefs. Through their on flawed methodology, they have reached conclusions that - to them - provide clear and absolute proof. And if anyone disagrees, it's only because those individuals have not considered things "properly" and the most common complaint offered by the deluded is that others do not have an open mind.

The second factor is one common to all people - a dislike for having to admit to having been wrong. But the problem is that it is MUCH harder for this group! Even when faced with solid, irrefutable evidence, they will cling to their version of truth all the stronger rather than admit they have made even the simplest of mistakes. People like Duendy and Happeh are classic examples of this particular facet. "Sorry, I was wrong" is just not within their ability to express. They must always be right - regardless of the effort required! They all have extremely fragile egos and perceive even the slightest disagreement to be a potentially fatal threat.

There are several other factors but the last one I'll mention (at least for now) is their clear lack of critical thinking. From their own perspective, they are much, much smarter than everyone else because they have found the "truth" - which others will not accept or refuse to understand. While in fact, their method of rationalizing is so filled with flaws that they can even have problems (serious ones, for some of them) in attempting to solve many of life's ordinary problems that we all encounter frequently. One example of that is they often exhibit extreme frustration when another individual fails to perform on time or in a manner they suppose was expected. In other words, it's difficult for them to see things from the perspective of another person. And while most people will see the majority of issues in clear black or white (with a moderately-sized gray area), these poor fools see almost everything as a very muddled shade of gray. As a result, it's often difficult for them to distinguish between reality and fantasy - and therein lies their greatest problem! Therefore, for them, reality is what they WANT it to be - completely irregardless of facts or evidence to the contrary.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

You're welcome, Crunchy Cat, and you raise an interesting question that is certainly worth taking a closer look at.

Let's begin examining it by starting with what's known about this group of people in general. Remembering, of course, that that there can be a wide variation of these characteristics within the group but what we're about to consider is demonstrated by all the different individuals to one degree or another.

Perhaps the first thing to note is that they are comfortable with their beliefs. Through their on flawed methodology, they have reached conclusions that - to them - provide clear and absolute proof. And if anyone disagrees, it's only because those individuals have not considered things "properly" and the most common complaint offered by the deluded is that others do not have an open mind.

The second factor is one common to all people - a dislike for having to admit to having been wrong. But the problem is that it is MUCH harder for this group! Even when faced with solid, irrefutable evidence, they will cling to their version of truth all the stronger rather than admit they have made even the simplest of mistakes. People like Duendy and Happeh are classic examples of this particular facet. "Sorry, I was wrong" is just not within their ability to express. They must always be right - regardless of the effort required! They all have extremely fragile egos and perceive even the slightest disagreement to be a potentially fatal threat.

There are several other factors but the last one I'll mention (at least for now) is their clear lack of critical thinking. From their own perspective, they are much, much smarter than everyone else because they have found the "truth" - which others will not accept or refuse to understand. While in fact, their method of rationalizing is so filled with flaws that they can even have problems (serious ones, for some of them) in attempting to solve many of life's ordinary problems that we all encounter frequently. One example of that is they often exhibit extreme frustration when another individual fails to perform on time or in a manner they suppose was expected. In other words, it's difficult for them to see things from the perspective of another person. And while most people will see the majority of issues in clear black or white (with a moderately-sized gray area), these poor fools see almost everything as a very muddled shade of gray. As a result, it's often difficult for them to distinguish between reality and fantasy - and therein lies their greatest problem! Therefore, for them, reality is what they WANT it to be - completely irregardless of facts or evidence to the contrary.

Light,

You've done an excellent job of summing up the top 'n' challenges 'believers' face:

* Flawed methodology that results in the 'you're not open minded' complaint.
* Fragile egos that result in extreme necessity to always be 'right'.
* Lack of critical thinking whcih leads to an interpretation of reality based on emotional criteria (i.e. 'desire').

I must say that I have seen evidence for all of this repeatedly. I am nonetheless considering ways of dealing with the problem as offensive, defensive, and neutral debate don't seem to produce reliable results. That's why I documented that hypothesis and I want to get your feeback if it seems realistic, flawed, good, etc.

Thanks.

 

[Happeh]

Light,

You've done an excellent job of summing up the top 'n' challenges 'believers' face:

* Flawed methodology that results in the 'you're not open minded' complaint.
* Fragile egos that result in extreme necessity to always be 'right'.
* Lack of critical thinking whcih leads to an interpretation of reality based on emotional criteria (i.e. 'desire').

I must say that I have seen evidence for all of this repeatedly. I am nonetheless considering ways of dealing with the problem as offensive, defensive, and neutral debate don't seem to produce reliable results. That's why I documented that hypothesis and I want to get your feeback if it seems realistic, flawed, good, etc.

Thanks.

Let's sum up the disbelievers.

Anus is very tight. This corresponds to having a tight brain. A tight brain is the same thing as saying a closed mind. A closed mind is unable to accept anything. Therefore, it is impossible for any new information, right or wrong, to enter into the minds of these people.

Refusal to accept the beliefs, anecdotes and stories of literally 1000's of people. They, 3 or 4 decades in age, suddenly know more than the accumulated wisdom of millions of people on earth, over the past 30 or 40 centuries of recorded human history.

Refusal to acknowledge the political or real life ramifications to the individual and to society of open acknowledgement of telepathy. Openly telepathic individuals would likely be murdered, beaten, treated as second class citizens, jailed, turned into slaves. This will be done by guilty people to hide their crimes. The effect of telepaths on open society would be the stratification of society into those with and without power. This would naturally lead to those with power being persecuted. They would then feel they had the right to take advantage of those without the power. Things would continually get uglier until there was war. Then you have stories of vampires or atlantis or a million other stories about parallel races of human beings living among normal human beings.

Refusing to acknowldege that a fearful human being will refuse to acknowledge the truth. These people refuse to admit that if they were faced with proof of what they seek, they would be so afraid they would deny it happened. If they received a telepathic thought, they would prefer to belief it is some imaginary thing from this imaginary animal that is called a subconsicous that lives inside of their brain. Or just a passing thought. Or just a coincidence.

Refusal to acknowledge that belief affects telepathy. If a person firmly refuses to believe in telepathy or energy, they dampen down or hinder the effects of those things. Telepathy and energy are traditionally trained by believing they exist and doing mental exercises to strengthen it. Logically, the reverse is true. A person refusing to believe in telepathy or energy is actively inhibiting the growth of those things or destroying what they have.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Anus is very tight. This corresponds to having a tight brain. A tight brain is the same thing as saying a closed mind. A closed mind is unable to accept anything...

Like a tight anus? Yes, I don't think I want anything entering that area... no anal probes for me. The anaology fits though... 'belief' can sorty of be thought of as the mental equivelant of an anal probe

Refusal to accept the beliefs, anecdotes and stories of literally 1000's of people. They, 3 or 4 decades in age, suddenly know more than the accumulated wisdom of millions of people on earth, over the past 30 or 40 centuries of recorded human history.

Accept them as truth? Witihout supportive evidence and with contradictory evidence? That's flawed thinking.

Refusal to acknowledge the political or real life ramifications to the individual and to society of open acknowledgement of telepathy. Openly telepathic individuals would likely be murdered, beaten, treated as second class citizens, jailed, turned into slaves. This will be done by guilty people to hide their crimes....

...Refusal to acknowledge that belief affects telepathy. If a person firmly refuses to believe in telepathy or energy, they dampen down or hinder the effects of those things...

Wouldn't the 'guilty' people simply just not need to believe? I smell a contradiction brewing...

Refusing to acknowldege that a fearful human being will refuse to acknowledge the truth. These people refuse to admit that if they were faced with proof of what they seek, they would be so afraid they would deny it happened. If they received a telepathic thought, they would prefer to belief it is some imaginary thing from this imaginary animal that is called a subconsicous that lives inside of their brain. Or just a passing thought. Or just a coincidence.

I would be personally willing to contradict that assertion on anyone's terms.

 

[Light]

Light,

You've done an excellent job of summing up the top 'n' challenges 'believers' face:

* Flawed methodology that results in the 'you're not open minded' complaint.
* Fragile egos that result in extreme necessity to always be 'right'.
* Lack of critical thinking whcih leads to an interpretation of reality based on emotional criteria (i.e. 'desire').

I must say that I have seen evidence for all of this repeatedly. I am nonetheless considering ways of dealing with the problem as offensive, defensive, and neutral debate don't seem to produce reliable results. That's why I documented that hypothesis and I want to get your feeback if it seems realistic, flawed, good, etc.

Thanks.

No, Crunchy, I'm very sorry because your chances of success are very slim. To the best of my studied knowledge the only condition that can lead to that is for the individual to want to make a change in their attitude. And I've personally yet to see evidence of that in any of them or in any writings I've seen on the subject. I'm pretty sure they must exist - somewhere - but they must be rare indeed!

 

[duendy]

"Scientism" is the philosophy that the universe can be observed with scientific methodology. Any definition beyond that is rhetoric and meaningless.

me**))))'scientifc methodology' which they define. which is limited and witin the confines otheir materialistic philosophy, yes.

Science uses that which is material to measure and observe. If it is immaterial -without mass or energy- then obviously it doesn't exist except as a thought, and even then, there are neurologists who would argue that thoughts have energy and mass in their synaptic processes.

me))))**hee you very much illustrate, Skin, what is being revealed in te article. ie., your materialist philosophical agenda is NOT science, for a we can see you have already DECIDED that other peoples experiences you and your sciencetific method can't EXPLAIN, is therfore 'fantasy' and other maningless terms

So if it is without substance, what is it? The supernatural?

me))))* ok. stop tere. yes you hav askled a question. now do you anser in the affirmative----ie., do you by default assume it is 'supernatural' and thus 'fantasy' orrrr?

Just because you want a concept to be true, doesn't mean it is a valid concept. I'd like the concept of an afterlife and "The Force" that candy mentioned to be true. But they apparently exist only in the fantasies of humans.

me)))**here agin, you have decided that to be 'true'. but it is NOT true, it is your interpretation of what you dont understand reflecting your materialisic PREMISE

The term "scientism" is simply rhetoric as used by anti-science types. Ironically, most of these are creationists, though many believe in the "religion" of the paranormal and New Age. Either way, it they are anti-science because they perceive science as a threat to their belief systems. Whether it be gods or 'telepathy' or 'witchraft.'

no, no,no. you are not really diggin this. and your reponses illustrate this impasse your in very well indeed.

 

[duendy]

What I am asserting is that there is evidence that most forms of 'mental illness' are a result of biological defect (specifically brain defects). Light wrote an excellent post on this and I recommend reading it.

me))))no evidence exists. as for your recommendation to take light seriously. i have no intention toeither converse with that ignoreant person NOR read anything he offers as evidence. you should look at action dude. not just words. that is all i wanna say regarding light. as far as i am concerned professor gobshite doesn't exist

I am also asserting a prediction. I predict that the more we learn about 'mental illness', the more it is going to contradict the conclusions that are present concering related fantastic experiences.

me)))nom CC. you are on completely the wrong track, as far as i am concerned. you have misundedtood why i brought this subject into the debate. YOUR view is that science will confirm your view that menal illness is biological disease and this will then allow you'll to add people who report paranormal events etc also mentally ill---alto they usually are, as has been seen at these boards. but i a not saying that at all. i am saying that your materilistic science is founded on a philosophy which demonizes all experience not acceptable to it, just as the Church prior to its emergence did wit its persecutions of 'heretics' etc. THAT



The psychiatric field in general doesn't appear to agree with this assertion duendy... in fact it outright contradicts it. Maybe it's different where you live and this is not the case in the U.S.

me)))hah. you aint reading the same sources friend. please you must read Fred aughman MD, Thoma Szasz et al to get a little more hip about this. you are behind, truly



Disease is a result of infection by a microscopic organism (ex. malaria). Defects are flaws (ex. born without a leg, broken arm, marfan's syndrome, missing frontal lobe...). The meaning is clearly quite different.

me)))))from what sources are you getting these ideas from. Baughman is a neruologist, for example, and knows what he is talking about. he knows that in general bio-psychiatry has tried to claim mental illness is a BIOLOGICAl disease. try and forumlate more clearly what you are trying to say here.



Of course, and any claimer of something which I consider unusual will be held accountable to produce evidence.

me)))yes. according to YOURmaterialistic philosophy



I expect people to be stupid and 'believe' what is attractive. I would like people to ask 'what was that' and hypothesize, experiment, observe, predict, and test. It's the ol' 'belief' vs. 'evidence' process again.

me)))look when someone has a profound experience ...that ISthe evidence!...if you dont understand it, what you'll mscientists do is just bandy about meaingless UNscientific terms like 'whacko, mentally ill, woo woo, liar, etc. pure insult, and totally out of order.



It was a generalized example and not intended as a blanket statement that is accurate of all scenarios. It is however an example that DOES bear resemblance to reality and here is an example (evidence):

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48723

me)))))))sorry. haven't seen link yet as i bgan reply before seeing it. will do

The point is that 'believers' have a habit of taking an experience and forming claims around it that are not based on evidence, but rather emotion. As far as happeh is concerned, I have no idea if he's schozophrenic. He is a 'believer' through and through however.

me)))who are you to say what anopther prson does with THEIR experience. seriosly. what gives you the right to imgaine you can dictate what anothers exerience is supposed to be, or judge it too 'enshrouded in emotion' etc etc. ll this is meaningless twaddle masquerading as 'science'. it is more you constanl oppressing with your materilistic agaenda.

P.S. Ozzie (from that link) is diagnozed with schizophrenia (feel free to verify with Quantum Quack).

as we are saying. mental illness is NOT biological so to be 'daignoaed with 'schizophrenia' makes no sense when ypu properly understand this
The complte irony here, CC, and tis is why i bring thisissue into here, is that you haveno seeming idea whatsover aout the utter pseudoscience of bio-psychiatriy yet imagine you KNOW what 'truth' is via a 'scientific method'!

 

[duendy]

Thansk Light... 'believers' are a strange lot indeed. I have a hypothesis that I could use your thoughts on. It's quite apparent that placing truth in the path of a 'believer' will be avoided at all costs. What if we hold a 'believer' accountable (through real positive and negative reinforcement) for placing truth in the path of others? Think the repititon and experience would allow them to come to terms and eventually take ownership of a better way of thinking? Part of my rationale is that the ego may be able to put 'the old self' behind if a 'better self' exists long enough to establish self-credibility.

As an experienced professional, I would love to hear your take on this (and be absolutely and brutally honest).

Thanks.

i will just say this CC. i have read his contribution. truly pathetic. so i really recommend you contact Fred Baughman MD, and recive a proper intelligent and informed reponse to any inquiry you may have. ie., if you dont take MY word for it,speak with one of THE main spokesperson concerning this isse. He is vewry familiar with contacting te really big players in this field--ie., like the head of APA, etc. you will find what you recieve truly interesting and honest. but only YOU can make the choice to wanto o ask the right questions from the most plausible sources. ican't force you. IFyou desire to stick wit your presumptions then i suppose you will decilne this invitation as several others have doneat these forums. denial

 

[Crunchy Cat]

No, Crunchy, I'm very sorry because your chances of success are very slim. To the best of my studied knowledge the only condition that can lead to that is for the individual to want to make a change in their attitude. And I've personally yet to see evidence of that in any of them or in any writings I've seen on the subject. I'm pretty sure they must exist - somewhere - but they must be rare indeed!

Ahh well, it was a good thought while it lasted . Thanks for the good info and saving me some time. Back to the drawing board!

 

[Happeh]

Like a tight anus? Yes, I don't think I want anything entering that area... no anal probes for me. The anaology fits though... 'belief' can sorty of be thought of as the mental equivelant of an anal probe

This is what happens when you think you know everything. You think this is a joke. It is true. A tight butt is associated with a closed mind. It is because of the way the human body is constructed.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

i will just say this CC. i have read his contribution. truly pathetic. so i really recommend you contact Fred Baughman MD, and recive a proper intelligent and informed reponse to any inquiry you may have. ie., if you dont take MY word for it,speak with one of THE main spokesperson concerning this isse. He is vewry familiar with contacting te really big players in this field--ie., like the head of APA, etc. you will find what you recieve truly interesting and honest. but only YOU can make the choice to wanto o ask the right questions from the most plausible sources. ican't force you. IFyou desire to stick wit your presumptions then i suppose you will decilne this invitation as several others have doneat these forums. denial

What am I going to ask him that evidence or lack of it has not already shown? Should I ask if 'Telapthy', 'God', 'Ghosts', 'Goblins', 'Flying Pink Unicorns' exist? An authority isn't going to influence my position on the fantastic... evidence will.

 

[duendy]

What am I going to ask him that evidence or lack of it has not already shown? Should I ask if 'Telapthy', 'God', 'Ghosts', 'Goblins', 'Flying Pink Unicorns' exist? An authority isn't going to influence my position on the fantastic... evidence will.

oh right, and just a little while befo you was jumpin up and doown delighted after reading the utter rhetoric of the unmentionalble one here. so, as i sees it, you seem to be quite satisfied in your comfort zone. that no matter what empty words are spoke, if they con-firm you aready preexisting supposiions you leave it at that.

Obviously you maight ask (tho i dont dig why you need me to patronize you about this?).....'what is te difference between 'Biolgical disease' and 'biological defect' regardng diagnoses of the accepted medical condition, as given us by the mental health movement, for mental illness'?....or something along tose lines. bcause i still feel you re simply changing terms yet keeping same myth

just say the word and i will give you his email address. but also check out about him and his work online.

othewise kid, yerin a mire of confusion!

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Originally Posted by Crunchy Cat
What I am asserting is that there is evidence that most forms of 'mental illness' are a result of biological defect (specifically brain defects). Light wrote an excellent post on this and I recommend reading it.

me))))no evidence exists. as for your recommendation to take light seriously. i have no intention toeither converse with that ignoreant person NOR read anything he offers as evidence. you should look at action dude. not just words. that is all i wanna say regarding light. as far as i am concerned professor gobshite doesn't exist

Sure evidence exists. There is evidence for alzhmeirs (brain plaque for example) and there is even evidence for schziphrenia (part of the brain's electrical activity is on a different cycle than the rest... like a radio slightly off station). Is this to say that there are no mis-diagnosis, that evidence exists for every behavior labeled a 'disorder'? Nope not at all.

Sorry to hear you've had bad experiences with Light. I honestly have felt similar sentiment towards virtually 'believers' on this forum at various times; however, I can put that aside and converse with them.

me)))nom CC. you are on completely the wrong track, as far as i am concerned. you have misundedtood why i brought this subject into the debate. YOUR view is that science will confirm your view that menal illness is biological disease and this will then allow you'll to add people who report paranormal events etc also mentally ill---alto they usually are, as has been seen at these boards. but i a not saying that at all. i am saying that your materilistic science is founded on a philosophy which demonizes all experience not acceptable to it, just as the Church prior to its emergence did wit its persecutions of 'heretics' etc. THAT

I understood quite fine. I think I am being prescribed to a phiolosophy that isn't correct. I am in it for the process (not the philosophy). If my prediction is contradicted then I am fine with that... it's a prediction and nothing more. The result of science can validate and contradict it. One last time just so that we're clear. I COULD VERY WELL BE INCORRECT, ITS JUST A PREDICTION. Let me kow if this makes more sense.

me)))hah. you aint reading the same sources friend. please you must read Fred aughman MD, Thoma Szasz et al to get a little more hip about this. you are behind, truly

Not likely... I do read publications on results from the process of science and my assertions are based on them. Calling it 'behind' is not going to suddenly give me some emotional trigger that is going to make me become a 'believer'. I think it's a nice heavy obligation that I 'should read' publications by those folks without knowing why. Regardless, being 'hip' in psychiatry is not something I value. EVIDENCE is what I value.

Disease is a result of infection by a microscopic organism (ex. malaria). Defects are flaws (ex. born without a leg, broken arm, marfan's syndrome, missing frontal lobe...). The meaning is clearly quite different.

me)))))from what sources are you getting these ideas from. Baughman is a neruologist, for example, and knows what he is talking about. he knows that in general bio-psychiatry has tried to claim mental illness is a BIOLOGICAl disease. try and forumlate more clearly what you are trying to say here.

My source? The dictionary. The word 'disease' may have a different contextual meaning in psychiatry (Light posted some info on that). In every day language it referrs to contaigion (infection). I honestly don't think you have noticed the difference.

me)))yes. according to YOURmaterialistic philosophy

My philosophy with the fantastic is to not accept assertions as truth without evidence.


I expect people to be stupid and 'believe' what is attractive. I would like people to ask 'what was that' and hypothesize, experiment, observe, predict, and test. It's the ol' 'belief' vs. 'evidence' process again.

me)))look when someone has a profound experience ...that ISthe evidence!...if you dont understand it, what you'll mscientists do is just bandy about meaingless UNscientific terms like 'whacko, mentally ill, woo woo, liar, etc. pure insult, and totally out of order.

It's evidence for 'something'. Again... it's the process of arriving at the conclusion thats the problem 'belief' vs. 'evidence''.

me)))who are you to say what anopther prson does with THEIR experience. seriosly. what gives you the right to imgaine you can dictate what anothers exerience is supposed to be, or judge it too 'enshrouded in emotion' etc etc. ll this is meaningless twaddle masquerading as 'science'. it is more you constanl oppressing with your materilistic agaenda.

That's a new behavior... who am I to say that others should be accountable for their claims of the fantastic (not the expeirnece... the conclusion of what it is)? Simple, I am a 'non-believer'.

as we are saying. mental illness is NOT biological so to be 'daignoaed with 'schizophrenia' makes no sense when ypu properly understand this
The complte irony here, CC, and tis is why i bring thisissue into here, is that you haveno seeming idea whatsover aout the utter pseudoscience of bio-psychiatriy yet imagine you KNOW what 'truth' is via a 'scientific method'!

I'll put it in a simpler language. There is no evidence to suggest that most cases of 'mental illness' is a result of bacteria, viruses, parasites, or other microscopic organisms. There is evidence to suggest that many cases of mental illness are due to brain defects and sometimes genetic variation that doesn't promote survival. There is evidnece to suggest that many diagnosis in the psychiatric field are incorrect and many behaviors labeled 'mental illness' are utterly incorrect.

Meanwhile... there is still no evidence for the core claim of this thread.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

This is what happens when you think you know everything. You think this is a joke. It is true. A tight butt is associated with a closed mind. It is because of the way the human body is constructed.

That would make homosexuals the most open minded people on the planet. Are you open minded?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

oh right, and just a little while befo you was jumpin up and doown delighted after reading the utter rhetoric of the unmentionalble one here. so, as i sees it, you seem to be quite satisfied in your comfort zone. that no matter what empty words are spoke, if they con-firm you aready preexisting supposiions you leave it at that.

con-firm? ho boy. I know that you consider Light 'He who must not be named'... Tom Riddle... Valdimort. My recent involvement with light was to explore my hypothesis on how to manage 'believers'. Not a whole lot of rhetoric there.

Obviously you maight ask (tho i dont dig why you need me to patronize you about this?).....'what is te difference between 'Biolgical disease' and 'biological defect' regardng diagnoses of the accepted medical condition, as given us by the mental health movement, for mental illness'?....or something along tose lines. bcause i still feel you re simply changing terms yet keeping same myth

One is the result of infection and the other is the result of damage, incorrect develpment, and anti-beneficial genetic variation. Of course there is alot of diagnosis garbage out there as well so that ol' grey matter has to be exercised with 'evidence'.

[/QUOTE]
just say the word and i will give you his email address. but also check out about him and his work online.

othewise kid, yerin a mire of confusion![/QUOTE]

What am I going to ask him? If he has evidence that 'telepathy' or 'spiritual energy' exists?

 

[ellion]

interesting article, not finished reading myself but worth a look definitly

http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Telepathy/email_telepathy.html

TESTING FOR TELEPATHY IN CONNECTION WITH E-MAILS
by Rupert Sheldrake and Pamela Smart


SUMMARY

This study investigated possible telepathic communication in connection with e-mails. On each trial, there were four potential e-mailers, one of whom was selected at random by the experimenter. One minute before a prearranged time at which the e-mail was to be sent, the participant guessed who would send it. 50 participants (29 women and 21 men) were recruited through an employment web site. Of 552 trials, 235 (43%) guesses were hits, significantly above the chance expectation of 25%. Further tests with 5 participants (4 women, 1 man, ages 16 to 29) were videotaped continuously. On the filmed trials, the 64 hits of 137 (47%) were significantly above chance.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

interesting article, not finished reading myself but worth a look definitly

http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Telepathy/email_telepathy.html

Sweet Ellion. Thank you very much for the link. I took a brief look and it looks really interesting! I'll delve deeper later myself

 

[Happeh]

That would make homosexuals the most open minded people on the planet. Are you open minded?

The question is, are you open minded? Aside from your insinuation? How interested are you really in telepathy or the phenomenon of human energy?

I would like to play a game. This game requires you to have the spirit of a child. You need to be open, honest, and looking for fun. You have to be curious and have the wonder of a child who asks why about every single thing they see.

In the link below is an mp3 that is about 2 minutes in length. I would like anyone interested to listen to it.

http://www.happeh.com/Videos/Chanting.mp3

The mp3 is of Arabic men chanting. To play the game, you need to listen to the mp3, and write your impression of it. Anything goes. Any impression or feeling that you think of or feel when listening.

If I say anything, you will be biased towards what it is I say. That is why I am not describing anything or pointing anything out. I think the game could shed some insight into the discussion here that plain words cannot.