Alright. Let's not take this any further.
I still respect your opinion and idea, as I would expect you to respect and accept mine.
Alright. Let's not take this any further.
I still respect your opinion and idea, as I would expect you to respect and accept mine.
Oh by the way i just finished watching The Bill Hicks story . It was absolutely fantastic and I almost teared up several times.
It wasn't so much a telepathic experience mentioned it was a shared hallucination/dream that involved stepping on a spaceship together and this was one of the parts where i almost wanted to cry it was that beautifully portrayed. :)
I found the clip you are presumably referring to on youtube (shrooms made Bill famous - YouTube), I have to admit, I find it about as convincing as your cat story. Bill Hicks believing it is one thing, but if you don't mind me asking another question, do you ever wonder why the most esteemed thinkers of our time, and indeed throughout history, have not pursued your line of thinking?
It's a shame TahlaiK didn't respond to this thread after Avalanche asked for a reading. I've PM'd her, so hopefully she'll reply.
Yeah, I was wondering where she went. I am genuinely interested in what her results will be. I am doubtful, but if you don't test you can never be sure.
Unda; I plan to reply. I've just been busy with other things, I'll reply tomorrow if I have time.
Avalanche; I'll speak with your dog soon. When I speak with another dog, It should be tomorrow or the day after.
I have not sat down and focused on talking with her yet, I've heard little things here and there just randomly. Since it's not a image of Lucy, I'm not sure if I'm hearing her or the dog that the image belongs to.
3 quick things I'll share;
When I first saw the image I heard 'I don't like some foods' but I felt from the dog, had some sort of allergy to certain foods.
This one is wrong and I know it. I said the name 'Lucy' and heard 'Thats not my name' so I'm thinking that I was connecting with the dog from this image unless she is normally called something else.
I felt a strong male presence so I'm going to have to ask about that. I felt like it was coming from a male dog. This makes no sense to me at the moment so I'll ask when I speak with her.
I am stating now I am still practicing so when I properly speak with your dog, not everything will be %100.
Okay, I'll try and get a picture of my dog as soon as I can. I'll maybe take a camera phone pic and upload it if I can.
So far those two things you got from the picture are wrong, so in a way they could have come from the other dog I guess.
[IMG]file:///H:/DCIM/100MSDCF/DSC00906.JPG[/IMG]
Not sure if that will work, but it's the only way I could get the picture up. I don't have a photobook or whatever account for photo sharing either, so this is the best I can do.
That doesn't work, upload it to ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting or TinyPic - Free Image Hosting, Photo Sharing & Video Hosting both are free.
Ah I see, it worked before when I uploaded it but when I took out my camera from the usb port it obviously can't find it.
Now I tried imageshack and tiny pic but for some reason they won't recognize any picture I put up. I took like 5 pictures with different settings and picture sizes but none upload. Might be the camera.
Maybe you can just wing it without a picture?
With our time, you mean our time and in the west, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by unda
There's a good amount of highly deemed thinkers that share my line of thinking tho. The most modern example i can come up with is Carl Jung. His concepts that we all share a collective unconscious that is the same for every being since birth. That uses symbols of archetypes to express meaning that are the same for everyone resonates highly with me. I'm not sure if he actually stated it links to a single mind or being that we all share but his ideas do suggest it.
His term Anima and Animus are to me suggestive of the Rational part of the mind and the Emotional part of the mind. They both compensate each other and together they make the whole soul. Which i interpret as the rational part of the mind. That thinks in language. And the emotional part of the mind that feels. Otherwise masculine/feminine. Which he says is part of the collective unconscious rather than a personal element.
Which also resonates with that i'm saying that there the feeling is one part of telepathy. And words are another part.
Back in time i see that this is reflected back in Stoic philosophy. They believed that two "bodies" could occupy the same place at the same time, and their pneuma(soul/mind), an active body composed of air and fire in varying proportions, was a force field that integrates or renders coherent those natural entities that have some unity or individuality. ( I googled that )
Really, anything before the 1960's when most advancements in psychology were made could really be counted as conjecture and plain and simple theories.
The Greeks with their stoic philosophy would have know about the human mind about as much as they did about flight. So it is reasonable to assume they had little to no idea what they were on about. Like if you started a college course on something, and you had to give a presentation right at the beginning about what you know, it would be minimal. But once you progressed in the course (i.e. civilization advances) you would learn more things, true things, which were tested and proved.
Then again, we are just throwing about theories and opinions here, and right now any opinion on an unknown topic is as valid as the next. But opinions from different times when the discovered knowledge was different can't really be counted.
I agree that, once you progress in the course of technological advances and science there is more knowledge about the material side of things. I.e. quantum mechanics etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalanche
But it is completely unapplicable for psychology because the mind is "ghost"like and can't be defined greater by material sciences. A theory about the psyche holds as much value now as it did over 2000 years ago. You can't test and prove psychology either. Modern theories are just as much conjecture and (overcomplexified) theories as they where in any other time. I for one am appalled by modern conventional psychology and i think most of it is complete bullshit.
Obviously we can't just look at a brain under a microscope and see what secrets it hides. But you can test for different things. It depends on what you are testing for though. For instance if you wanted to see if the brain is as active at night as it is in the day, you hook it up to a brain scan monitor job to monitor brain waves.
I disagree about psyche theories. An idea by a greek man 2000 years ago holds nothing against someone who has had extensive training and done large amounts of research with up to date technology. You simply cannot say both have equal chances of being right and wrong when the latter obviously knows more, and the former is merely guessing at best, or guessing about guesses.
Maybe give some examples of what modern psychological assertions you are appalled by?
Good point. Not enough to dispute hundreds of years of philosophy, but yea. We know more about the brain now and it has proven usefull in the field of consiousness. But everytime we link brain chemistry to the psyche it is just a guesstimate , far from proven facts.
I don't know about the entire list , not my field of interest. But I am very skeptical about the whole idea of autism , ADD and an autism spectrum. Besides that i'm very upset by the way psychology handles HPPD and Scizophrenia. It is not so much the diagnosis that upsets me the most. But i'm appalled by the way these are all named as "Disorders" and i think there's something very wrong in the treatment commonly handled by psychologists for patients that are suffering from these mental conditions. I think the way it is handled comes from a place of ignorance and not understanding the nature of these phenomenon.
They are called disorders because there is a disorder in the brain. The most common variant of the brain is what we have- a normal, healthy, functioning brain. There are in 100% working order and as they should be. People with autism or whatever have something missing, too much of something, or possibly something in the wrong place, I don't know the actual biology.
These are handled as they can be- there are support centers and what not. Really this side to it is irrelevant, to the topic at hand. It doesn't factor in to the main discussion. I'm not saying you are wrong in what you believe, as in that case it is only a matter of opinion whether or not you support how it is handled.
As a matter of curiosity, do you believe mental disorders are related to a new variant of brain growth or development? Is that what you mean when you put Disorders in quotation marks?
I don't think anybody knows or understands how the biology works in Autism. Or if biology is even a factor. It's not a fact that any of the mental conditions mentioned above are a disorder in the brain or if anything is missing or anything is produced too much. That's why I put disorders in quatation marks. With HDDP and Scizophrenia there is definetly some brain chemistry going on. That's why the common treatment of blocking certain neurotransmitters is so effective in reducing the symptons. But imho, the proper solution is schooling and therapy.
I could be wrong tho and there could be some biology going on with Autism and ADD , whose to say it's not natural evolution mistaken for disorders. But we really don't know. Time well tell i guess.
I think we are dwelling a bit too much in off-topic here. Ima call it quits so i'll watch a movie and dream. Let's have another discussion some other time. :)
Ok, well to wrap it up my end I don't see how having a disorder that prevents you from doing some simple things can be evolution, even if it sometimes does make the individual great at piano or whatever like you sometimes see.
I firmly believe mental disorders are what they are- a disorder. Something is not right in their brains, which leads to great difficulty in some things. This can't be evolution in my eyes, as it is a backwards step. If evolution is to help us survive, making simple tasks harder can't be the way forward. And even if you think it's a new branch of evolution, then that's impossible because evolutions doesn't split into two different ways, expecting them to work together. It makes designs and the best ones work. I suppose you could say this is evolution testing a new way, but it's not going to work.
I think you are mistaking darwinian evolution, which is the simple process of compete to win. With intelligent design, that says the earth evolves with a certain purpose and allows for mindfull matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Avalanche
With the latter being the more sensible choice ofcourse. :lol:
And no, i don't think autism has anything to do with evolution whatsoever. It is purely mental conditioning and has little to do with the brain. More with how the environment deals with difficult minds.
Autism has biological neurological roots, though there is still debate about Scizophrenia and ADHD.
Science NEVER per definition proves anything it only disproves hypothesis and lend or remove support from a theory.
Regarding the Ganzfeld Experiment it is important to recognise the limits of the conclusions that can be drawn from the results. The receivers had to guess a picture (out of 4) that the senders were thinkng about and as an average they guess correctly in about 32% of the time vs the 25% you would expect by chance alone. It is statistically highly significant, but it has a limted effect size.
Hans Berger invented the EEG after having an alleged near death telepathic connection with his sister (Berger, 1940).
Considering the limited funding available to the scientific community (and unwillingnes to recognise paranormal stuff), the social outsing the people who do study para normal phenomena enjoy, the limited subject pool (consider the amount of people who claim to have shared dreams on this forum) and the costs of running sleep research it is really no supprise that such a limited amount of people are focusing on shared dreaming. For a guy that actually do take telepathy and other psychic abilities seriously look up Dean Radin, but the gods (or any other non-specific deities) will know that he is not having an easy time with it.. It requires fuckloads of backbone and regardless of how 'real' his findings are it is difficult for a human being subjected to social ousting for an extended period of time.
Claiming that evolution would have already demonstrated shared dreaming if it existed is probably grosly overestimating the explanatory power of the theory. Don't get me wrong I am all pro evolution, but take an example of a guitar and guitar players. They don't magically via genetics gain their abilites, they have to practice to achieve it. The discrete state of consciousness we all know, namely Lucid Dreaming is a learnable skill. Here is the perfect example of how your social activities and interactions modify the workings of your brain/mind. I am sure most of you are aware that long term meditators have anatomically different brains to people not practicing meditation. My point being, you can't just evoke evolution and use it as an explanation for why telepathy doesn't exist "simply because it would already be present".
I recognise my own bias in truly wishing for shared dreaming and telepathy to be true and force myself to look for simpler explanations.
That being said I think it is possible, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence admitedly from a very VERY small fraction of the overall human population. I seek to experience it myself, but I dare not say it is proven or by what means it would operate, though quantum entanglement sounds like a feasible explanation. And no, I don't want to elaborate on that theory because A: I don't understand quantum physics and B: I have no freaking clue about how subatomic processes would interfere with neuronal workings.
A concluding remark, even the most modern theories on consciousness dare not claim to have a thoeretical tool to predict the content of subjective experience, which is where shared dreaming would take place. The field of science does not as it looks have technology available to prove/disprove shared dreaming (as far as I am aware), though they offer simpler explanations through classical physics/biology/psychology/sociology, that would reject the notions of psychic abilities, that are prefered due to the principle of parsimony. That being said these theories have their own problems and people are working on disproving them, as long as this isn't done, it doesn't make sense to focus on shared dreaming, unless for instance there would be a massive increase in population size (meaning more people sharing dreams).
Personally, I think it is possible and am working to achieve it, but I have no means of alligning these efforts with my study of science as of yet.
Damn I seem utterly unable to provide a short concise witty comment, I apologise for the wall of text ^^
He isn't mistaking evolution with intelligent design, it's you that appears to have done that when you said "natural evolution" but apparently meant intelligent design; more specifically your particular interpretation of it. It's widely understood that evolution simply progresses by what is beneficial to the organism. If a mutation gives the organism a better chance of surviving and reproducing then it will persist, it all depends on the environment the organism inhabits. Your idea that evolution is working towards some "purpose" other than survival and reproduction is counter to all the mountains of evidence for evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dthoughts
You seem to be referring to what appears to be, in my opinion, a common mischaracterisation of Jung's theory of collective unconscious, which many spiritual new age writers seem to be promoting. I found a section from such a writer from a source used in a Wikipedia article, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on it, you can read it via this link on page 10: Sherry Healy - Intuitive healer, artist and author . Needless to say, I don't think Jung is a good example of somebody pursuing your line of thinking.Quote:
There's a good amount of highly deemed thinkers that share my line of thinking tho. The most modern example i can come up with is Carl Jung. His concepts that we all share a collective unconscious that is the same for every being since birth. That uses symbols of archetypes to express meaning that are the same for everyone resonates highly with me. I'm not sure if he actually stated it links to a single mind or being that we all share but his ideas do suggest it.
I'm going to reply still, I've just been busy. I should be replying tomorrow.
Ok, no problem.
Okay, i was tired and made some incorrect statements. It was a little misleading, but i was just trying to make a point to Avalanche and hoped for the best. But the mountains of evidence for evolution you speak of does nothing to contradict the notion that there's a goal-seeking impetus behind life's evolution. I think both theories are correct and one can not excist without the other. There's also nothing about darwinian evolution that explains directed mutation and genome changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by unda
Now i don't know alot about the subject but to my mind the massively intelligent design of plantlife and the fungi kingdom remains unexplained by dawrinian evolution.
Each to it's own i guess. But i think the reason this characerisation is so common is because it is correct, and we all had the same revelations. And it's my opinion that the reason we all have these revelations is because they are coming from a divine source.Quote:
Originally Posted by unda
I actually don't know that much about Carl Jung and his works except for the main points and concepts, but from what I do know i really respect the man, his viewpoints, and his way of making it accesible and interesting for everyone. I do think however that there are two ways of experiencing C.G. Jung. One being the reductionist way and the other being the more spiritual way. Both being almost meaningless words in information transference because their meaning is so broad and different to a lot of people. But you get my point.
You don't know me , or how I think well enough to be entitled to say someone pursues my line of thinking or not anyway.
And i finally found the section you are talking about in that article (i think.) We Are Spirit and Intuition by sHEALy (Sherry Healy) . Which is pretty awesome and i'm sure it would help a lot of people. Altho ofcourse very intuitively worded, it does nothing to spark any kind of fire in rationalists that are caught up in their material worldview.
Sorry, I gave the wrong link in my last post. Here's what I meant to post: Dare to Be.Intuitive - Sherry Healy - Google Books (Page 10)
"New age" authors of this kind present their primitive ideas as science, when in fact they're the kind of thing you'd expect centuries ago before we had the benefit of advances in science. Intuition helps us know that if we throw an object in the air it will fall back down to earth, for thousands of years it prevented anyone from even questioning why. It would be foolish to return to using our intuition without using the benefits of what so many great minds have taught us, that's not to say we know everything but what we do know is because of the scientific method that has helped us reach the age of computers, television and space travel.
I think it's fair to say that if telepathy is a skill that numerous individuals have the capacity for, as they claim, then it would be unlikely that natural selection would not have harnessed this capacity years ago, before we went to the trouble of developing language. That's not to say it completely disproves it, but I think it's worth considering. I admire your honesty, and wish you all the best in your scientific endeavours, but I do think if you're pursuing this topic just because you want it to be true, and not because you have any reason to suspect there is any truth to it, then you could be wasting your time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vesterguard