Evolution and paranormal things

Wish I had an answer for that.

The likeliest answer given our current state of knowledge is that the phenomena does not exist.These are the same criteria that need to be met in issues such as ESP. Science itself does not state that such things do not occur but rather there is no good evidence to support such a claim

That statement might have sounded reasonable 15 years ago. Today in light of Rupert Sheldrakes studies, it simply does not.http://www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/Sheldrake uses good experimental design and absolutely ordinary statistical methodology. The odds of the parrot coming up with good answers by chance in the test described are beyond astronomical.Moreover, the Nkisi story is one of a number of such tests in which statistical methods show paranormal phenomena to exist to a virtual certainty.

Interpreting it in a brain would seem to be the major challenge, and I still don't understand why you don't think this kid could have picked up something from TV or a movie.

It's possible, but I'd rate it hellishly unlikely. The thing about the tires on the F4s is something I'd not heard or read before and I've seen and read a hell of a lot about WW-II including pretty much every sort of Victory at Sea and Crusade in the Pacific episode which talk about carrier warfare as well as a couple of documentaries which talk about the F4 and F6 specifically. I'd almost figure you'd have to have been there to know that.

There's nothing of the paranormal in Jaynes' work; such claims are your own, and in fact you're at pains to discredit his views on your own site. Jaynes used the fact that stimulation of the right-brain analogue to Wernicke's area produces auditory hallucinations in most people; he did not claim that in what he called the bicameral mind these were anything other than hallucinatory.

In a couple of places he either did or came within a micron of doing so.Julian Jaynes wrote of the oracle at Delphi:

The replies to questions were given at once, without any reflection,
and uninterruptedly. The exact manner of her announcements
is still debated, whether she was seated on a tripod,
regarded as Apollo's ritual seat, or simply stood at an entrance
to a cave. But the archaic references to her, from the fifth century
on, all agree with the statement of Heraclitus that she spoke
"from her frenzied mouth and with various contortions of her
body." She was entheos, plena deo. Speaking through his priestess,
but always in the first person, answering king or freeman,
'Apollo' commanded sites for new colonies (as he did for presentday
Istanbul), decreed which nations were fiiends, which rulers
best, which laws to enact, the causes of plagues or famines, the
best trade routes, which of the proliferation of new cults, or
music, or art should be recognized as agreeable to Apollo - all
decided by these girls with their frenzied mouths.

​

Truly, this is astonishing! We have known of the Delphic
Oracle so long from school texts that we coat it over with a
shrugging usualness when we should not. How is it conceivable
that simple rural girls could be trained to put themselves into a
psychological state such that they could make decisions at once
that ruled the world?

​

The obdurate rationalist simply scoffs plena deo indeed! Just
as the mediums of our own times have always been exposed as
frauds, so these so-called oracles were really performances
manipulated by others in front of an illiterate peasantry for
political or monetary ends.

​

[b][i]But such a realpolitik attitude is doctrinaire at best. Possibly there was some chicanery in the oracle's last days, perhaps some bribery of the prophetes, those subsidiary priests or priestesses who interpreted what the oracle meant. But earlier, to sustain so massive a fraud for an entire millennium through the most brilliant intellectual civilization the world had yet known is impossible, just impossible. Nor can it gibe with the complete absence of criticism of the oracle until the Roman period. Nor with the politically wise and often cynical Plato reverently calling Delphi "the interpreter of religion to all mankind."[b][/i]

Here, Jaynes stops just about a micron short of the real $64,000 question:

[b][i]How could anybody sustain so massive an institution for an entire millennium through the most brilliant intellectual civilization the world had yet known, [b][/i]

OTHER THAN WITH REAL INFORMATION?

In recorded history, the longest any one one government has lasted is probably the Byzantine empire, which lasted about a thousand years. The Christian church has lasted twice that long, primarily because the basic message which Christ taught is correct, and rings true in the hearts of men.I wish I could tell anybody I had much of a history of being a Christian. I have finally arrived at Christianity via the servant's entrance and a sort of a process of elimination more or less, in other words, Christianity at long last appears to be one of those things like democracy which look increasingly better as you examine the possible alternatives. The alternatives appear to me to include Islam which I've no use for under any circumstances, Budhism which does not really answer many questions and has limited appeal outside of the orient, Judaeism which is a sort of a rich man's version which I can't afford, and the theory of evolution and doctrines based on it such as communism, naziism, and secular humanism, whatever that's supposed to mean.The biggest hangup I used to have with Christianity was purely practical in that the idea of turning the other cheek did not seem conducive to survival where I was growing up and that was amplified by exposure to evolutionary ideas which made sense to me at first, along with the general paradigm of life as a constant struggle, and two of the best philosophers and writers I encountered early on, i.e. Nietzsche and Robert E. Howard, both viewed barbarism as man's natural state and anything else as a temporary abberation.It is that part of it which I no longer believe, and the basic reality is that Nietzche's starting assumptions were simply wrong; there is nothing at all wrong with Nietzsche's logic. Richard Heinberg's "Paradise" and Julian Jayne's "Origins of Consciousness" both cast major doubt upon the idea of man's original state and nature being savage or barbarous; a careful study of very ancient history refutes it.

>But it's unsupportable to use Jaynes as "partial proof" of telepathy. That stands him on his ear.That may seem obvious to YOU; it doesn't to me.