PaulS

The phenomena of this occurring is known, however I disagree that it is understood. What is not understood, I would suggest, is how the brain does these things. How does the brain develop a negative thought instead of a positive one? How does one brain take a simple negative thought and progress it to a predictable series of continually more anxiety provoking thoughts which rapidly becomes unbearable? When you say it is 'abnormal', what is abnormal? The process of thinking and if so, why? What is the abnormality - chemical, physical wiring, something else? We know it happens but why and what makes it happen is less understood is what I am saying.

How or why does a simple negative thought lead to a predictable series of continually more anxiety provoking thoughts which rapidly becomes unbearable, is more what I am suggesting we do not properly understand of the mind. We know it happens that way, but what makes it happen that way and why? Why should we have to use the trick of identifying and learning every step in the cascade? Tolle seems to suggest this process is not really 'us', whereas I suspect it is us but we just don't understand our brains well enough to understand how it works to produce these issues in the first place.

After reading the first two chapters, that's about where I sit. He is suggesting methods and behaviours that are pretty common in psychological practice such as calming the mind, observing one's thoughts, relaxing in the moment, etc. I see these as practical and useful. I think there is some supportive psychological science to demonstrate that calming the mind, meditating, observing one's thoughts has a beneficial practical application to mental health. And I see similarities in what he is espousing to NLP - neuro linguistic programming. Where I don't see him supporting his argument (at this point) is his concept that we are not the mind, even whilst he wants us to use our mind to separate 'ourselves' from our mind. So I can't help but think this separation from mind/ego is just a mental construct he is using his mind to develop. Clearly our minds do run away with all sorts of feelings, emotions and thoughts that we feel not in control of, but I suspect that we simply don't understand how the mind works well enough to understand how that occurs. For me, some bold statements such as 'there is clearly an intelligence at work that is far greater than the mind' needs a bit more support - maybe he'll try to provide some later. In Chapter 2 he seems to make a big deal about how we measure time and suggests time wouldn't exist if it wasn't for us. This sounds a bit gobbledy gook for me - time exists whether we're here or not. Whether the animals or trees think about time is another matter, but I'm pretty confident that even if we weren't here time will still exist, it just might not be measured the way we do. Yet even the animals seem to have a concept of time - they know when it is time to migrate, they know where they have found water in food in the past and so they return to it. Time still occurs whether we measure it or not. A past, present and future always exists in physicality, but I don't think so in consciousness (i.e. if you're not born yet or if you have died). His concept of NOW being the only time we have doesn't make sense to me either. We have a past which we call on to make decisions about what we may do in the future. We call on that experience every day to survive. I agree that silencing the mind and focusing on the now can be beneficial, but if that's all we did we wouldn't survive. So I'm not sure how he can have it both ways - say that NOW is all we have but then rely on the past to experience our future.

I can't recall if you or anyone for that matter specifically used the word fact but rather I am referring to the intent that several posts in this thread (maybe you, maybe others, i can't remember each one and the detail) supported the notion that Remote Viewing was a reality and was adequately proved to be so. Clearly I disagree with that. That was the only point I was trying to make about RV. That said, if anybody can remotely view where my wife mislaid a gold nugget we were given years ago, I will change my mind in an instant. It's worth about $5k and she stored it in an old handbag in the cupboard which we think she later either threw away or donated to a charity bin some time ago!). Bugger.

And I respect your views, opinions and beliefs. My whole point has only been that I don't think we can say something is fact without proving it. It may be very real to the individual, but how we use our language is important if we want to try and communicate clearly and I don't think we can change the meaning of words simply because we want to - i.e. we believe/feel strongly that something is true so we call it fact/reality/actually in existence, without being able to verify it as we commonly understand the meaning of verification and proof to be.

Scientific observation certainly does leave room for something existing that we do not know about, but it does not allow for claims of existence without verification. I don't know any scientific observation method or theory that says something exists without verification. I'm not an English professor, but I suspect the word reality does actual mean something that exists and is actually verifiable. When people make outlandish claims we easily dismiss them as not reality if they cannot be substantiated. I don't know if you can determine the root for the word reality, but it does seem to mean something physical, a thing. To be clear also, if I am misusing the word reality, it is only because I am trying to draw a line between what we can verify and prove as existing as opposed to what we can claim to exist but cannot verify or prove existence of. If it can't be proven/verified then I am saying one can't state as a fact that it exists (whatever 'it' may be). As much as one may believe it or feel in their bones that it is true, commonly speaking we usually leave room for doubt or argument around that thing precisely because we cannot verify/prove it. I think that is a fair representation of how we view the world and how we communicate with one another.

This is all I can find concerning what 'the skeptic' had to say regarding the 'proof''. Do you happen to have any better source material? I can only find either ESP supportive websites that repeat comments like yours, or skeptic websites that play down any such claim. Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper: In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected. Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow. She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established."The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments." Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists. Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing. He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. "If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me. "But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence. "Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence." As to your comment "Therefor how can one call something not reality just because it has not yet been verified to the satisfaction of others?". I can't help but think your claim is a bit like Burl's concerning climate change. The overwhelming bulk of the scientific community disagree with you both, but still you hold true to your opinions because you believe them to be true. For me personally, that is not enough.

I'd go with non verifiable reality when it comes to things we don't know, but my point concerns positive claims made about something existing, but then not being able to demonstrate it exists, not even with a scientific theory than has some credibility. All of those things you mention (black holes, evolution, big bang) are acknowledged as not fully understood but scientific justification is provided for what we think we know about them. If I said to you that I know that pink unicorn poo is rainbow coloured, well as you can't disprove that then it must be reality going by how you seem to justify the determination of reality. I do think that generally people would not accept my belief based on lack of evidence. But you seem to believe that if enough people believed it over a period of time, then it must be true, it just can't be verified. Facts DO have to be verifiable, otherwise they are not facts as described by the English language. Black holes are not 'facts' per se as the science is not complete about them. There is much evidence there to suggest what and how they are, but it is still being worked through. So the fact is we think we have black holes and why, but we are still trying to understand it. There is some mathematical evidence to suggest what and why they are - not just a personal feeling. I simply disagree that It is evident that not all Truth is verifiable, not all reality is verifiable as you are giving new meanings to existing words to suit your purposes. I don't know how you jump to "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)". I mean, do you feel you are missing out on the pink unicorn experience?

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

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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 ).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.