Disclosure Conclusions

[duendy]

I'll simply say this. There is no obsession with proof. Rather, without proof there is nothing at all.

Science is a never-ending search for proof, always scratching, always digging. Specualtion, wishful thinking, imagining and all the rest generally leads to nothing at all. Now THAT'S where mental derangement comes into the picture. Just look at Duendy and Rabon for prime examples of that sort of thing. <sad>

keeep myt name and others out of your gossiping little world you nazsty piece of shit. if you said that to me face i'd give you a good slap

 

[duendy]

“

So you judge her on a superficial level? Very fair and even minded of you.

me::actually body language is vry much NOT a superficial level. oneperson can say someting superficial and body language is showng other MUCH deeper stuff. i gained this insight incredibly powerfully when at tended 15 i had my very first acid Trip.
Having said that, in tis instance, i am not judging what she says soley on that. i just mentioned it.

It's simple duendy. Weird shit happens. Science investigates weird shit, and learns what causes it.

me::i so wish you wouldn't snip pieces of what i ay out of context. your reponse was after me saying how you calimed that NDEs are 'nuthin but' oxygen deprivation. so it was DIRECTLY challenging tat point of view of yours which is why i linked you to your hero Bladkmore

An experiment is devised that can recreate the symptoms, based on the data gathered from monitoring real live situations. That is pretty conclusive. You are just throwing doubt, saying 'well you can't prove there isn't more to it, so science is flawed.'

me::did you READ the article....?!

Well woowoos can't prove there is a spirit to live on post death, there have been no measurements, or readings. Science has data, and woowoos have assertion. I an the antithesis of religion, duendy, but oddly, you call me religious as a slur, when believing in the afterlife is a religion.

me::god you ar a pain wit your deorogatory term 'woowoos'. just that lone showsyour uter arrogance. woo woo off!....now howte f is science gonnatest for 'spirit'. are you completely ignorant?

Again, you speak out of both sides of your mouth at the same time!

me::hven't a clue what tat same old same old response is referring to, as i cant snip te quotes i had previously made.

Started reading it, and he uses some really below the belt moves to try and prove his point.

me:::not like you..? ohhhh noooo

Of course, having studied at a theological seminary, he's hardly objective on the matter, and in fact, is guilty of one of the things you supposedly dislike; he's attempting to maintain the power of the church by propogating their lies so they can keep controlling the masses.

me::right right. so you are NOT bias? i seeeeee

I'm surprised you can't see through the article and see that!

me::andi am surprised you dont even seem to have read the article.

To quote that article;

"The common link between NDE and these other experiences is the release of the spirit, to a greater or lesser extent, from the body. This is the relation that should be investigated".

Now, that is an interesting, and obviously flawed statement. Surely, if such a thing as a spirit existed, it would leave the body once it is dead. Why does a spirit leave, and then presumably re-enter a body during a _near_ death experience? How does it get back in?

me::god everytingis nuts and bolts to your old rusty mind init. how does the spirit get back IN? what kind of a questin is THAT?

Stone's critique of Blackmore supposes the existence of the spirit. But he has not proven that. So anything built on his initial premise is not proven, until the spirit is proven. Good luck to him making his words good.

me::listen totis dude. till te spirit isproven. ti is where we have come to in tis sad sad age wit tese ignoramouses at te helm.
have you ever gotten the spirit? do you ven know what i mean?

Listed in the thread previously. Perhaps time for a recap?

perhaps you should READ the article, and the MIAN relevant bit, that puts paid to all your strutting know it all bravado, when you know nowt........where it is writen:
"Ms Blackmore responded well and confirmed my observation that the work was primarily that of conjectre and speculation."

do you understand that phlo?

 

[Light]

keeep myt name and others out of your gossiping little world you nazsty piece of shit. if you said that to me face i'd give you a good slap

Hey, we can mention names like Ted Bundy, Son of Sam, Chessman and other neurotics. Why should you be any different?

 

[phlogistician]

Duendy, your source has supposedly received a letter from Sue Blackmore saying her theories are conjecture, but he didn't publish that letter. On her own web site, concerning NDEs;

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/si91nde.html

She doesn't add a caveat about oxygen deprivation, indeed, she repeats the statement.

In this paper;

http://www.lycaeum.org/drugs/Cyclohexamines/Ketamine/Ketamine_near-death.html

Oxygen deprivation, and the biochemical side of NDEs are discussed.

Oxygen deprivation is covered here;

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/near-death-experience.html

These are papers by scientists, with no agenda other than discovering the truth, completely different to the guy you cite, who has a christian agenda.

Also, you gloss over the obvious flaws in that paper you referenced. And yes, questions such as 'why does the 'spirit' leave the body before death, and not at death' and 'how does the spirit get back in' are relevant! If this happens as reported, it happens for reasons. What are they, and how?

Of course, I'm happy to conclude it's a product of the brain shutting down. You on the other hand are left with the burden of proving that spirits exist. Yo uask how to do that, well, the first article deals with a few ways people have tried, and failed, to detect the spirit. I think that's fairly conclusive.

Anyway, the weight of evidence is against you. Now, how are you going to catch that spirit? Ever see the film 'The Asphyx'? Might give you some ideas!

 

[duendy]

Hey, we can mention names like Ted Bundy, Son of Sam, Chessman and other neurotics. Why should you be any different?

now how do you know i am NOT a serial killer who is also good at hackin peoples info.....by theway, you never did tell me where i can find your resume at these forums?

 

[phlogistician]

'cos to be a good hacker you'd have to be able to use a keyboard?

Hacking is tedious anyway.

 

[duendy]

Duendy, your source has supposedly received a letter from Sue Blackmore saying her theories are conjecture, but he didn't publish that letter. On her own web site, concerning lNDEs;

me:: so you disbeliev him. why not? ie., i mean...fair enough

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/si91nde.html

She doesn't add a caveat about oxygen deprivation, indeed, she repeats the statement.

me::i see.

In this paper;

http://www.lycaeum.org/drugs/Cyclohexamines/Ketamine/Ketamine_near-death.html

Oxygen deprivation, and the biochemical side of NDEs are discussed.

Oxygen deprivation is covered here;

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/near-death-experience.html

These are papers by scientists, with no agenda other than discovering the truth, completely different to the guy you cite, who has a christian agenda.

me:h gawwwd, why cant they have a siencism agenda then. are you claiming they are not touched by subjectivity?!....and also to be fiar Grego Stone does say he has an interest in religion AND sciencem and allows people to read Blackmore's paper to make teir own minds up.....also, phlo do you havfe a problem with his insight:
We see further evidence of bias in her statement that belief in life after death conflicts wit science, as though "science" were a monplithic authority that decrees what is", rather than being a mode of inquiry."....do you see what he means
you see i can tell you are assuming what i believe. you have said so several times. yet you do NOT know. i am rather inquiring is all

Also, you gloss over the obvious flaws in that paper you referenced. And yes, questions such as 'why does the 'spirit' leave the body before death, and not at death' and 'how does the spirit get back in' are relevant! If this happens as reported, it happens for reasons. What are they, and how?

me::so you assume 'spirit' is a thing do you?

Of course, I'm happy to conclude it's a product of the brain shutting down. You on the other hand are left with the burden of proving that spirits exist. Yo uask how to do that, well, the first article deals with a few ways people have tried, and failed, to detect the spirit. I think that's fairly conclusive.

me::but what does what you said mean? detect a spirit? in what sense?

Anyway, the weight of evidence is against you. Now, how are you going to catch that spirit? Ever see the film 'The Asphyx'? Might give you some ideas!

WHAt weight of evidence? i am not feeling any weight at all. just hot air

 

[btimsah]

The records of hauntings which seem to occur in a location that has had deaths associated with it is a good start on the spirit thing. It won't be too long before great evidence is achieved regarding this phenomon. It's important to understand that science has no place for "spirits" or an "afterlife". Probably never will.

TAPS has caught several doors openning completely by themselves when there was no draft or wind to do it (too heavy!) and a human could not possibly open it because there was an object behind the door that would have made it impossible to do so. The TAPS TEAM (who are VERY skeptical) decided this was not normal, therefore para-normal.

Even more interesting would be proving that hautings actually do have something to do with either residual sprit energy or an active spirit still refusing to leave this world. Im not sure we could really prove such a thing, even if it were true.

 

[btimsah]

I believe you missed one key statement in my post, namely "And they would have brought some tangible proof with them. "

The only "thing" they've presented is talk. And anybody can do that - it proves nothing.

Proof? And you prove my point. Almost all of the government witnesses claim that ETI evidence is of the highest security, thus the proof is concealed.

However, some of them do have evidence. For instance FAA investigator John Callahan has some materials that you can view to this day, that he says the Reagan scientific staff thought was a UFO (ETI). He also says that they were not going to tell the public because it would panic the public and that they were going to go back and study this. What he has is not the object itself, but proof that what he is saying has some merrit. If it's swamp gas, why would that panick the public? It's also interesting to note President Reagan's continual references to; "What if one day we were to find out that we were not alone in the universe? I think that would surely unite us all". (something to that effect) which further pushes his story to the concievable.

It seems you want tangible proof. Which, given that this hundreds of witnesses who consistantly say this is above top secret - makes your request rather foolish.

My main point being that it's not the believers who maintain there is a myth of a coverup. It's those who have worked in our military and government who do, and in some cases have some corraberated materials to back that up.

 

[FieryIce]

But how can there be proof if the proposition is constantly cheapened, if the proposition is barely permitted to be heard? This pseudoscience forum can attest to that! No -- you haven't convinced me: the naysayers abound in this society, and their tactics and imperial impatience is enough to support my theory that humankind is sadly not an attractive prospect for any galactic civilisation to meet in toto.

Your assuming all bad deeds in this world are done by humans and are we to assume your even human?

 

[duendy]

The records of hauntings which seem to occur in a location that has had deaths associated with it is a good start on the spirit thing. It won't be too long before great evidence is achieved regarding this phenomon. It's important to understand that science has no place for "spirits" or an "afterlife". Probably never will.

me::: hmmmm yes. this ghost thing is strange. it also opens up a lot of questions....for example. if it is believed that spirits of dead people hang around houses for decades....why would tis be. if Nature is always change, and tis implies death rebirt and regeneration. why would it be so that so-called 'spirits of the dead' just kinda stay the same...doing similar stuff for seemingly a long long time..thisis all speculation of course, but i mean if we are hearing what so-called psychics say. some will say in answer to why ghosts still linger in places, eg 'oh...they dont want to go on'...well what does that mean? go on to where? the kigdom of heaven?.....so whats that mean and are there different types of ghosts/spirits. for you hear of ghosts who just do te same old stuff alsmost mechancical like...ad for example walk abover te actual ground,or below it, maning that it could be some kind of 'recording'. ten--if believed--we hear of more individualistic ghosts who can close doors, make contact etc. really odd all this. our ancient ancestors had no problem with the idea of contacting ghosts....!but as i say--hat does it mean? d you like the idea that your future may consist of hanging round a house for the next 600 years havin to listen to bores saying 'is there anybodddy thereeeeee?????"...and then freakin out if you knock etc. saw this programme about these psychic investigators going to these haunted houses. they never hit up fukin talkin. no silence...chitterchatter and ten freakout, ad nauseum

TAPS has caught several doors openning completely by themselves when there was no draft or wind to do it (too heavy!) and a human could not possibly open it because there was an object behind the door that would have made it impossible to do so. The TAPS TEAM (who are VERY skeptical) decided this was not normal, therefore para-normal.
me::well when i atched that prog i thought Cui Bono...wose ti benefiting? is it likely wewould see tese inevstigators in these houses and NOTHIN happens? what about viewers? ratings?

Even more interesting would be proving that hautings actually do have something to do with either residual sprit energy or an active spirit still refusing to leave this world. Im not sure we could really prove such a thing, even if it were true.

but what does 'refusing to leave tis world mean?...why is it tis world has to be left? that to me smakcs of the Abrahamic myths..especially christianity. tough astern beliefs havethese ideas too.......so many quetions

 

[Meanwhile]

Your assuming all bad deeds in this world are done by humans and are we to assume your even human?

As consoling as it might seem that there's a concealed back hand involved in human affairs, and that humans are mere scapegoats, the fact remains that they are either corrupt to begin with, or that because they are corruptible they are easily manipulated -- one way or the other, it couldn't possibly bear much sympathy. Or, if they've been "altered", then they are "spoiled". However, I concede that not everyone is of the herd, and many attractive individuals across history have arduously weaned themselves from the social apparatus, apart but "liberated". Perhaps these would be the candidates being processed for a first contact of another type -- if they haven't already been approached in some way? But hardly the mob.

 

[FieryIce]

Not a mob, but an innumerable crowd with 144,000 plus 2., only one specific contact.
Spoiled? But not forgotten.

 

[phlogistician]

OK, duendy, let's cut this problem into parts. Let's start with the first part. The spirit.

so you assume 'spirit' is a thing do you?

I think 'thing' is a good word, it implying something that has been descibed vaguely. I make no assumptions about a 'spirit', other than if it is supposedly associated with our bodies and minds, and somehow is part of our personality, it must be able to interact with our brain somehow. Our brain being physical, somehow the 'spirit' must be able to affect the physical to express itself. Kinda like a driver can hold onto a steering wheel to steer the car, if you will.

but what does what you said mean? detect a spirit? in what sense?

If a spirit an interact with a physical brain, some facet of it must be similar to a brain, and as brains use electrical currents, I'd expect to be able to detect that facet, or whichever way it interacts with the physical world.

If this isn't what you understand by spirit, please give your definition, so we have a common term to discuss.

 

[duendy]

OK, duendy, let's cut this problem into parts. Let's start with the first part. The spirit.

mek

I think 'thing' is a good word, it implying something that has been descibed vaguely. I make no assumptions about a 'spirit', other than if it is supposedly associated with our bodies and minds, and somehow is part of our personality, it must be able to interact with our brain somehow.

me::that sounds to me like Cartesian dualism. Ie., te idea that 'mind' or 'spiri' has to 'make contact' with 'physical' brain. Descartes presumed 'it' did so via the pineal gland. He sa typically trying to understand all tis though his current mechanical understanding of te times, hence the words he used like 'pulleys' etc

Our brain being physical, somehow the 'spirit' must be able to affect the physical to express itself.

me::again, you are lookingat this throug a dualistic presuppposition which demnds that 'spirit' and Nature are seprate and 'ned' to interact through some means. why cant you accept that they were nve separated in the first place? Iti only indoctrination from patriarchal mythology, religiousbliefs, philosophy, and sciencism that this has ben diseminated!

and Kinda like a driver can hold onto a steering wheel to steer the car, if you will.

me::that is likemte idea that tere is a little-man in the brian running thing. i dont go wit that. it is much more complex than tat.
A professor of philosophy is a good source to look at. he's Christian de Quincey http://www.deepspirit.com where he argues that the 'problem' of scinces 'mind/body' problem comes from a series of false avenues taken over te centuries regarding this conundrum......Asi just said, Rene Decartes attempted to try and explain it, but wa unknowingly caught up in his unconscious preconceptions, which were/are mechancial and extremely limited.........But ewven today te problem continiues hence te current 'hard problem' (David Chalmers)considering the 'problem' of qualia, subjective consciousness
so what is 'spirit'?


If a spirit can interact with a physical brain, some facet of it must be similar to a brain, and as brains use electrical currents, I'd expect to be able to detect that facet, or whichever way it interacts with the physical world.

me::de Quincey explains it thus: yo cannot use 'energy talk' when you are talking about consciousness. because consciousness cnnot BE measured. so to call it waves, or electrical charge, or any'ting' isenergy talk....checkout hisessay about this

Yet he is not being Idealistic. he is not saying that 'conciousness o spirit came first and 'matter' is less-than, or vicw versa which materialist scince states. rathe that matter-eenergy and consciousness are ALWAYS togther yt distinct, like the substance and shape of a tennis ball

If this isn't what you understand by spirit, please give your definition, so we have a common term to discuss.

i have briefly above. remember i also mntioned 'getting the spirit' before. th actual feelng of intensified spirit. ...so you cannot examine this objectively. that is out of te window that we can be purely objective. do you agree? especially about spirit

 

[phlogistician]

Duendy, the spirit must make contact somehow, if it is somehow part of our personality. Drugs affect eth brain, and our behaviour, and we understand how they do this, through biochemistry. The 'spirit', if it affects our personality, or is our essence, or whatever, must do the same. So what is the 'spirit'?

Why can't you use 'energy talk' when discussing the spirit? To assert that, you'd have to know something about the object. Sounds like he's building on sand there again, defining the spirit, but without anything to back up that definition.

BTW, consciousness can definitely be measured, there have been experiments that detect the brain patterns occurring when a subject recognises a face, for example. Show them a picture of a stranger, different pattern. Show them someone they know, and the very cognitive act of recognition has a signature. I'll dig out a source for this one, as it's fascinating. Of course, general brain activity, sleep, REM etc can also be detected too.

But here is a facet I'd like you to cover when you explain what you think a 'spirit' is. What does it have to do with our consciousness and personality?

 

[duendy]

Duendy, the spirit must make contact somehow, if it is somehow part of our personality.

mee::when dicussin such deep matters. its important to keep aware te origins of the terms we are usin....for example 'spirit' comes from 'spiritus'-'to breathe', and personality from 'persona'--'a mask' one wears. 'spirit' is fiarly archaic, so i suggest using 'consciouness'?

Drugs affect eth brain, and our behaviour, and we understand how they do this, through biochemistry.

me::no you dont. yu may understand the physiological chemical nd eleterical changes, but not te content of subjectiveconsciouness, that is the 'hard problem'!

The 'spirit', if it affects our personality, or is our essence, or whatever, must do the same. So what is the 'spirit'?

me::rephrasing it. what is 'consciousness'? i am claiming -wit de Quincey (and even Descartes had tis insight)-it cannot be measured for it has no extension in space, a does matter-energy

Why can't you use 'energy talk' when discussing the spirit? To assert that, you'd have to know something about the object. Sounds like he's building on sand there again, defining the spirit, but without anything to back up that definition.

me::if tere was one question you'd like to ak de Quincey about tis wht would it be?
i feel i can understand that you cant use energy-talk to discuss consciousness. many newagers usenenergy talk. i was accused of bein one of them recently.....hah

BTW, consciousness can definitely be measured, there have been experiments that detect the brain patterns occurring when a subject recognises a face, for example. Show them a picture of a stranger, different pattern. Show them someone they know, and the very cognitive act of recognition has a signature. I'll dig out a source for this one, as it's fascinating. Of course, general brain activity, sleep, REM etc can also be detected too.

me::but like i said above. you aren't actually measuring 'consciousness' but matter energy, as you can measure matter energy but not consciousness. you cannot measure the subjective content of consciousness.......try at quincey's site, or google this and let me know your response "Why Consciousness is Not Energy".
for example. let me ask you: how big is consciousnss? ...how big is feeling?....where IS cnsciousness?....if you can measure it yu shouod be able to answer these

But here is a facet I'd like you to cover when you explain what you think a 'spirit' is. What does it have to do with our consciousness and personality?

well. as i began. wecan tie ourself in knoys if we dont understand the terms we are using. please see above. tho i dont presume you start reading from below. tho some do do so. i sometimes read artcles from the end to te beginning

 

[Meanwhile]

Not a mob, but an innumerable crowd with 144,000 plus 2., only one specific contact.
Spoiled? But not forgotten.

Well, I was just admiring the canvas for as much as I can assume, from my vantage point… there seems to be another layer beneath the paint whose masterly brush work dates to a different era, exposing bits and parts of another scenario, another drama, that is not necessarily clashing with the contemporary one on its surface, but bleeding into it, blending into it, but at variance with its more modern veneer—it is well hidden. I suspect though that it must remain securely hidden, lest it be smuggled away into the black market, as one of those piece de resistance—old paintings are so coveted now-a-days.

 

[phlogistician]

So duendy, instead of asking me questions, how about you just define what you think spirit or consciousness is. We'll start from there.

 

[duendy]

So duendy, instead of asking me questions, how about you just define what you think spirit or consciousness is. We'll start from there.

ok. first let'sagree we are calling 'spirit' consciousness, soas not o get confused. 'spirit' altho a powerful term is in tis instance fairls, andits ooriginal etymological root is 'spiritus'/breath......we breather, we are conscious

what do i think 'it' is?

well, as i say --presently i am understanding that consciousness cannot be measured. so if you cant measure some'thing' you cannot really pin it down, like you could a chemical interaction, where you can measure te ineraction, chemicals involved, where you are doing the experiemcne t etc

consciousnessis how matter energy FEELS. and i agee with de Quincey. and anceint poples ho hd insight into primal animism thatALL matterpenergy is sentient

when i was 15, i was given LSD. and te first thing i noticed was how i felt, and how matter looked. it looked extraordinarily alive. it is hard to explain to someone who hasn't exprienced ti wat it is like, because it is not te feeling of an observer looking 'out' objectively AT such phenomena. te subject is just as involved. to put it moe succintll, observer and observed are one

such experiences completely fascinted me, and were to inspire me to really start exploring about whatit meant. which i still do

so consciouness is very very strange in that it cannot be measured yet is te interconnctor between all matter energy. te deeper you go. the more you are open To consciousness, te more you are deeper involved wit perception, hearing, touch, feeling etc.sensuality

i would be interested to know of your siritual experience. how it came about etc. but you dont HAV to tell me if you dont want. seriously