Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


PaulS last won the day on September 7 2017

PaulS had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

113 SAGE

About PaulS

  • Rank
    Alternate Administrator & Site Sponsor
  • Birthday 08/20/1968

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Mandurah Western Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,273 profile views
  1. PaulS

    CIA whitepaper on consciousness

    If we are going to say that reality is anything somebody believes that somebody else can't prove as wrong, then I think we will be discussing reality for eternity. I recognise that language is limited, but I do not accept your definition of reality in this case, but you are free to hold your view of course. I meant to write ALL is 'in' God, sorry about that. And pretending was a bad choice of words - I think I should have used 'believe'. If we believe in something but it does not exist (i.e. we are wrong in our belief) then that thing does not participate in God I would say. So if Remote Viewing does not exist, those who believe it are wrong and it does not participate in God (however you define God and which parameters you allow I guess). 'Opinion of Belief' not reality. Call it reality when it is verifiable. I think science is still working on black holes and hasn't accurately worked them out yet, but I understand your point about something existing before it is verified by us as reality. But whilst black holes are a possibility, their reality is yet to be determined. I also think that the matter is a lot harder to verify bearing in mind that black holes are not observable themselves but rather certain affects on gravity zillions and zillions of miles away indicate something (that we have termed black holes) which interferes in what we understand to be the normal mathematical formula for behaviour of stars way out there. I don't rely on a literal reading, I rely on the author writing stories about their God and it's pretty clear they held a view (in many cases) that 'their' God was on 'their' side and chose them to win battles and gave them instructions to destroy others etc. Didn't some of these authors often write that their God, wanted people stoned to death for certain offences? If you think that Jesus didn't regard the Hebrew Bible of representative of how he understood God then perhaps you're right. But you'd have to say that traditionally, Christianity has understood the trinity to comprise of the God of the OT, the Holy Spirit & Jesus. How traditional Christianity can run away from the nasty God represented in the OT is beyond me. I disagree in that love is a valid emotion that usually has benefits that outweighs say power being the be all and end all, but for many where power has been the be all and end all they have probably had just as valid lives (in their minds) as you and I do in our minds if we were more on the love side. They are just emotions. How we act on them influences the world. There's nothing magical about it. Whilst we might be moving toward recognition that love may be a better way, in some cases people will see power as a better way and quite possibly it will be for their life situation. And I don't deride or say you can't have your beliefs. I'm all for any belief that enriches a person's life and gives it meaning (provided it doesn't harm others). My only point is that of reality and I don't think the God of your belief can be defined as reality. I understand it is for you, but I don't think it is verifiable and therefore not within that definition of reality as the word stands for in the English language.
  2. PaulS

    CIA whitepaper on consciousness

    I think that article from NewScience (not sure of their credentials as I didn't check) starts off on the wrong foot straight away by defining reality as something that appears to our 5 senses, but that's not the definition of reality at all. They acknowledge that and then go on to again incorrectly define reality several times. I know they're doing it as questions to try and show why reality a certain way can't be defined, but it really can. Reality is what exists. How do we know something exists? Because we can verify it's existence. If we cannot verify it, then it does not exist. I really think it's that simple. Love we can verify as a feeling with consequences if we act on it. Faith and hope we can verify as emotions. Thought we can verify as brain activity. Gravity we can verify through experiment after experiment. Yet we cannot verify Remote Viewing and/or Mind Control. Remote Viewing is explained away because of it's lack of verification. As per the article you linked before, it's not that the 'viewers' don't have genuine belief, it's that their claims cannot be verified. Hence why 20 years of government funded research into remote viewing was ended by your Congress - 20 years of science and research and experimentation could not verify remote viewing as a reality. I have since watched your video link too and do absolutely consider it lucky guesses. 5 or 6 'viewers' who all viewed the scene differently and who all showed different results. Like was said in your previous article, if people write or say enough material then they are bound to get something right at some point. Yes there was an ironing board popped up in the last person's 'viewing' but I can think of several other plausible reasons why they drew that, but without having all of the available information as to how this experiment was conducted, we really can't attribute any success to remote viewing - which does seem to be the common position on this matter - when it seems to work as in on a TV show like this there is a distinct lack of rigour around the experiment, but when rigour is applied (like over 20 years of scientific research) the matter is not substantiated.
  3. PaulS

    CIA whitepaper on consciousness

    Again, when you state that something IS present and IS active in existence, but cannot demonstrate such, then I don't think you can state that it is 'reality'. It may be 'your' reality, but like the TV show, that is a play on the term. The definition of reality is "the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them". So we have this issue where you (or others) say that something exists (in this case the ability to effect Remote Viewing) but cannot demonstrate it. So to call it reality is a stretch for me. For me, this is almost a meaningless phrase. You say that ALL is God, but what is that all? The stuff we make up? If we pretend that something exists when it doesn't, how is that 'thing' part of anything, let alone a part of 'the All'? If something doesn't exist, how can it be a part of anything whatsoever? No, I can very much demonstrate reality. Reality by its very definition must be demonstrable, otherwise it is not reality. I would suggest a different word or phrase should be used. That's a bit too convenient and biased of a summation for me. Gods have forever been vengeful, jealous, harmful and just plain nasty to humankind throughout the history of Gods. We've had Gods who approve of human sacrifice, Gods who harm man just for the hell of it, pedantic Gods who turn people into pillars of salt because they disobeyed an instruction, Gods who support slavery, Gods who support the annihilation of other tribes including women, innocent children and livestock. You are well aware of all of these I am sure. In the Christian religion, the good God and the nasty God are one and the same, as traditionally understood. I would say a minority of religions and a minority of Christians have seen religions ultimately get to God as caring and concerned and on the side of humanity. I do not see this as a universal truth anywhere displayed in religion. Where it is pronounced it is only contingent on those adherents doing what they believe that God wants them to do. To the contrary, there very much is proof that where we replace oppression and repression of others with compassionate concern we do see that which is truly helpful. That is a demonstrable reality. So I wouldn't argue with you that the world needs more love, but again, this is a demonstrable reality. We can conclusively demonstrate that our world progressive much more comfortably and joyously when we get along rather than when we don't. I would disagree, if what you are suggesting, is that some God or another has got humankind to this point, in contrast to all the nasty things we used to think that God stood for. In fact, i would go so far to say that it is directly because of the refuting of God that our world is finally progressing towards more peace. People are abandoning religion because they recognise that 'reality' is what we have here and now and is not a 'concept' like God that cannot be fully explained and/or demonstrated. This is all going a bit deeper than where I originally started in responding to the original post about Mind Control and Remote Viewing not being able to be verified or demonstrated, so whilst I am happy to be involved in any further dialogue on the above, perhaps we should limit this thread to Burl's original information (which he doesn't want to discuss ).
  4. PaulS

    CIA whitepaper on consciousness

    I understand you are certain about this so-called reality you say is properly called God, but I suspect exactly what you are certain about concerning this 'God' is much less certain. So which bit you are referring to as reality, and which bits aren't reality, remain in doubt I guess? I think we misuse the word reality when we use it to define things that we cannot substantiate as existing. This language creep lends legitimacy to all sorts of things that others might call reality but which many would disagree with as being true. If I think it's a reality that I am helping God by oppressing others, then is it reality? If I think black people are dumber than white people, is it reality? If I truly feel that women are the weaker sex and cannot do what men can do, is it reality? Now these beliefs exists, but I hope you would agree, they are not reality. I simply don't think we can call things reality just because we want to. There rightly should be some burden of proof or we should be happy with calling it an opinion, but not reality.
  5. PaulS

    CIA whitepaper on consciousness

    My point is about whether it's actually reality, God or not. Just because somebody believes in something or feels something to be true does not mean that it is real necessarily. I think history has demonstrated numerous times how the 'unexplained' has been attributed to a god or gods, only for further developments to later reveal a very non God-like explanation.
  6. PaulS

    CIA whitepaper on consciousness

    The above link does little to subdue my scepticism Joseph: 20 years of psychic spying didn't convince the Congress that it actually worked (speaks volumes as to its effectiveness - i.e. it's not). This is my whole point about the above links provided by Burl - they demonstrate zero practical results yet still people insist that they somehow support the notion of Remote Viewing &/or Mind Control. They don't. All they support is that yes, the Government did provide a budget for this research, but as your article points out, after 20 years of no results the Government abandoned the notion. 1995 - Professor Ray Hymen was commissioned to study the effectiveness of remote viewing and concludes "The evidence we have is that they're no better than you or I. I can just talk at random for 15 minutes, and what I say will probably match something". Again, no evidence can be produced when it is put to the test. Remote viewer Joe McMoneagle, who earlier in the article is given some acclaim (without evidence) and is pronounced by an esteemed proponent of ESP (Targ) , as "the most talented of the group, setting a benchmark for how good a psychic could be", failed when put to the test under research conditions. He simply couldn't do that which he was regarded as most proficient at. So in all of the above, it's not a case of science not being able to explain a phenomenon, but rather that this so called 'phenomenon' doesn't actually exist when put to the test. If it cannot be demonstrated then it how can one say it exists? We're at best subject to 'personal experience' - which is unverifiable. It's a little bit like some people's arguments for different Gods and religions - they know it to be true so it must be. More than happy to change my mind if somebody, anybody, can produce just one scientifically verifiable experiment that demonstrates Remote Viewing actually works. This nonsense about most of the info still being classified is rubbish. Over a year ago Burl's initial reference was released, and that document itself was dated a decade or so after funding started for this research, yet nothing has been declassified that supports the notion (with any modicum of evidence I mean).
  7. PaulS

    CIA whitepaper on consciousness

    I'd like to think of it more as debate and dialogue (as per the title of the section you've posted in) rather than arguing, but if that's what you feel comfortable calling it, no probs. Enjoy your thoughts.
  8. PaulS

    CIA whitepaper on consciousness

    It's pretty hard not to be sceptical Joseph, not because I think you're making it up but because I wonder if there is a physical way to explain it that we're not considering (subconsciously overhearing lunch location and you've been there before, etc). I fully believe the brain does a lot more than we as yet understand). Nonetheless, I am sure it seems very, very real to you as an experience (and perhaps it is). My point about these papers though is that just because a government agency spends money researching something should in no way be interpreted as evidence of something existing. These papers lack any verification of the outcome Burl seems to suggest as fact and it would seem nobody knows of any advancement made (or military tool developed) that utilises Remote Viewing or Mind Control. So all this scientific research and no actual results. Now that seems to be enough for Burl to conclude the discussion is ended on consciousness and that remote Viewing/Mind Control are legitimate and scientifically understood, but it's not for me. To suggest something could exist and perhaps should be further investigated, with some sort of rational explaining why, I would have no issue with. This doesn't seem like one of those subjects IMO.
  9. PaulS

    CIA whitepaper on consciousness

    Not really sure it's a fact, Burl. What funding amount do they currently get and where is it allocated? Can you substantiate this claim or is it a presumption? But even if they are, how is the bar set any higher than opinion? The research from 40 years ago doesn't offer anything we don't know about the brain. It did not establish any proof or use whatsoever for Remote Viewing or mind control - so it would seem to still be fantasy. I would agree the bar is set higher if there was a shred of evidence that Remote Viewing/Mind Control existed and could be utilised, but clearly the CIA report and your other links fail to produce any goods whatsoever. In fact, this report looks more like cracker-barrel noodling than anything remotely like real science. There certainly weren't any real observations about Remote Viewing or Mind Control verified in such research anyway, so I'm really not sure what you think is trumping what.
  10. PaulS

    CIA whitepaper on consciousness

    No, scientific research that has led nowhere and produced nothing meaningful, doesn't particularly interest me all that much (I could probably catch it all on an X-Files re-run anyway). The link shows that some work was done 40 or so years ago, without any meaningful or useful result (regarding mind control or Remote Viewing). Like I said, I can imagine a government researching this topic against the backdrop of the 70's and in the hope it may give them some military advantage. Clearly it hasn't. I was just hoping you might have been able to quote something that was significant and useful from these applied projects that the government valued so much. It doesn't seem like they have developed a single, useful tool. If you have no particular interest in the nature of consciousness, then I'd question how you would come to the conclusion that the days of philosophically making up one's own imaginary ideas of the nature of consciousness are over. Based on one 40 year old CIA report with non-conclusive evidence or proof about consciousness? It just seems like an odd thing for a person to say who isn't particularly interested in the subject matter. But, so be it.
  11. PaulS

    CIA whitepaper on consciousness

    Burl, Are you able to save me the time from trawling through these and just outline one concrete outcome or tool that the military has discovered or verified concerning Remote Viewing or Mind Control? Is there any evidence whatsoever that the military have been able to use these as tools? From what I read in your first link, there didn't appear to be anything so I'm hesitant to spend my time trawling through further links to no avail. You seem to have an interest in it so I was hoping you could simply point out these successes. I didn't expect you to explain consciousness in its entirety but was merely asking against the context of your statement that "the days of philosophically making up one's own imaginary ideas of the nature of consciousness are over" to just briefly summarise what this military research revealed as the true nature of consciousness. For me, consciousness stems from brain activity - no brain function, no consciousness. Although we've had this discussion recently on here (not sure you participated in that one) there was still opinion and speculation about the nature of consciousness and if it exists outside of our own brains. So when you were stating there was some sort of finality to any discussion concerning consciousness, I thought you might be able to cite something that actually finalised such discussion. It seems to me that the links you provided only add further speculation about matters rather than any concrete evidence any of it is done and dusted.
  12. PaulS

    The Power of Now - By Eckhart Tolle

    I have the book, so I think I will be in a position to comment as you suggest in a couple of days (maybe sooner).
  13. PaulS

    CIA whitepaper on consciousness

    So there are actual military tools that demonstrate actual remote viewing at work? And are you able to summarise in just a paragraph of two, what this scientific research has demonstrated is the nature of consciousness?
  14. PaulS

    CIA whitepaper on consciousness

    I can imagine defence forces looking into this sort of thing, particularly on the back of the 70's, as any warfare advantage would be desirable, but has there been a single, useful, practical application of remote viewing and mind control ever developed by the military?
  15. PaulS

    Objective or Not?

    If by objective you mean "(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts", then I would say not because personal feelings and opinions are precisely what determine our morals and religions, I would suggest. I think religions develop in response to culture and society which in itself is determined through the opinions and feelings of its participants. I would go so far to say that I don't think you can even have a morality that is objective by definition.