Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Burl

CIA whitepaper on consciousness

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Actually, I believe what we experience in everyday life is real, thus I call it reality. You know, the same usage and meaning if one talks about reality TV (but without the scripts). From there, it is a decision if one accept only what is apparent or allows that there is something 'more' at play. So, no, not certainty at least not in a gathering of evidence kind of way, but, if certain at all, only the 'certainty' (and hope) of faith. But, in part, you are correct, we cannot know 'God' in himself, only what we 'believe' to be the human experience of the 'more' (that some of us call God) that is present and indeed active in existence. 

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.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

So, given the above, I believe that all reality is or participates in the Reality called God (i.e. panentheism). I don't break it into bits (which seems an interesting approach) no more that I break my life into bits.

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?

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Seemingly neither of us can 'substantiate' our take on reality: you think I inflate it, I think you deflate it. Thus it is, as has been said a few times before, belief (one way or the other). 

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.   

1 hour ago, thormas said:

It's been a bit since I have thought about the history of religion but belief in gods (and eventually God) seems to include the gods that help humanity (and are loved) and the ones that hurt humanity (and are not loved but feared, even hated, secretly of course). And then there is the continuing evolution of religious thought which ultimately gets to God as caring and concerned and on the side of humanity. Along with this there is typically an ethic of behavior based on this belief that mirrors what is believed about God. Help looks and feels like help whereas oppression and repression are not experienced as helpful or healthy or life affirming. Therefore, most would say your reality (the God you help by oppressing people and who supports racism) is at odds not only with religious belief but with the experience of what is actually helpful in human life. Therefore, most would probably suggest you are not reflecting or grasping Reality (as it is) but, rather, your reality is a wounded, distortion of your ego (not you, of course, but the hypothetical one who believes oppression helps God). And you are the proof in the pudding as you have said these beliefs are not reality; you recognize that they are at odds with what is.

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.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

You think we call reality or Reality (the Really Real) God because we want to, whereas I say we call it that because we recognized that realities (or better fantasies as you have described above and agreed are not reality) are our creation but there is Reality that is 'there' to be discovered and lived by men and women. There is no 'proof' but there is the reality that if we actually replaced the oppression and repression of others with compassionate concern (love), we would then see which is actually helpful and builds a truly human life and world. On that the jury is in, the people have spoken and the world longs for more 'sweet love.' 

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 :) ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, 

You speak of reality and demonstratable . On science and reality.           https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/reality/

On remote viewing ..... It's demonstrable but explained away many. Did you watch the Video on remote viewing in my last post? Sure it was not in a lab and you might call it lucky guesses but if you were the one viewing you might believe differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PaulS said:
12 hours ago, PaulS said:

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.

You have missed the point that this statement is one of belief and as such is not a demonstrable object. Therefore, a statement that something IS not present and active in existence is also a non-demonstratable statement of belief. Rather simple actually! I have not read about remote viewing so that is not my issue. What is a stretch for me is that I present a belief and am open to the beliefs of others whereas you insist that all should abide by your belief.  You can not demonstrate that 'something IS not present and Is not active in existence.'

 

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

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?

Quote

Actually, I said all participates in God (not that it is God). I appreciate the compliment but I am not God. I agree with Paul of the NT: we live, move and have being in God. I agree with philosophy that there is being (it is) and all that is..........is (thus being). Again, rather simple concepts. Not sure about you but who is pretending? But if something is pretend, then logically it is not and therefore does not participate in being. Again, simple.

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

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.   

So can I (but then again perhaps we can't if we go back to all being illusion) but you cannot demonstrate your belief that there is no God; you cannot demonstrate that my belief that 'something IS present and active in existence' is not a true take on 'reality.' But if you have another word, suggest it. 

But hasn't science stated that black holes exist and have 'for quite a while?' When were they first demonstrated? Did they not exist before that?

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

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.

Quote

Actually I disagree and your (nasty) summary does not show the real progression of religious belief in humanity. I think it is fair to say that some people's take on God might reveal they think God is 'nasty' but I don't see nastiness in, for example, the God of Jesus. We can discuss particulars later. I for one never thought of the God of Jesus as "vengeful, jealous, harmful and just plain nasty to humankind." Actually, just and always the opposite. And, in your references to the OT you rely on a literal reading whereas many believe this is not the way to read the OT.   

As for 'getting to God as caring and concerned' I learned it as a child and now as an adult that is what much of progressive christianity is or should be about. The evolution of religious thought continues.

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

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 :) ).

Exactly, love builds life. Put love in and life is enhanced; remove or fail to 'inject' love and life is diminished. Love is the be the 'be all and end all of life.' This is the Reality that is there to be discovered, yet it not always discovered, recognized or evident given humanity's will to power. Human beings have created realities where (their) power is the be all and end all, where the other is to be used, abused and discarded - but as we have both recognized, this is a false; it is not real!  It is not truth (and men create a god in their image to justify their actions). 

We seemingly agree to this point on love. the only difference is that I 'name' the love given by one human being to another, "God" - I agree with John in the NT that, indeed, "God is love." And humanity is the essential co-creator: it is only when divinity is incarnated in humanity that humanity is healed, made whole and life enhanced; it is only when men and women embody/live love that Life happens. This is the Oneness that impacts the here and now. I understand the history of religion but, as a progressive, as a panentheism, I have moved beyond any notions of nasty, vengeful gods, or theistic concepts of god. Simply, such notions they are wrong.

The love we give one to another, the compassion concern that is essential to the world is the giving of 'more' than we are and 'more' than we have to give. We give "God." All of us need love to be able to love, none can stand, none can thrive without It. Yet none own what they give for they too stand in need of if from others. The mother gives love to her child even in the midst of her own tragedy (say the death of her own mother) and she must turn to others for sustaining love, to be upheld, to be strengthened, to be healed. She gives more than she has even as she needs to receive the same gift from other human beings. We give more than we have, we give more than we are - yet we are essential - it is we who give God.

The important thing is to love. I actually don't care if another calls love by the same name as I do. I don't actually care if another disagrees that when we love, we give more than we have. Again, what really matters is that they love; all else will be sorted out in eternity.

p.s. I think it is good that many are moving (or refuting) certain notions or beliefs about God but I wonder if a better take on what is meant by "God" is not urgently necessary in the world. Because we are demonstrably not progressing towards more peace, rather we seem to be returning to tribalism and many long for the 'strong man' to save the day, to save them. Perhaps if they Loved, they world save themselves and the world.

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Paul, I guess i forgot to hit the submit function But here is the video i was referring to in my last post.

Joseph

3 minute film on remote viewing experiment on TV    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JosephM said:

Paul, 

You speak of reality and demonstratable . On science and reality.           https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/reality/

On remote viewing ..... It's demonstrable but explained away many. Did you watch the Video on remote viewing in my last post? Sure it was not in a lab and you might call it lucky guesses but if you were the one viewing you might believe differently.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, thormas said:

What is a stretch for me is that I present a belief and am open to the beliefs of others whereas you insist that all should abide by your belief.  You can not demonstrate that 'something IS not present and Is not active in existence.'

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.

14 hours ago, thormas said:

Actually, I said all participates in God (not that it is God). I appreciate the compliment but I am not God. I agree with Paul of the NT: we live, move and have being in God. I agree with philosophy that there is being (it is) and all that is..........is (thus being). Again, rather simple concepts. Not sure about you but who is pretending? But if something is pretend, then logically it is not and therefore does not participate in being. Again, simple.

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).

14 hours ago, thormas said:

So can I (but then again perhaps we can't if we go back to all being illusion) but you cannot demonstrate your belief that there is no God; you cannot demonstrate that my belief that 'something IS present and active in existence' is not a true take on 'reality.' But if you have another word, suggest it. 

'Opinion of Belief' not reality.  Call it reality when it is verifiable.

14 hours ago, thormas said:

But hasn't science stated that black holes exist and have 'for quite a while?' When were they first demonstrated? Did they not exist before that?

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.

14 hours ago, thormas said:

Actually I disagree and your (nasty) summary does not show the real progression of religious belief in humanity. I think it is fair to say that some people's take on God might reveal they think God is 'nasty' but I don't see nastiness in, for example, the God of Jesus. We can discuss particulars later. I for one never thought of the God of Jesus as "vengeful, jealous, harmful and just plain nasty to humankind." Actually, just and always the opposite. And, in your references to the OT you rely on a literal reading whereas many believe this is not the way to read the OT.   

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.

14 hours ago, thormas said:

As for 'getting to God as caring and concerned' I learned it as a child and now as an adult that is what much of progressive christianity is or should be about. The evolution of religious thought continues.

Exactly, love builds life. Put love in and life is enhanced; remove or fail to 'inject' love and life is diminished. Love is the be the 'be all and end all of life.' This is the Reality that is there to be discovered, yet it not always discovered, recognized or evident given humanity's will to power. Human beings have created realities where (their) power is the be all and end all, where the other is to be used, abused and discarded - but as we have both recognized, this is a false; it is not real!  It is not truth (and men create a god in their image to justify their actions). 

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.

14 hours ago, thormas said:

We seemingly agree to this point on love. the only difference is that I 'name' the love given by one human being to another, "God" - I agree with John in the NT that, indeed, "God is love." And humanity is the essential co-creator: it is only when divinity is incarnated in humanity that humanity is healed, made whole and life enhanced; it is only when men and women embody/live love that Life happens. This is the Oneness that impacts the here and now. I understand the history of religion but, as a progressive, as a panentheism, I have moved beyond any notions of nasty, vengeful gods, or theistic concepts of god. Simply, such notions they are wrong.

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2018 at 1:02 AM, Burl said:

The fact that scientists are funded to study the phenomena means opinions are no longer sufficient.  The bar is now set higher.


Worth to know:

 

In the US defense space, since the moon landings, there has been a policy to study all the "crazy ideas". It's a policy to make sure that all the unthinkable ideas get researched, in order for the US to not get surprised by new inventions by someone else as happened with Sputnik.

 

To put it another way; if the US defense industry scientists study something, it means only that there is a government policy in place to allow the scientists study everything open-mindedly, in order to guarantee that if there is something to the idea, the US is the one who finds it first. It is not a proof that there actually is something to the idea. For that, you would need results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PaulS said:

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.

 

It's not that simple. 

 

New continents didn't start existing the moment they were discovered or the moment their existence was verified by multiple accounts. People who accidentally ended up to the new continents had a life there and the reality of the new continents very much determined how their lives turned out (or ended), even before the existence of the said continents was verified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a bit lengthy but statically analysis does seem to offer proof of remote viewing. It doesn't answer all questions but concludes it is not just chance or lucky guess.           

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PaulS said:

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.

Quote

Well, on a commonsense level, we cn say certain things are not real (i.e. reality), after all some people are locked up if they are too delusional. However, philosophy/theology has spoke of the Really Real for ages: that there is a depth dimension to reality. This is not considered delusional and many consider it an understanding of the truth of reality.

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

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).

Agreed, to believe in something that does not exist is to believe in something that is not real, and given the understanding of St. Paul and the philosophy, it does seem to follow then that what is not real cannot participate in what is. Again, I have not read and have no real interest in remote viewing.

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

'Opinion of Belief' not reality.  Call it reality when it is verifiable.

Belief is not verifiable but I am saying that (I believe) that God is Reality (writ large). Therefore it is absurd for me to then say God is not real (i.e. reality). Thus I conclude that not all that is real is verifiable.

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

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.

Now this is hedging: be it black holes, the big bang, the expansion of the universe, etc. - there is much that was not, is not (yet) verifiable, yet it is still real and (always) exist; even though it could not be demonstrated, it was real. Now, I still don't put God in that category as if it will be discovered and verified in the distant future that God has existed from the beginning for the simple reason that God or Being is not an object in reality but the very possibility of reality (thus it is the really Real). 

8 hours ago, PaulS said:

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.

You don't but others do and thus we have the nasty God. Actually, the biblical authors' view is not pretty clear as even the greatest biblical scholars debate whether, for example, the biblical writer literally believed in Adan & Eve or simply use it to say something about man, woman, mortality, evil and God. Many of the stories of both Testaments were written decades, if not hundreds of years later so they are obviously not history or biography as we moderns define it, they are faith stories. As an example, it is easy to put a prophecy into the mouth of a long dead prophet when you are living and writing after the 'prophesy' has been fulfilled. So, actually, if anything is clear, it leans to the reality that the stories were just that: stories whose truth is not found in a literal reading or else you get where too many people still are today. Even the the battles are religious interpretations: God was 'their' God, they were his people and thus he was with them, behind them, the reason for their victories. Still, I acknowledge that a literal reading has resulted in many problems and they continue to this day.

I don't think anyone is running from anything (as I have acknowledged this folly previously and again, now) as I am simply saying that many Christians down through the ages have committed the same (reading) mistake and ended up creating god in their image, to justify their actions. Simply they blew it! It should be obvious that the gospels are 4 theological interpretations of the Jesus: not history, not biography but faith stories. I have read a lot of modern biographies and histories and sometimes there is a different emphasis or even disagreements but nothing compares to the Jesus of Mark vs, the Jesus of John: it doesn't even seen like the same guy! History? Biography? Hardly but good news, indeed! Just like with the big bang and the black holes, the reality is there just takes a while to get there and even then we have some who say the earth is 6k years old.

8 hours ago, PaulS said:

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.

The validity of love vs power would not simply be found in the life of the one who loves or holds power but in those who are impacted by these individuals. And you have already acknowledge this reality by adding the caveat, 'in their minds.' But the true test is if their lives have 'given life' to others. And history has given its resounding answer: power does not give or sustain the life of the world: wealthy. powerful slave owners, Kings & Queens, the industrial age giants and on and on. Take Steve Jobs, then look at his daughter. Then take a Gates who has made a contribution and then turned to 'charitable giving' and the difference he and his wife are making. 

Power is not an emotion and neither is love simply an emotion. Is emotion involved? Hopefully but love, compassionate concern for the other is a decision and has a power of its own - it is simply not the will to power for self but, rather, a will to empower others. But you know this. There is nothing magical but the spiritual or religious person acknowledges something 'more.'

8 hours ago, PaulS said:

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.

It might turn on one's understanding of reality (and I am still open to considering another word). Seemingly, for you, reality is only that which can be seen, as in verified. Others, myself included, think there is more to Reality than meets the eye or that can be verified. 

For me an analogy works: most people understand presence (present) as that which is proximate, the more proximate something is (like the clothes you wear or the chair you sit on) the greater the presence. But presence is more than mere proximity; it is about influence or impact on one. So the paradox is that a father, mother, friend or child - long dead and not 'here' (i.e. proximate or present) has greater presence in my life than the clothes I wear, the chair I sit on, the car I drive, etc. He who is not present (in the ordinary sense of the word) is more present (more impactful) in my life that that which is nearby. Actually, such an explanation goes to the proper understanding of 'real presence' in the Catholic understanding of Eucharist. 

So there is the definition of a term and then there is a depth understanding of that term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PaulS said:

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.

Well Paul,

Reality IS to most something that appears to our 5 (or 6) senses. That is the only way it can be experienced by humans and only subjectively. Without your 5 senses you would not even see, touch, hear , smell, or taste the world you live in and might consider as reality. In other words the world would be non-existent to you.

They go beyond that to demonstrate  that what we think and sense through our senses what  reality is MAY NOT be actual reality. Defining it is more difficult than first imagined when we look further. Your senses tell you that there are many colors in the light spectrum but there are really only three basic colors of light (Red, Green and Blue) that are mixed to form what we name and interpret as a myriad of different colors. The same with taste. we have created a myriad of flavor words and definitions but what we really have are only sweet, bitter, sour, and salty. (Astringent and pungent may be included by some experts) Reality is a mystery at best that modern science itself is now concluding.

Remote viewing is not fully understood and is not yet exact but there is statistical proof that there is something there. (Video in last post) There are many sceptics who have already made up there minds because of insufficient repeatability for their taste, or scientific explanation.  So it is understandable that they might give up and declare it is nothing. They might call it fraud and look no further just as they did with the world was round or man could  fly or build  artificial intelligence, robots or space travel. You seem to be  still open but waiting for science to say it is real. That can stifle your own exploration.  I have not been trained in such a thing and don't know how it works but i know it is real from personal experience. I also know there is more to the world and what it is than meets the eye or science at present for that matter. Everyone must find out for themselves and i believe they can through self-realization and moving beyond the thinking mind where in my view, all creative ideas come from. In my view, science and reason can only take you so far. Enjoy the ride! ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jack of Spades said:

 

It's not that simple. 

 

New continents didn't start existing the moment they were discovered or the moment their existence was verified by multiple accounts. People who accidentally ended up to the new continents had a life there and the reality of the new continents very much determined how their lives turned out (or ended), even before the existence of the said continents was verified.

I could have worded my statement better.  In my mind I was thinking of things that are claimed to exist - they must be verifiable to be allowed to be called reality.  I accept we don't know what we don't know and that there could be things that exist that we do not know about.  But I think where one claims something to exist as a reality, then that claim should be verifiable.  If it is not verifiable, then the thing either a) doesn't exist in reality, or b) it is still a concept, a thought process, perhaps even a potentiality, however as it can not be validated by all common understanding of how we define reality,  I would suggest it is not a reality at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JosephM said:

Well Paul,

Reality IS to most something that appears to our 5 (or 6) senses. That is the only way it can be experienced by humans and only subjectively. Without your 5 senses you would not even see, touch, hear , smell, or taste the world you live in and might consider as reality. In other words the world would be non-existent to you.

They go beyond that to demonstrate  that what we think and sense through our senses what  reality is MAY NOT be actual reality. Defining it is more difficult than first imagined when we look further. Your senses tell you that there are many colors in the light spectrum but there are really only three basic colors of light (Red, Green and Blue) that are mixed to form what we name and interpret as a myriad of different colors. The same with taste. we have created a myriad of flavor words and definitions but what we really have are only sweet, bitter, sour, and salty. (Astringent and pungent may be included by some experts) Reality is a mystery at best that modern science itself is now concluding.

Remote viewing is not fully understood and is not yet exact but there is statistical proof that there is something there. (Video in last post) There are many sceptics who have already made up there minds because of insufficient repeatability for their taste, or scientific explanation.  So it is understandable that they might give up and declare it is nothing. They might call it fraud and look no further just as they did with the world was round or man could  fly or build  artificial intelligence, robots or space travel. You seem to be  still open but waiting for science to say it is real. That can stifle your own exploration.  I have not been trained in such a thing and don't know how it works but i know it is real from personal experience. I also know there is more to the world and what it is than meets the eye or science at present for that matter. Everyone must find out for themselves and i believe they can through self-realization and moving beyond the thinking mind where in my view, all creative ideas come from. In my view, science and reason can only take you so far. Enjoy the ride! ?

 

I will watch the video and comment but a brief Google search would suggest this woman's argument is biased as she is already a believer in ESP.  It seems she was one of two experts asked to review the statistical information - she claims it supports ESP, the other scientist said it didn't support any such notion.  I'll provide further info later (bit busy today).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, thormas said:

Well, on a commonsense level, we cn say certain things are not real (i.e. reality), after all some people are locked up if they are too delusional. However, philosophy/theology has spoke of the Really Real for ages: that there is a depth dimension to reality. This is not considered delusional and many consider it an understanding of the truth of reality.

The problem with commonsense is that it is not all that common.  Many would say that believing in any sort of theology is delusional.  Certainly the goal posts of what God actually is have moved throughout history and frankly usually in one direction - i.e. mostly stuff that has been previously understood to be 'God' has been debunked and moved past.  What does remain does seem to be an insistence to attribute that which we cannot explain to 'God'.  And usually not for any evidentiary (is that a word?) reason other than a person 'feels' it to be true.

10 hours ago, thormas said:

Agreed, to believe in something that does not exist is to believe in something that is not real, and given the understanding of St. Paul and the philosophy, it does seem to follow then that what is not real cannot participate in what is. Again, I have not read and have no real interest in remote viewing.

Belief is not verifiable but I am saying that (I believe) that God is Reality (writ large). Therefore it is absurd for me to then say God is not real (i.e. reality). Thus I conclude that not all that is real is verifiable.

Which is fine other than I would simply say that you are claiming a new definition of the word 'reality' if you are saying that something that cannot be verified to exist mist be accepted as reality.  I have no issue with you believing/claiming something to be real, even if it is not, other than I think our language needs to be more transparent than using new meanings to suit existing words. 

10 hours ago, thormas said:

Now this is hedging: be it black holes, the big bang, the expansion of the universe, etc. - there is much that was not, is not (yet) verifiable, yet it is still real and (always) exist; even though it could not be demonstrated, it was real. Now, I still don't put God in that category as if it will be discovered and verified in the distant future that God has existed from the beginning for the simple reason that God or Being is not an object in reality but the very possibility of reality (thus it is the really Real). 

Its not hedging at all but rather it is acknowledging that because we don't know something exists we simply don't say with certainty that it exists.  There are things that point to it and mathematical formulas that suggest it might exist to some degree, but we don't claim it to be a concrete reality that can be verified as this, this and this.  To say something is real, but unverifiable, does not make it real.

10 hours ago, thormas said:

You don't but others do and thus we have the nasty God. Actually, the biblical authors' view is not pretty clear as even the greatest biblical scholars debate whether, for example, the biblical writer literally believed in Adan & Eve or simply use it to say something about man, woman, mortality, evil and God. Many of the stories of both Testaments were written decades, if not hundreds of years later so they are obviously not history or biography as we moderns define it, they are faith stories. As an example, it is easy to put a prophecy into the mouth of a long dead prophet when you are living and writing after the 'prophesy' has been fulfilled. So, actually, if anything is clear, it leans to the reality that the stories were just that: stories whose truth is not found in a literal reading or else you get where too many people still are today. Even the the battles are religious interpretations: God was 'their' God, they were his people and thus he was with them, behind them, the reason for their victories. Still, I acknowledge that a literal reading has resulted in many problems and they continue to this day.

This is just way off track.  Are you saying some bible authors wrote that God wanted people stoned for certain reasons, but didn't mean it?  Some authors wrote that God gave his 'chosen people' favouritism in defeating enemies and wanted those people to dash children's heads against stones, and take virgins as prisoners?  There are numerous counts of violence attributed to God by the very authors of the bible.  Clearly those authors saw God as capable and desiring of those actions.  It's not about a literal or not reading for many. many of those occurrences, it is simply evidence that this is how those authors understood God at that time.  If you were to debate those people today they would probably tell you that you don't understand God properly (in their opinion).

10 hours ago, thormas said:

I don't think anyone is running from anything (as I have acknowledged this folly previously and again, now) as I am simply saying that many Christians down through the ages have committed the same (reading) mistake and ended up creating god in their image, to justify their actions. Simply they blew it! It should be obvious that the gospels are 4 theological interpretations of the Jesus: not history, not biography but faith stories. I have read a lot of modern biographies and histories and sometimes there is a different emphasis or even disagreements but nothing compares to the Jesus of Mark vs, the Jesus of John: it doesn't even seen like the same guy! History? Biography? Hardly but good news, indeed! Just like with the big bang and the black holes, the reality is there just takes a while to get there and even then we have some who say the earth is 6k years old.

I would suggest you are committing thew very same crime - creating God in your image (i.e. how you wish to believe God to be).  Clearly as I have outlined above, other bible authors saw God differently than you.  This is undeniable.  They may be wrong, but I suspect its more a case of God-interpretations aligning with current societal values and culture.

10 hours ago, thormas said:

The validity of love vs power would not simply be found in the life of the one who loves or holds power but in those who are impacted by these individuals. And you have already acknowledge this reality by adding the caveat, 'in their minds.' But the true test is if their lives have 'given life' to others. And history has given its resounding answer: power does not give or sustain the life of the world: wealthy. powerful slave owners, Kings & Queens, the industrial age giants and on and on. Take Steve Jobs, then look at his daughter. Then take a Gates who has made a contribution and then turned to 'charitable giving' and the difference he and his wife are making. 

Again you miss the point.  It's not how love can affect a majority in a better way than power can but rather that both are valid ways of life for certain individuals.  You can say one is better than the other based on what you perceive as overall benefit to society, but that doesn't take away from the fact that a tyrant may find his way of life far more suitable and enjoyable than one of their subjects who pronounces love is better.

10 hours ago, thormas said:

Power is not an emotion and neither is love simply an emotion. Is emotion involved? Hopefully but love, compassionate concern for the other is a decision and has a power of its own - it is simply not the will to power for self but, rather, a will to empower others. But you know this. There is nothing magical but the spiritual or religious person acknowledges something 'more.'

The desire for power is an emotion.  The same as the desire to love is an emotion.  Both offer reward and recognition to people's senses.  So the desire to have power also has a power of its own, possibly distinctly different to the power of love, however I suspect the two do crossover at points.  Your more is no more than the more of somebody desiring power.  

10 hours ago, thormas said:

It might turn on one's understanding of reality (and I am still open to considering another word). Seemingly, for you, reality is only that which can be seen, as in verified. Others, myself included, think there is more to Reality than meets the eye or that can be verified. 

Reality can also be verified through mathematical and scientific formula, but yes, the most common way of validating something exists is to demonstrate is through one or more of the 5 senses.  Clearly, as you have said, there are people who speak of reality who society says are delusional.  What si that delusion characterisation based on - that it doesn't mean with the majority view of what is real?  So now we decide reality by opinion of the majority?  For me, the delusional psychopath's reality is just as valid as the God believers reality, in that neither can be regarded as reality but can be regarded as opinion.  Like I always say, I couldn't care less what others believe as long as it doesn't harm others.  But they are not free to claim the title reality just because they feel it is real.

10 hours ago, thormas said:

For me an analogy works: most people understand presence (present) as that which is proximate, the more proximate something is (like the clothes you wear or the chair you sit on) the greater the presence. But presence is more than mere proximity; it is about influence or impact on one. So the paradox is that a father, mother, friend or child - long dead and not 'here' (i.e. proximate or present) has greater presence in my life than the clothes I wear, the chair I sit on, the car I drive, etc. He who is not present (in the ordinary sense of the word) is more present (more impactful) in my life that that which is nearby. Actually, such an explanation goes to the proper understanding of 'real presence' in the Catholic understanding of Eucharist. 

So there is the definition of a term and then there is a depth understanding of that term.

There is also misunderstanding of a term, such as I think you are doing now with 'presence'.  Presence is not an entity in its own right but rather a descriptor to relate how that person or thing's 'presence' has impacted/impacts you. That long dead relative doesn't affect you because of their 'presence' but rather they affect you because of how you remember or think of their actions, their words, their body language, their demeanour, etc.  Presence does nothing to validate reality because presence relies on the others interpretation and understanding and belief.  Those things do not necessarily verify reality at all but are simply a product of the individuals brain processes which may or may not verify reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PaulS said:

I could have worded my statement better.  In my mind I was thinking of things that are claimed to exist - they must be verifiable to be allowed to be called reality.  I accept we don't know what we don't know and that there could be things that exist that we do not know about.  But I think where one claims something to exist as a reality, then that claim should be verifiable.  If it is not verifiable, then the thing either a) doesn't exist in reality, or b) it is still a concept, a thought process, perhaps even a potentiality, however as it can not be validated by all common understanding of how we define reality,  I would suggest it is not a reality at that point.


I find "non verifiable claim" to be much more accurate description of such a situation than "not a reality".

 

If you choose not to include anything unverified or unverifiable in your life view, that's a choice in life philosophy, not a matter of objective truth about the reality. I disagree with the said life view, but I can respect it, but I can respect it only if it's stated as a life view and not as the ultimate, undeniable truth about the reality.

Edited by Jack of Spades
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jack of Spades said:


I find "non verifiable claim" to be much more accurate description of such a situation than "not a reality".

 

If you choose not to include anything unverified or unverifiable in your life view, that's a choice in life philosophy, not a matter of objective truth about the reality. I disagree with the said life view, but I can respect it, but I can respect it only if it's stated as a life view and not as the ultimate, undeniable truth about the reality.

Well put.  Also note the tendency to ignore data which does not support preconceptions, to failure to note the omission of data, the ignoring of outliers and the discounting of data by implementing personal standards or outright ad hominem bigotry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jack of Spades said:


I find "non verifiable claim" to be much more accurate description of such a situation than "not a reality".

If you choose not to include anything unverified or unverifiable in your life view, that's a choice in life philosophy, not a matter of objective truth about the reality. I disagree with the said life view, but I can respect it, but I can respect it only if it's stated as a life view and not as the ultimate, undeniable truth about the reality.

Non verifiable claim seems a softer way of saying not reality.  You're saying that if people choose to include in their life view certain things that are unverified or unverifiable, then they are not applying objective truth about reality.  What I am saying is that there is no reality other than that which is supported by objective truth.   Is it reality if it is not objective truth?

That said, I have things in my life view that are not verifiable, but I recognise that and would certainly use your term 'non verifiable claim' as opposed to saying they exist as reality.

Some of the things that were stated earlier which kicked off this thread are certainly non verifiable claims, yet they are posed as statements of fact.  I think facts have to be verifiable, they have to be objective truths that can be verified, otherwise they are as you say simply non verifiable claims, but not reality.  History has shown our tendency to present and abide by many non verifiable claims - some to out benefit, some against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burl said:

Well put.  Also note the tendency to ignore data which does not support preconceptions, to failure to note the omission of data, the ignoring of outliers and the discounting of data by implementing personal standards or outright ad hominem bigotry.

And of course in addition the tendency to read something into data that does not exist or that supports preconceptions, and the presupposition that data omission proves the contrary when in fact it is simply omission.  Outliers should not be ignored but when we are trying to verify something we are looking for evidence of consistency.  Random outliers do not verify a theory or activity.  Let's not forget the very human need of some to always be right either.  That is probably more likely to interfere when forming a view around unverifiable research than bigotry is I would suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PaulS said:

I will watch the video and comment but a brief Google search would suggest this woman's argument is biased as she is already a believer in ESP.  It seems she was one of two experts asked to review the statistical information - she claims it supports ESP, the other scientist said it didn't support any such notion.  I'll provide further info later (bit busy today).

Joseph,

Dr Utts is a keen supporter of ESP and Remote Viewing.  Is she unbiased?  Who knows.  What is known is that before she participated in this work she had co-authored papers with the parapsychologist Edwin May who was the fellow who took over Stargate in 1985 (the CIA-related program referred to at the start of this thread).  So for me it raises an eyebrow that she interprets the research as supportive of remote Viewing when many others said that it didn't.  I don't think she could be regarded as an independent observer, irrespective of her Statistician qualifications.  Her certainty was certainly not certain enough for Congress to consider continuing funding.  I find her explanation a bit implausible - the CIA had better quality spying methods so didn't need remote viewing any more.  Really?

But since then (1995), people such as Dr Utts have had an additional 20+ years on top of the 20 spent in government funded military research and we are still no closer to producing anything remotely useful in relation to remote viewing.  So I can't help but think the reality is that remote viewing doesn't exist.

To your assertion that there is statistical proof that there is something there as demonstrated in the video, I can't agree with you.  What I saw were some unsubstantiated claims which clearly weren't supported by many others involved in the research.  I'm sure Dr Utts believes, but here she is involved in a friendly interview who never once challenges or asks Dr Utts to substantiate a single claim.  Yet we know the research was ceased after 20 years which I think speaks volumes about the validity of the research supporting remote viewing.

The video does remind me of the famous quote attributed to Mark Twain though - "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

For me, you knowing it is real from personal experience simply isn't enough for me.  I'm sure we can all agree that many people have believed things to be real only for that not to be the case and that some other explanation better explains the experience.

But that said, I think we all probably believe things that maybe aren't real.  I have no issue with that and I do and shall enjoy the ride.  But I will debate and have dialogue with others when they state something as a reality without satisfactory evidence of such.  Maybe that's just a hangover from by born-again days when lots of things were said as fact, as truth, as undeniable reality, only for me to eventually work out that much of it was junk.

Cheers

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PaulS said:

Non verifiable claim seems a softer way of saying not reality.  You're saying that if people choose to include in their life view certain things that are unverified or unverifiable, then they are not applying objective truth about reality.  What I am saying is that there is no reality other than that which is supported by objective truth.   Is it reality if it is not objective truth?

That said, I have things in my life view that are not verifiable, but I recognise that and would certainly use your term 'non verifiable claim' as opposed to saying they exist as reality.

Some of the things that were stated earlier which kicked off this thread are certainly non verifiable claims, yet they are posed as statements of fact.  I think facts have to be verifiable, they have to be objective truths that can be verified, otherwise they are as you say simply non verifiable claims, but not reality.  History has shown our tendency to present and abide by many non verifiable claims - some to out benefit, some against.

I think Jack is on to something with his idea of non verifiable reality. After all, we already have touched on realities (big bang, black hole, evolution, etc,) that are real but were  (are) not verified for much of the life of humanity. Thus, these and other non verified things exist; they are indeed real - whether verified or not. 

So too, one can say God Is: God is non verifiable yet it doesn't follow that God is not or that God is not Real. Facts may have to be verifiable (well, then again there is the matter of black holes) but it doesn't follow that all that is real is subject to verification (again, black holes). It is evident that not all Truth is verifiable, not all reality is verifiable. 

To reduce reality or existence to that which is verifiable is to miss most (since, seemingly we are only a very small part of everything) of what actually exists in the universe(s).

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

You're saying that if people choose to include in their life view certain things that are unverified or unverifiable, then they are not applying objective truth about reality.  What I am saying is that there is no reality other than that which is supported by objective truth.   Is it reality if it is not objective truth?

 

Oxford dictionary: Reality - The state of things as they actually exist.

 

What I'm saying is that the objective truth about the reality exists independently of human verification. That is not controversial idea, it's a scientific observation. The reality is not dependent of our verification and true things are just as true or untrue regardless of whether their existence is verified or not. New planets existed in reality before we discovered them etc.

 

With all due respect, I think you are using an appeal to emotion by hijacking the word "reality" to mean only the things which can be verified by humans. That's not the common sense meaning of the word.  Human experience can sometimes be ahead of the scientific knowledge, and in those cases, that particular human experience is more accurate guide to the reality than scientific knowledge is. For a historical example, again, the new continents. The human experience of the people who ended up in those continents described the reality (using the Oxford dictionary's meaning) more accurately than the scientific consensus of the time.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying that the same is necessarily the case with remote viewing etc. but I'm mentioning the possibility that it could be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Burl said:

Well put.  Also note the tendency to ignore data which does not support preconceptions, to failure to note the omission of data, the ignoring of outliers and the discounting of data by implementing personal standards or outright ad hominem bigotry.

 

Well, to be honest, I find all the above to be very minor problems compared to the rampant confirmation bias of today's society. It's almost impossible nowadays to convince anyone of anything based on fact-based arguments because everyone thinks they're the best expert on any topic and there is a false sense of equality when it comes to expertise. For two popular examples, an average Joe can't understand all the nuances of climate science or safety of average vaccination, yet lots of average Joe's have decided that they know better than climate scientists and doctors do. This overblown subjectivism is basically undoing the era of enlightenment in the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

I wrote a response but found it too long and have decided to rework it - so ..........

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jack of Spades said:

 

Well, to be honest, I find all the above to be very minor problems compared to the rampant confirmation bias of today's society. It's almost impossible nowadays to convince anyone of anything based on fact-based arguments because everyone thinks they're the best expert on any topic and there is a false sense of equality when it comes to expertise. For two popular examples, an average Joe can't understand all the nuances of climate science or safety of average vaccination, yet lots of average Joe's have decided that they know better than climate scientists and doctors do. This overblown subjectivism is basically undoing the era of enlightenment in the West.

Belief in anthropogenic global warming Is an excellent example of confirmation bias and the power of Scientism.  We have had several good threads on this in the past.

There is little nuance involved in understanding the AGW fraud.  Hard data going back to the Ordovichian period indisputably proves the only relevant variables affecting climate change are astrophysical and that CO2 levels are irrelevant.  Several prominent physicists and ecologists have explained this very simply in short YouTube clips.  

It's not difficult material, but the public is being deliberately misled by know-nothing celebrities like Bill Nye and Al Gore waving a science banner.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack said:  It's almost impossible nowadays to convince anyone of anything based on fact-based arguments because everyone thinks they're the best expert on any topic and there is a false sense of equality when it comes to expertise. For two popular examples, an average Joe can't understand all the nuances of climate science or safety of average vaccination, yet lots of average Joe's have decided that they know better than climate scientists and doctors do. This overblown subjectivism is basically undoing the era of enlightenment in the West.

One of those average Joes is an average Donald!

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×