The Scientific proof of survival after death

[Blueyedlion]

Hi people of the sciences, after watching this interview with scientist Michael Roll, id like your opinion on the work that is being carried out http://www.scsad.afterlifeinstitute.org/articles/background/scientificproof.html

 

A group of British scientists, including two astrophysicists, a thermodynamicist, and other professional researchers, are conducting experiments and solving complex equations that they believe furnish conclusive and irrefutable proof of human survival of bodily death.

Michael Roll, a rationalist and freethinker who heads The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom, is unofficial spokesman for the group. He has recently revealed information that could drastically alter humankind's entire belief system regarding continuation of consciousness beyond the grave. Roll, of Bristol, England, a former businessman, is a long-time explorer of paranormal phenomena. He and his colleagues' series of discoveries, involving mathematical equations and physical experiments, when taken together, furnish empirical evidence that makes an extremely strong case for continuing after-death survival of the human psyche.

The group has come to regard that continuation as the functioning of a natural, universal law, the study of which is strictly a branch of chemistry, physics, and mathematics, rather than an article of religious faith.

 

 

R. D. Pearson, BSc, another of Roll’s scientific collabarators, is a former university lecturer and engineer whose specialty is thermodynamics and fluid mechanics. He has written a book, “Intelligence Behind The Universe,” along with a companion booklet, “Colossus,” and an accompanying appendix of mathematical proof. These purport to explain the cosmic force that drives the phenomenom of continuing life, and mathematically back up the experiments of Crookes and Hamilton. Pearson is confident that his “grid theory” corrects some of the discrepant data in Einstein’s works, and that it will withstand close examination and criticism by fellow physicists and cosmologists. In his book, he calls for seven experimental checks to be made which he is certain will return positive results and affirm his conclusions. Pearson has made several trips to Russia to present his theories. After extensive investigation and review, they were fully accepted by the physicists and scientists of that country, and Russian physics textbooks are in the process of being revised to reflect his new and exciting discoveries in sub-atomic physics. One of the strongest points in their favor is the fact that they have been shown not to conflict with the proven realities of quantum mechanics, as do many of Einstein’s theories.

 

Sam Nicholls, MSc, an astrophysics graduate of Leeds University, and a fellow researcher into sub-atomic phenomena, concurs with Pearson’s findings. He has further postulated that so-called “deceased” entities, although composed of slightly different atomic components, exist in, and share the same space with, incarnate persons. He states:

 

In one context of observation, this grid itself could be seen as the Creator-Sustainer of All Things for a number of parallel but separate universes. This premise does not, however, negate the possibility of an even higher, ultimate, Intelligence behind the grid.

 

“Like the physical universe, their world would likewise be composed of sub-atomic particles, but these may be in much closer vibrational harmony with the all-pervading “grid” than their physical counterparts.”

 

 

 

http://www.survivalafterdeath.info/articles/pearson/summary.htm

 

Opening from first video - "Lou Bondi: Explain to me first of all how this idea of survival after death works? Michael Roll: Well, i'm presenting the scientific case for survival after death therefor it's very simple, it's got to be repeatable experiments under laboratory conditions backed up with a mathematical theory. That's all I'm interested in, i don't wan to know about beliefs, just stone cold scientific facts."

Edited November 13, 2016 by Blueyedlion

[Strange]

Hi people of the sciences, after watching this interview with scientist Michael Roll, id like your opinion on the work he has done. http://www.scsad.afterlifeinstitute.org/articles/background/scientificproof.html

 

 

I started looking through it. There were lots of claims that there was proof but no actual evidence (beyond the opinions of some famous people, mainly from the past).

 

Where are the experimental results, the peer-reviewed data, in short, the science?

[Tampitump]

Where are the experimental results, the peer-reviewed data, in short, the science?

And of course the consensus that naturally goes with it.

[Blueyedlion]

I admit i havent searched on the site for the exact peer-reviewed paper but after a minute of looking i found this - http://scsad.afterlifeinstitute.org/articles/mediums/firsthandaccount.html

 

Im sure its there in some form to be looked at, use the search feature. Though if you watched the second video, he explains that the work is currently being conducted, its not complete to be reviewed yet. They're getting it all on film, so patients is expected. I think whats important is to show this community that there is such work currently being done, so you guys can have the opportunity to look into these scientists yourselves as the work is published. As apposed to not being aware of this at all and discounting such work simply because of the stigma attached.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Blueyedlion

[Strange]

God. That sounds like a combination of crappy SF and tricks that would not fool Penn and Teller. I hope you are not taken in by guff like that.

[DrP]

Interviewer (for about the 6th time after 9 mins): "So did you actually SEE your father?"

Deluded bloke: "He touched me, I could feel it - he came up and patted me on the head - he always used to do that, it was him" (whilst in the dark).

 

So, no. He did not see his father at all. Notice how it only works in the dark? But it's OK - the dead scientists are working on improving the ectoplasm from the after life apparently.. *rolls eyes*

[Blueyedlion]

Whats more substantial to you, what you feel or what you see? For example, have you ever felt the presence of someone close as comforting or is seeing them with your eyes more so?

[Phi for All]

Whats more substantial to you, what you feel or what you see? For example, have you ever felt the presence of someone close as comforting or is seeing them with your eyes more so?

 

Proximity sense is real. It's a combination of aural and tactile senses. Things sound and feel different when you're close to something with as much or more surface area than you.

 

"Feeling the presence" is vague and unhelpful. Are you talking about feeling as in touch, or feeling as in "undetermined sensations I'm going to guess is some kind of spirit"?

 

If you close your eyes, or are in darkness, you lose the visual input that confirms our reality by confirming other sensory input (if you hear a quack and see a duck...). Your imagination is more suggestible to sound when you can't see (in the dark, the ticks of cooling machinery can sound like footsteps, for instance). Virtually every undetermined sensation has a basis in reality, so reaching for some kind of supernatural conclusion before ruling out the mundane is not good science.

[swansont]

It's easy to fool people. Seeing, feeling, etc. are not acceptable as scientific evidence. If you are seeing/feeling it and it's real, then some kind of detector should register what's going on.

[Prometheus]

Whats more substantial to you, what you feel or what you see? For example, have you ever felt the presence of someone close as comforting or is seeing them with your eyes more so?

 

Not only do you do a disservice to science with such a confused analysis but you do a greater disservice to anyone seeking spiritual comfort after the loss of a loved one.

 

A wise man once said:

 

“Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?”

 

 

I can only pity you if you can only make sense of this by imagining ghosts.

[Blueyedlion]

 

Proximity sense is real. It's a combination of aural and tactile senses. Things sound and feel different when you're close to something with as much or more surface area than you.

 

"Feeling the presence" is vague and unhelpful. Are you talking about feeling as in touch, or feeling as in "undetermined sensations I'm going to guess is some kind of spirit"?

 

What is spirit in any measurable description? let's not go there. Have you ever felt you were being watched? Where does that feeling do you think come from?

 

I'm saying yes there is a feeling of knowing of another beyond the physical. That everyone gives of a presence that can be sensed, but like everything else they come in degrees. Some people smell more noticeable than others, some can smell better than others, some can be seen in appearance more noticeable than others via attraction, some can visually see better then others. Etc Etc. So why not allow yourself the mind that there is a presence of another that some of us can receive better than others and some people's presence can be produced better than others? What that presence is, is highly personal because we are talking about an individual experience that cant be shared.

 

How do you convey and share an experience of you how you feel about the presence of your partner to them? You can say, well you are making me feel excited and comfortable, but they cant feel what you're feeling. It's your own feeling. It's a real factual feeling but science cant touch it. But does that remove the reality of it?

 

If you close your eyes, or are in darkness, you lose the visual input that confirms our reality by confirming other sensory input (if you hear a quack and see a duck...). Your imagination is more suggestible to sound when you can't see (in the dark, the ticks of cooling machinery can sound like footsteps, for instance). Virtually every undetermined sensation has a basis in reality,

 

What you're telling me is you think reality is completely physical based?

 

swansont

It's easy to fool people. Seeing, feeling, etc. are not acceptable as scientific evidence. If you are seeing/feeling it and it's real, then some kind of detector should register what's going on.

 

Dare i ask you... if you didnt have the scientific evidence for why a girl liked you, why you feel for her as you do and why are you now both going out together, (moving forward in time) now you're in love with her.. would you question it and put your relationship through a battery of scientific evaluation? Or would you trust how you feel and act upon it? And even if you were to try and engage in some scientific measure of love for each other or just your love for her, where's the scientific device to measure infatuation, desire, lust and most importantly love?

 

Are you going to study every single time your brain lights up in an MRI when you love her whats going on within the brains wiring? all the chemical processes? What happens when you love her more some days then less or more one hour and less the next? are you going to live in an MRI machine? And how would you even translate what your brains is doing when you feel in love as your brain actually in love? which parts? for how long?

 

Lol and even if you to some how measure your love for her, that will be the measurement of then at the fact of the moment in which it was felt, not later when you are reading the results. Truly, there's no way to apply science to the feeling of love in any way but i'm sure you believe in love anyway. Just like you love yourself and your family. Where's the detector to measure how you feel about yourself and them?

 

Science can not touch personal experience and yet it's absolutely real. Once you begin to put your own experience to the side because it is not corroborated by others, you're essentially becoming less human. Think about it. Feeling is more important than seeing or anything else.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Blueyedlion

[Prometheus]

You are confounding two very different issues. Yes, there is such a thing as subjective experience which no one else but the individual can directly experience - though they can communicate it. But no, this does not mean 'spirits' exist.

 

Through sight or sound, different people can agree about things in the world. This is how we come to know the world is not merely an illusion of our mind: as much as we can only know that world through the medium of our brain, there is something there. The scientific method provides by far the best approximation of what that something is. This doesn't stop us having subjective experiences, some of which are subtle and nuanced and difficult to understand or communicate. The various arts are the proper medium to explore and communicate such subjective experience: we do not have to invoke any 'spirit'. That just makes for poor art and even poorer science. We are as much a part of the universe as any other part of it. There is no need for a 'spirit' for us to feel connected to it, we already are.

 

 

 

 

Dare i ask you... if you didnt have the scientific evidence for why a girl liked you, why you feel for her as you do and why are you now both going out together, (moving forward in time) now you're in love with her.. would you question it and put your relationship through a battery of scientific evaluation? Or would you trust how you feel and act upon it? And even if you were to try and engage in some scientific measure of love for each other or just your love for her, where's the scientific device to measure infatuation, desire, lust and most importantly love?

 

Are you going to study every single time your brain lights up in an MRI when you love her whats going on within the brains wiring? all the chemical processes? What happens when you love her more some days then less or more one hour and less the next? are you going to live in an MRI machine? And how would you even translate what your brains is doing when you feel in love as your brain actually in love? which parts? for how long?

 

Lol and even if you to some how measure your love for her, that will be the measurement of then at the fact of the moment in which it was felt, not later when you are reading the results. Truly, there's no way to apply science to the feeling of love in any way but i'm sure you believe in love anyway. Just like you love yourself and your family. Where's the detector to measure how you feel about yourself and them?

 

Science can not touch personal experience and yet it's absolutely real. Once you begin to put your own experience to the side because it is not corroborated by others, you're essentially becoming less human. Think about it. Feeling is more important than seeing or anything else.

 

No one does this. You are arguing against your own misinformed caricature of science.

[Blueyedlion]

Yes, there is such a thing as subjective experience which no one else but the individual can directly experience - though they can communicate it. But no, this does not mean 'spirits' exist.

 

Where have i identified in sentence anything that's anything spirit related in what you just responded to? I'm talking about an experience that can feel the presence of another that's not tactile, it's not a feeling felt as your body, it's the type of feeling you have of your own self's presence you have of yourself right now, that energy of presence can be felt from others as distinguishable from yourself. You dont need to mix anything that's non-physcal as to do with spirit. Your awareness of self is in mind is not physical so there's a clue right there.

 

In reply to your statement that people can communicate their subjective experience, it is more clearer to say that what is being communicated is both in part personal and collectively shared. However, what you see coming out of the personal experience is the outward appearance of what is still being experienced within and of the individual. That is to say, when a person cries in sadness, the inward emotional experience for that person is not the same experience of what is expressed emotionally outwards on the surface body for others to see. It is only the physical bodies interpretation or expression of it, it is not the same experience of sadness being felt inward.

 

What happens is a person can bring their attention of their sadness to the outwards surface and then focus on how they are feeling physically, this steps into ego because the person is now mixing how they feel as who they are, with how they look and what's happening to their body. The sadness is not originating as physicality, it is an inward sensation that has no organs or any bodily functions working like clockwork cogs allowing the emotions to flow throughout. Instead there is a sensation that is not a fixed location designated as whole or part of the body, though we feel it as the space our body lives in. Your heart does not generate sadness, nor does your brain, there is non-physical property that encompasses your self that you know as the space you're in as you. Whether you would like to locate that down to the subatomic level is up to you, but that does not solve the origin, it only moves it to a different physical space.

 

To clarify, what ever you outwardly communicate in any form, will not be the actual experience you are having, it will be the wrapped up presentation of it, sliced and diced for export and without you there to experience it as the actual experience. When you convey to another that you just walked over to them from another place, you can use your two fingers to give the impression of two legs walking. But you are not walking in that experience of using your fingers to convey it.

 

Communication is not the actual personal experience, for when you are sad with tears running down your face, that is a natural biological communication to others that you are feeling that way, but the sadness is not the drops of tears running down your face, it is not the act of crying - that physical expression of it. And in just the same way your internal organs are not the sadness, they are expressing physically how you feel just as your eyes do when you cry. They are the body expressing the emotion inward as the body expresses it outward. But they are not the origin of the feeling, when you cry, when your heart beats fast, your sadness is not that heart beating or that crying.

 

 

 

Through sight or sound, different people can agree about things in the world. This is how we come to know the world is not merely an illusion of our mind: as much as we can only know that world through the medium of our brain, there is something there.

 

Is physicality an illusion? no. You feel it, that's a real experience. You don't need to confirm to yourself you feel something by asking others if they feel something similar. Sight and sound only allow our minds to re-affirm that what we are and what we're doing through the comparison of others. That need to be provided evidence for anything is a result of an insecurity of who you are, that you need the confirming experience of others to make sure yours is on track, that's a good or real, or a correct experience.

 

When you trust yourself in who you are within your own experience, there's no questioning and there's no doubt, no fear. Science is a question for the search for knowing, but why question yourself once you already know who you are? Once you rely on others to tell you who you are, what you are, why you are, how you are and where you are, you're robbing yourself of your own reliance of ability to know the reality of yourself through the use of reason and feeling. You're giving your power of self to someone else.

 

 

 

The scientific method provides by far the best approximation of what that something is.

 

No, the best approximation is your own experience. You can apply your own experience through the process of science, but without science you still know what you're feeling and thinking is real. Yes you can be tricked into seeing things, and you can be manipulated to feeling things, but those tricks and manipulations are still real experiences to be had and to embrace. What the truth of the matter is beyond them - for example how many smaller triangles are really in the larger triangle or if the tv food advertisement is really making you feel hungry, they all comes back to yourself in, what are you learning about yourself in this experience, what is there to be gained in understanding yourself, trick or not.

 

For once you reject an experience because it made you feel foolish or wrong or was something that didn't please you and put you in an agreeable position, you're simply wanting an escape. Because your ego is telling you, all your experiences should be pleasant and assured in understanding and if they're not then why have them. But you had those experiences that were 'bad 'as you, you were those things for those times. So there's nothing to run from but your idea of them for how you want to see yourself.

 

You live in a reality where things break apart and come together, you are of that existence, so why only embrace half of that experience? It is best to understand that nothing can unify without it first being separate, and nothing can separate unless it was first unified. They are the same exact force seen in a different perspective. Treat everything you experience as something to embrace and you wont need others to tell you what you already know as you, for you wont be second guessing your experience once you embrace all of it.

 

 

We are as much a part of the universe as any other part of it. There is no need for a 'spirit' for us to feel connected to it, we already are.

 

Well yeah i agree, i mean, what's the point in anyone embracing a spirit if they dont know what a spirit is in the first place. Embrace yourself completely and then you can embrace others completely and then you'll know what spirit is.

 

 

 

No one does this. You are arguing against your own misinformed caricature of science.

 

I was being sarcastic. i was identifying the nonsense of him saying if it can be felt there should be a device to sense it. As if all feeling is physical in nature to be picked up by a device or even a device that doesnt feel.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Blueyedlion

[Phi for All]

I was being sarcastic. i was identifying the nonsense of him saying if it can be felt there should be a device to sense it. As if all feeling is physical in nature to be picked up by a device or even a device that doesnt feel.

 

 

But this is a science discussion, and your "feelings", while real for you, aren't objective enough to be meaningful to those of us dealing with reality. And what does any of this do to support your assertion of life after death? You have failed to support that at all.

[Prometheus]

Where have i identified in sentence anything that's anything spirit related in what you just responded to?

 

The title of the thread for starters. If you wanted to speak only of extra-sensory perception then maybe you should have named the thread accordingly. But i'm glad you don't believe in spirits.

 

 

The sadness is not originating as physicality, it is an inward sensation that has no organs or any bodily functions working like clockwork cogs allowing the emotions to flow throughout. Instead there is a sensation that is not a fixed location designated as whole or part of the body, though we feel it as the space our body lives in. Your heart does not generate sadness, nor does your brain, there is non-physical property that encompasses your self that you know as the space you're in as you. Whether you would like to locate that down to the subatomic level is up to you, but that does not solve the origin, it only moves it to a different physical space.

 

Of course it has a physical basis. Have you ever met something without a brain expressing an emotion? How do drugs influence our mind if emotions have no physical basis? And why do brain insults change personalities so much? And what's this talk of another physical space?

 

 

To clarify, what ever you outwardly communicate in any form, will not be the actual experience you are having, it will be the wrapped up presentation of it, sliced and diced for export and without you there to experience it as the actual experience. When you convey to another that you just walked over to them from another place, you can use your two fingers to give the impression of two legs walking. But you are not walking in that experience of using your fingers to convey it.

 

Whether or not one person's experience is identical to another's can never be known. But when someone close to me feels sadness, i too feel sadness - maybe not identical, but close enough. Good art doesn't just tell you you about an experience, it takes you there.

 

 

Is physicality an illusion? no. You feel it, that's a real experience. You don't need to confirm to yourself you feel something by asking others if they feel something similar. Sight and sound only allow our minds to re-affirm that what we are and what we're doing through the comparison of others. That need to be provided evidence for anything is a result of an insecurity of who you are, that you need the confirming experience of others to make sure yours is on track, that's a good or real, or a correct experience.

 

When you trust yourself in who you are within your own experience, there's no questioning and there's no doubt, no fear. Science is a question for the search for knowing, but why question yourself once you already know who you are? Once you rely on others to tell you who you are, what you are, why you are, how you are and where you are, you're robbing yourself of your own reliance of ability to know the reality of yourself through the use of reason and feeling. You're giving your power of self to someone else.

 

So i once had a patient who was seeing people trying to stab him. He wasn't sure it was it real. Should i have told him to stop being so insecure and stop trying to confirm whether others can see the same thing?

 

Trusting yourself doesn't mean blindly accepting anything that comes willy nilly into your mind. We have to navigate a dangerous world, and having others around for a second opinion has proved extremely useful.

 

 

For once you reject an experience because it made you feel foolish or wrong or was something that didn't please you and put you in an agreeable position, you're simply wanting an escape. Because your ego is telling you, all your experiences should be pleasant and assured in understanding and if they're not then why have them. But you had those experiences that were 'bad 'as you, you were those things for those times. So there's nothing to run from but your idea of them for how you want to see yourself.

 

You live in a reality where things break apart and come together, you are of that existence, so why only embrace half of that experience? It is best to understand that nothing can unify without it first being separate, and nothing can separate unless it was first unified. They are the same exact force seen in a different perspective. Treat everything you experience as something to embrace and you wont need others to tell you what you already know as you, for you wont be second guessing your experience once you embrace all of it.

 

Yes, what you feel is what you feel. What you perceive is what you perceive. No one is arguing against this. You have created this argument yourself, no one else.

 

The guy who was under the perception that he was being stabbed - we believed him when he said that. But it was very important to establish whether people were actually trying to stab him, and we would have called the police, or whether he was the only one experiencing this - in which case we called a psychiatrist. But no one said what he was experiencing wasn't real to him. Similarly science does not question whether what someone experiences is actually what they experience - it is a method to ascertain whether a mental representation - a model - of the world is a good approximation.

 

This isn't a subtle distinction - i am surprised you cannot see it.

 

 

I was being sarcastic. i was identifying the nonsense of him saying if it can be felt there should be a device to sense it. As if all feeling is physical in nature to be picked up by a device or even a device that doesnt feel.

 

Well it says a lot when people can't tell if you're being sarcastic or sincere. Maybe you believe so strongly in the primacy of your own experience that you do not feel it necessary to communicate your thoughts effectively?

 

And, yes, our feelings have physical correlates, so when we feel something there is some underlying neuro-physiological antecedent which could be measured - theoretically if not practically. This is not the same as saying that experience is meaningless without such measurements, or that most people should seek to confirm their experiences with such measurements - only you are saying that. But sometimes it may be interesting to measure such experience - to understand the physical correlates of consciousness. Then the psychiatrist will be better placed to make the stabbings go away.

[Blueyedlion]

 

The title of the thread for starters. If you wanted to speak only of extra-sensory perception then maybe you should have named the thread accordingly. But i'm glad you don't believe in spirits.

 

No no, i do in fact believe in spirit, but right now we're talking about extra-sensory perception. Dont confuse extra-sensory perception with spirituality. They're relate deeply but can be of their own heading.

 

Of course it has a physical basis. Have you ever met something without a brain expressing an emotion?

 

Met? no, but it's a fact that plants feel pain. They react as we would in fear most definitely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGLABm7jJ-Y

How do drugs influence our mind if emotions have no physical basis? And why do brain insults change personalities so much? And what's this talk of another physical space

 

Ok 1) The brain's vast networks of chemicals are the aperture by which emotions pass through to allow us to experience them. Realize that the sensation you have of an emotion cant turn back into physicality can it? no. Think of it this way, your brain produces certain chemicals through its networks, your mind as the self becomes conscious of those feelings. The mind is now experiencing the sensation of those chemicals as not the physical rush of nerve signals of pleasure or pain, but of a sensation that is not physical experience. When you feel pain you feel the physical effects of it from your body. Go ahead and eat something you like that will make you really happy, be sensitive and listen to where the happiness is being experienced. What physical part can you place it? I'm sure you can locate the physical sensation your body is making to produce the emotion but you cant locate the feeling and place it in your hand can you.

 

Physicality is just the wheels of a car that allow consciousness and emotions to move through. Physicality doesn't create more physicality, it just changes form, so what form is that state of matter taking when you feel it? plasma? gas? When you look at a physical process and say "ah! that protein is reacting to that chemical bond in that way so that's the reason why, that's the initial cause." No, it's that those physical processes are the means by which conscious moves through to allow those functions to work out.

 

There is an awareness guiding it because there is a pattern. Once you notice a pattern you notice logic. We are only acknowledging in recognition that what is logical, is so, because we are seeing something that's operating logically independent of us. When you see logic in the behavior of solar systems or atoms or animals, that's not you creating a logic out of nothing as to only makes sense to you or us as humans. That's you seeing something your mind is reflecting in logic that's already in existence. Your mind is making sense of something because there is already logic operating and you are now understanding it through your own logic in acknowledgement.

 

2) For the same reason the damage in radio wiring messes up the signal. The brain is a receiver of conciseness, damage it enough and the consciousness changes. Dull it and it slows. Where is that consciousness coming from? Ask and i'll tell you.

 

3) Not a physical space, but with the lack of vocabulary the human language has to describe reality, the best is space. Only in the same sense that your mind has it's own mental space but you know within yourself that it's not physical, but it's still a 'space.'

 

Whether or not one person's experience is identical to another's can never be known. But when someone close to me feels sadness, i too feel sadness - maybe not identical, but close enough. Good art doesn't just tell you you about an experience, it takes you there.

 

It's not about being identical. Their experience is theirs to be had, conveying sympathy is all most of us can know and do. The point is, that emotional connection between the close friend and you is what's important. Because understanding someone on an intellectual level is about how smart you are, on a physical level is how great your body is, but when you give sympathy, when you're compassionate neither of those other things mean anything anymore because how you feel will always identify you more than anything else. And that importance of feeling is an identification of the human experience, if not life is really about.

 

When you feel sad, that affects contagiously, as does happiness, our emotions spirituality potent because of how they affect ourselves and our relationships with others regardless of how well we know them. That's something very noticeably significant as black holes or quarks. The way the universe connects with its self within the level of the human experience is most strong when emotional. That should tell you something. Atoms connect with negative and positive charges, humans with negative and positive emotions - not wrong or right thoughts...

 

So i once had a patient who was seeing people trying to stab him. He wasn't sure it was it real. Should i have told him to stop being so insecure and stop trying to confirm whether others can see the same thing?

 

There are true mind illusions yes. However, things that are of fear will always be illusory simply because fear isnt tangible. It's first created in the mind due to the perception of things. But what is actual fear, where is the experience of fear that can be studied? there is the reaction of it only. There are two types of fear, the fear from the mind and the fear coming from adrenaline. Your patient was not in any physical real world danger so it was mind based. We both know that. Physical fear is there out of protection, it's an intuitive ability to identify we're in harms way without actually seeing the harm. His mind and his heart were out of sync.

 

Trusting yourself doesn't mean blindly accepting anything that comes willy nilly into your mind. We have to navigate a dangerous world, and having others around for a second opinion has proved extremely useful.

 

That's what intuition is for, you listen to that more and more and then you don't need other opinions as much. Just your own guidance

 

Yes, what you feel is what you feel. What you perceive is what you perceive. No one is arguing against this. You have created this argument yourself, no one else.

 

No but my point is, what you feel is more truthful then what science in it's intellectual sense can ever be because we're more than our intellect, we're a whole body.

 

The guy who was under the perception that he was being stabbed - we believed him when he said that. But it was very important to establish whether people were actually trying to stab him, and we would have called the police, or whether he was the only one experiencing this - in which case we called a psychiatrist. But no one said what he was experiencing wasn't real to him. Similarly science does not question whether what someone experiences is actually what they experience - it is a method to ascertain whether a mental representation - a model - of the world is a good approximation.

 

This isn't a subtle distinction - i am surprised you cannot see it.

 

Actually the whole point is that the general attitude in science is that our mental representation of the world is the only approximation worth considering as truth. The distinction is there, for science explores reality through collectively agreed upon thoughts through symbols, but not any other sensory experiences. There's no science meditation. There's no science of feeling because no one but the person experiencing it can agree that's the actual matter of fact. For this reason, science says - you may very well be feeling some thing, but we cant verify outside of yourself what that thing truly is, so we dont really know if what you're feeling is real.

 

That puts your own personal experience under questioning when you rely on it every second of your life to to understand who and what you are. And it's also why we're still debating if animals outside ourselves can even feel, thats how far back in science we still are, because we're using logic without the empathy. We are using our intellect to measure reality when we have emotions to measure reality inside of everyday but we dont use it at the same level even though the human experience is always more deep and important when emotions matter.

 

One might say, "well the human experience is just egocentric thinking, that what is important to us is universal to the rest of the cosmos." Well name one example of science where something so deep didnt have an affect on everything else? Once we understood the depth of matter we understood the reality of subatomic particles. Once we understood the depth of space we understood a cosmos of billions of galaxies, black holes, planets and suns. Looking at the human experience as the universe being aware of itself, thinking, feeling, crying, loving - there's no journey of depth there besides our mental efforts, and yet even though emotions may not look like much they are what make the biggest impact in our lives and it is what makes people change over night.

 

In understanding that in itself is to understand that the universe is feeling love and joy and depression through us. That isnt something to be ignored and yet science does, simply because it cant verify to others what we already know we experience more intimately than anything else.depression through us. That isnt something to be ignored and yet science does, simply because it cant verify to others what we already know we experience more intimately than anything else.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Blueyedlion

[Strange]

I'm talking about an experience that can feel the presence of another that's not tactile, it's not a feeling felt as your body, it's the type of feeling you have of your own self's presence you have of yourself right now, that energy of presence can be felt from others as distinguishable from yourself.

 

 

Is there any evidence that such a thing is possible?

 

 

 

No, the best approximation is your own experience.

 

As our experiences and perceptions are often mistaken, I disagree strongly with this. The reason that science works is that it makes great efforts to get away from this way of thinking.

[Prometheus]

Met? no, but it's a fact that plants feel pain.

 

And dead salmon have been found to respond to human social situations.

 

And from those videos am i to take it you believe plants can read human minds?

 

The brain is a receiver of conciseness...

 

 

Funny typo: in these 5 words you successfully communicated to me what you had failed to say in the preceding 3-4 paragraphs. At least i understand what you are saying now.

 

 

Realize that the sensation you have of an emotion cant turn back into physicality can it? no.

 

Of course they can. Right now i am experiencing a feeling of bemusement which is turning into the physical act of slapping my forehead.

 

 

...when you're compassionate neither of those other things mean anything anymore because how you feel will always identify you more than anything else...

 

I agree with you on the importance of our emotions and relating to others. By why the need to invoke spooky woo? The primacy of love in human affairs is not threatened by rigorous science.

 

 

That's what intuition is for, you listen to that more and more and then you don't need other opinions as much. Just your own guidance.

 

Maybe in matters of the heart, but not in matters of fact.

 

 

No but my point is, what you feel is more truthful then what science in it's intellectual sense can ever be because we're more than our intellect, we're a whole body.

 

What you feel might be more important than having an accurate representation of the worlds workings. After all would you rather be content or right? But this is rarely a choice we have to make: we can be content and understand things.

 

 

Actually the whole point is that the general attitude in science is that our mental representation of the world is the only approximation worth considering as truth.

.

.

.

 

Science doesn't concern itself with meaning, nor does it profess to. If you want to consider the truths of the human condition then the arts are the appropriate medium. But they are are the sorts of truths we create rather than discover.

 

 

In understanding that in itself is to understand that the universe is feeling love and joy and depression through us.

 

Yes, there are parts of the universe that feel joy and depression and everything in between. Those parts are us.

 

Think not that you feel at the whim of the universe, but rather that universe manifests its parts in many ways one of which is the emergence of consciousness from complex organisms. Just as the surf breaks upon a beach, so too we feel. We need add nothing else.

[Blueyedlion]

 

But this is a science discussion, and your "feelings", while real for you, aren't objective enough to be meaningful to those of us dealing with reality.

Feelings are not meant to be objective in our current evolution as a species, that's why we have empathy at an individual level. If feelings were objective we wouldn't need science to tell us about the external world because would know it all through our own intuitive knowing. Our limitations within empathy tell us that in order to understand the external, we need to feel how we are internally first before we can apply that to others, just in the same way we must understand our minds before we can work out the minds of others. But if you are applying your mental efforts only, on the side of intellect, then your limiting what you know when you're assuming everything follows mental understanding. But, you already know that there is a knowing in feeling, so why remove that from the importance of inquiry?

 

Feelings are perfectly applicable to know and to seek within science. When you look within yourself and feel what you are, some may call that meditation, or just being in tune with your environment in being apart of the flow, you are dealing with a reality just as significant and real as the external. Otherwise Phi for all, what you're essentially saying, is that you dont understand yourself and how you exist without validation from others. So you're looking for others outside of yourself to tell you what and who you are. But you already know you more than anyone else ever could, because you're literally the one, the only one having the experience of you, as you. You will find with in a second of internal inquiry that non of the concepts of the external world will really apply to you either physically, mentally or emotionally, because ask yourself - are you a male, or is a male just a body image, are you your body or are you experiencing your body? If you are experiencing your body then that's not you. The actual you, is the one that isnt experiencing a sensation of itself, for to experience something is to connect to it.

 

What ever you want to call it, the mind, the consciousness or the soul, it is the part of you that all your experiences are being fed back to. You are the conscious observer, so when thoughts come into mind, you're observing those thoughts, you are not those thoughts. You are the one listening to the thought, reflecting off it to experiencing the sensation of thinking. But you cant do that to yourself can you? The observer cant observe itself. All you can find is that this experience is a shell. Find somewhere quiet and see for yourself. If you're so interested in what reality is, try it out. What's more important in understanding reality then your own. And you have yourself every second of your life to experiment on yourself. So think about it, how can anyone else but you ever figure out this core self, when you're the only one doing the observing of you? No one else can meditate for you, or think for you as you, so why are you reading science journals and articles from someone else relying on them to tell you what experience you're having when you're the one having the experience for yourself? That's like asking someone else to read the newspaper for you when you've got your own eyes. Only direct your 'eyes' inward.

 

What you're really doing is surrendering your ability to think for yourself and perform true inquiry into reality when asking someone else to tell you what you're experiencing. But you're the experiencer, how can you rely on someone else to tell you what you experienced? You can most definitely receive validation from a shared experience, but you are not sharing you as you. That's the point. Of course in the laboratory or in the meeting room environment your experiences are being shared collectively. Question and test he external with others, but you will still know what is your experience much more of who you are within your experience as you, then if you didnt and just surrendered your understanding to someone else whose not undergoing the part of experience you are. Be the scientist towards yourself.

 

 

And what does any of this do to support your assertion of life after death? You have failed to support that at all.

 

Well in terms of the after life, why dont perform you own experiment and try and communicate with your past loved one, if you don't believe in spirits. (Everyone here reading this do this too)

 

Sit in a pitch black room with your eyes closed where you dont have a lot to distract your eyes with, then softly open them, kinda keep them a little unfocused, because you cant keep them focused on one particular item. It’s almost like testing our five senses and putting them in strained situations. Wave your hand over your face and if you don’t see it happening, that’s what you want. You’re used to opening up your eyes and seeing depth perception where you are in a room, a horizon line. So your eyes have the expectation to feed you that information. You’re used to it, now you’re in the dark and you’re opening your eyes you can’t see the horizon; you can’t see what’s in around you. So you eyes are going to look harder. They’re going to look in a different way. This is the time that you can use your sense of sight in a different way. So if you keep your eyes open and softly gazing into space, it’s not on something because you can’t see an item, so it’s softly gazing into space.

 

call on a past loved one and no one else. You'll start to see subtle light energy in the darkness which is what your loved one has just became to communicate with you. It has no body and now has become subtle light energy. Of course some of what you'll see looks like squiggly things and cells, but that’s actually very low light shining on the cells in the back of your eye and projecting. If you move your eyes and those squiggly things go with it, that’s not subtle light energy. That’s you seeing the reflection of your cells, flakes and things like that in the back of your eye. But if you see blobs of light and you turn away and they stay in place and you look back and they’re there, that’s subtle light energy. For lack of noticing time it’s triggering your brain to listen and behave outside of its usual, “I’m hearing a sound, and it’s this way 15 feet away at this pitch.” So, it activates different parts of the brain.

 

What you'll get from spirits is sometimes a sound in the back of your head. You have this internal voice. They may use that spot where your internal voice is to generate conversation. They can throw some words in there and get you to think about it and help guide you. Now, the difference would be, you stop and go, “That’s odd.” Maybe that’s not a word you use, or it sounded like your voice, but it was talking to you in a way that you really don’t do with yourself. So you get this curiosity. The doubt. The “Huh?” That’s when you can say, “Okay, so I’m having an intuitive moment. It’s not clear, but I’m going to go ahead and acknowledge that it’s not 100% me. If you don't believe in it and your logical brain goes, “ I need this kind of proof three times" That’s not going to happen. If you’re not having the experience, it’s you having demands.

 

You have to figure out the way that you can get your information the easiest. Are you a good listener? Are you a good feeler? Are you a good seer? Pick one of those and ask your loved one to use that to give you a sign or message. Then take away the expectation. Don’t tell them how to perform in that way. Like if you’re a good feeler, don’t say, “Okay, come and mess with my hair.” They might not be good at messing with your hair, but they’re absolutely great at giving you hugs and getting your chest all tight and you'll feel like you’re having an anxiety attack. So if you don’t put an expectation on it, they can perform better according to your needs.

 

If you like, pick a hand that represents yes and you pick a hand that represents no. Keep your hands separate from each other, don’t keep them next to each other and after you get a sensation in your hand, acknowledge it so that they know to stop so you can go back to feeling normal, and you can begin the next question.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Blueyedlion

[DrP]

Utter nonsense. Your title suggests proof - but we all know there is none. You are deluded, misled or trying to mislead. Utter rubbish and you know it.

[Blueyedlion]

Is there any evidence that such a thing is possible?

When you step into a house, do you not feel the 'energy' or the presence of the house as distinct from your own? Different houses give off a different vibe, why do you think? Sometimes it feels negative, sometimes positive, but either way you can actually feel that sensation what ever you would like to call it. That vibe comes from the people living there, for you will notice that people who seem good to you and make you feel comfortable and relaxed, that feeling will radiate throughout the house. Even when they leave the house you can still feel it. Have you ever felt like you just needed to get out of a place and you couldnt really identify why? "i just dont like the feel of this place"

 

Try it out yourself. Test it, experiment.

 

 

 

As our experiences and perceptions are often mistaken, I disagree strongly with this. The reason that science works is that it makes great efforts to get away from this way of thinking.

 

That depends, often based off what? Your intuition is the most important thing there is when trusting anything. However, those that arn't very sensitive to their intuition will rely on their intellect to figure things out and that will mostly be mistaken, yes. You're mind goes through a series of filters in order to make sense of things, and as it does this distortion happens, because the naked experience you just had did not exist as a distortion, but the mind complicates it. When your gut and heart sense something, that is an automatic reaction to it, there's no filter, it's immediate. That's apart of your intuition and there's no distortion because what's being sensed is only a reflection reacting back from what is affecting you. Your gut and heart are just a mirror of sensations telling you what's going on outside.

 

If you truly don't give much weight to your perceptions, then why are you trusting what you see as you read this sentence? Or when you talk to another person, or just in your everyday life? You rely constantly that the reality you're in is real in order to react as you do to them in earnest. You have to rely on your own moment to moment experiences, or your logically saying that your senses aren't good enough, but another person's is. Except that you've already placed the human experience in your mind as faulty, so whose senses are you relying on if science is based on the senses of those you cant trust? That would meant the entire scientific establishment has no merit in understanding reality because our scientific instruments are made by faulty brains in the first place.

 

Please identify what are these sensory mistakes so we can discuss the importance of how significant they are in the human experience.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Blueyedlion

[Prometheus]

When you step into a house, do you not feel the 'energy' or the presence of the house as distinct from your own? Different houses give off a different vibe, why do you think? Sometimes it feels negative, sometimes positive, but either way you can actually feel that sensation what ever you would like to call it. That vibe comes from the people living there, for you will notice that people who seem good to you and make you feel comfortable and relaxed, that feeling will radiate throughout the house. Even when they leave the house you can still feel it. Have you ever felt like you just needed to get out of a place and you couldnt really identify why? "i just dont like the feel of this place"

 

Try it out yourself. Test it, experiment.

 

I also get these vibes. You can tell an awful lot about the people living in a house from how they keep it, the conditions they live in, the style of the furnishings, the books, or lack of, on the shelves, the presence of pets and so on. I once stumbled into where some homeless people lived, got some pretty bad vibes from that place. You don't suppose the smell of stale urine had anything to do with that?

 

But at least you are starting to think like a scientist. An experiment is an excellent idea. If you are detecting something other than the panoply of clues from the furnishings then you should be able to determine the personality of previous inhabitants even in an empty house.

 

So find some empty houses, and determine the previous tenants' personalities. Have a separate person, with no personal connection to you just in case they are too eager to please you, find the prior tenants and perform an established personality test. Repeat a few times so that if someone says you just made some lucky guesses you can quantify just how unlikely that would be.

 

Do you agree that would be a prudent way to proceed? Would you accept the results?

 

 

 

 

 

Your intuition is the most important thing there is when trusting anything.

 

I'll be honest here, my intuition is mildly racist. Only my intellect keeps it in check. Are you saying i really should hate those people?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

No scientific proof has been provided.

 

This is posted in the Science only area of a Science Forum. You cannot promise scientific evidence and then welch on the deal.

 

Thread Locked