Are thoughts transcendant?

Nator I found your posts fascinating, though they're going to take a while to reply to, and it's going to require wandering off topic in places. I will try to be succinct. First I would simply like to thank you for making me think. It's quite possible that I will leave this discussion with some changes in my views. I am perhaps too quick to believe, too slow to question at times. That does not mean, however, that I believe everything I have mentioned here can be invalidated.Maybe I should start by clarifying my own stance. I don't like using the "P" word (paranormal) myself because of all its wacky connotations. I do not believe there are supernatural explanations for the following: alien "abductions", UFO sightings, crop circles, the Bermuda Triangle, cryptozoology, and many others. I believe that people experience things that they don't understand, or misinterpret, and conclude that they've witnessed a paranormal event. I believe that people's expectations and pre-existing beliefs can determine what they think they see. And then yes, sometimes there is outright forgery or fraud. My interest in anything paranormal would be voided if I weren't willing to do my best to consider all possible explanations -- to use Occam's razor, as you mentioned. I also think that there is a scientific explanation to be found for many events that are currently a mystery to us.You said: When you say "tested properly," I assume you mean in a laboratory or similar controlled environment, with independent witnesses. I wouldn't presume to argue that this is a tried and true scientific method to use. But let me again mention one topic I know a little about: poltergeist phenomena. How do you "test it properly?" Some good research exists that was conducted by people with some scientific knowledge and backgrounds -- the Enfield case, for instance. Because the research was conducted at the house, does that invalidate it? No one seems to have thought of dragging the focus of the activity off to a lab to run tests. By the way, when I mention a poltergeist, I'm talking about the documented phenomena; I make no assumptions about what actually causes it.You asked me to start a thread. I'm happy to discuss the Enfield case there, as well as what happened to my husband's family in years past. That the events happened, is fact. What causes them, no one really knows. This is what I was thinking when I said that scientists don't want to research these things and fear losing their reputations. I've participated myself in attempts over the years to take a scientific approach to investigating the phenomena. I just really want to know what's causing it. I would also like to know what's going on with a longtime friend who claims to be a psychic. She believes it herself. She says she can see things that I can't and she claims to be in touch with spirits. I've seen her do channelling in front of me. I suspect that what she believes is happening may not actually be what is in truth occurring, and there may be nothing spiritual or supernatural about it. But something's happening there, in her own mind if nothing else. I'm curious and I want to understand.Do I need to go propose this in the New Topics thread then? Where is it going to go on a creation vs. evolution forum?I'd like to learn a bit more about James Randi. I have no problem with him investigating paranormal claims. Many of them are no doubt scams to part the gullible with their money. I would also be inclined to take him with a grain of salt though; he has an obvious agenda. At one point in the Enfield poltergeist case a magician came in to try to do a similar debunking job, and it ended up being a bit of a fiasco, as I'll be happy to explain in another thread.OK, Quackwatch. I'd be careful about seeing this as a beacon of knowledge in the face of the superstition and psudoscience of alternative medicine. No doubt he's picked up on a few genuine frauds. But Mr. Barrett also has an agenda, and I hope you will not accuse me of an ad hominem attack because I think this info is very relevant to the content of his site and its ideology. He has made a lot of money from the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, and has close ties to them still. Also he was de-licensed in the 1990s, and is not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he failed the certification exam. He has also been forced to concede in a court case that he has ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA). These are all organisations with an interest in promoting allopathic (mainstream Western) medicine -- a gravy train which makes them a lot of money -- over alternative medicine, which promotes things like vitamins and herbs that don't have a patent.Surfing through Quackwatch is a bit like strolling through Answers in Genesis at times. One is bad science, the other is bad medicine. Barrett can parrot the mainstream position on things but is very quick to condemn other ideas, some of which have growing support within the medical community. He also has people like Peter Breggin and Linus Pauling on his "avoid" list. These are/were not practitioners of alternative medicine, but they are people who have challenged the establishment that Barrett is a voice for. Breggin is a psychiatrist who is critical of the biological approach which favours psychotropic drugs; Pauling won a Nobel Prize for his research on the uses of vitamin C. Barret's attempts to discredit him are laughable. I could go into more detail on any of these things but it would have to be in another topic, maybe the one that Molbiogirl linked to.I feel I need to add, though, that alternative medicine has helped me to heal from damage caused by medicine that my mainstream doctor gave me. What do I mean by alternative medicine in my case? Diet, nutritonal supplements, herbs, and Bach Flower remedies. I could cite a lot of personal evidence for all of these things having a noticeable healing effect on me. Don't knock it til you've tried it, all right? Just what does allopathic medicine heal with anything other than antibiotics? And if you don't consider diet and vitamins to be alternative medicine, when was the last time you went to your doctor and he/she asked you what you were eating and whether you were taking any nutritional supplements? By the way, this regime was prescribed for me by a naturopath who is also an MD.Moving on, you said: According to your definition, I really am a true agnostic. Deep down I feel "We don't know." If something is currently not explicable by science, it interests me because we don't know. We also don't know if there truly is a transcendent or a divine. You might say that you won't buy it until it can be empirically proved. I say we don't know, and so we need to study and learn and try to find out what we can.I'm curious though. Let's say a day comes when we think that science has explained everything. No one can believe in the supernatural, or anything religious, with any validity. Where does that leave us? I was very interested in reading that link you gave to P. Kurtz. He said that when he finally let go of his hopes that he'd be able to scientifically prove paranormal phenomena, he had to face the reality that we are simply creatures of physicality, here on earth evolving, and that's that. Nothing to hang on to. I know what that feels like because I was facing it, too, when I stopped being Catholic. I still am feeling it, to an extent. Religion feeds a hunger, and satisfies in a way that cold rational atheism does not. I'm not making an argument here for people to get religious. What I would say is that spirituality and religion seem to have been part of our evolution. Even Neanderthals buried their dead. Presumably there's a thread here that discusses the evolution of religion and what purpose it may have served. Perhaps we can now decide that we want to move on from that, that we are wiser now. But what does that do to us exactly? Weren't we "meant," by virtue of who we are, to have some form of spirituality in our lives? Maybe this answers your question of why people seem to want to "ascribe magical properties" to things. Again, I'm not saying we ought to. But maybe there's some genuine spirituality to be found in life, and maybe our brains are actually programmed to need it.You maintain that we "do know a great deal about the brain." I don't think I'm qualified to dispute that further, other than to say that some people seem to think we know more than we actually do. I am not an expert obviously, but I would hazard a guess and say that we're pretty boggled still as to how synapses firing, and areas of the brain being more active than others, translate into consciousness, thoughts, or selfhood. About all we can say regarding religiously devout nuns in prayer is that certain areas of the brain are very active. More please? The way I feel. You've forced me to admit to myself, as well as you, that I'm not 100% certain that the explanation for what I feel is chi. What I do actually feel, is there as a fact. Interpretation is always open to question. I like to believe that it is chi and that makes sense to me. It could be something else. I don't know what. I do feel in my bones that all life is connected on some fundamental level. Why not call it chi? That doesn't mean I believe in a chi master being able to knock a row of students down with one hand or anything. It's my way of trying to understand what I am experiencing personally, and what other people have told me they experience. I find it hard to imagine how this sort of thing could be empirically tested in a lab though I'd be interested in seeing it attempted.Interesting opinion of Jung there. I think his ideas about the collective unconscious are fascinating. I think synchronicity is interesting too, though it's been hijacked by a lot of wacky people, including the Celestine Prophecy movement (that book was a waste of my money if there ever was one; someone had recommended it to me). Again, you seem to want quantifiable empirical evidence. Certain areas of psychology seem to elude this though, and perhaps operate more along the lines of philosophy than science. How do you quantify or test the idea of collective unconscious? How do you get "results" on synchronicity in a lab when by definition it includes unexpected events happening at unexpected times? I'm not claiming that these things are supernatural in origin mind you; only that I believe they are plausible phenomena.(wipes forehead) Sorry about the long post but there seem to be a lot of points under discussion. If we reach some kind of resolution here I'll be happy to try joining or opening some other threads. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

LindaLou, I hope you don't let Molbiogirl's love for sarcasm and herrather condescending tone put you off too much.You've been really decent since your arrival and I don't think you deserve that.

Might I suggest Synapse 1991 Jan 7(1):44-91?It's entitled: Where is the self? A neuroanatomical theory of consciousness.Or perhaps Seminars in the Neurosciences, 1990, V. 12: Towards a neurobiological theory of consciousness.In fact, scholar.googling "synapse" and "consciousness" reveals over 5300 papers on this very subject!

Whew, thanks guys. I'm having heavy discussions on a couple of forums and my eyes are just about falling out from all the computer time. I'm making a list of links that people here have suggested I look at, so I will add "Google 'synapse' and 'consciousness'" to it. I am learning about Buddhism and I like its philosophy of consciousness, but I am also interested in learning about it at a scientific level -- well, as much as I can, given that I don't have a scientific background and am unlikely to make much of academic papers.You've beaten me to the Poltergeist topic so I'll get over there next. Keep in mind that while I am 100% convinced that these phenomena actually happen, I don't pretend to understand how. Personally I lean toward the possibility that it is caused somehow by a person, and that opens all sorts of intriguing possibilities of what the brain might be capable of.I can't say I had intended to discuss these things when I first came here. Initially I was trying to learn about science relating to evolution because I found myself as the lone voice trying to debunk creationist claims on another forum. Then I decided to stick around and find someplace to talk. Well it's interesting, I have to say, though I wish I had the scientific expertise of some others here and could more actively debate in those topics. Guess I'll stick with poltergeists for now

I think you will find that the electrochemical behaviour of nerves are pretty well understood in terms of ion pumps and the like. Any A level biology book could fill you in pretty quickly. It's certainly true that negative cognition leads to negative affect; but what you imply here is nothing short of magical thinking. This is evidence of coincidence: you have to remeber the millions of times people think or dream about loved ones and absolutly nothing happens. If telepathy were true it would work: it has never been shown to work, ever. Untill you can provide evidence the answer is a big fat no.If you can provide evidence I suggest you get on the 'phone to James Randi and claim you 1,000,000 prize.Self conscious thought appears to be an excellent survival mechanism. Why paint it magic?

You would have to learn to discriminate colours in a meaningfull way, just like blind from birth people who have their sight restored have to learn how to integrate their new found perceptual system.

Read any thing by Aaron T. Beck and you would see that's exactly what's found and is the basis for CBT.ABE: Nator I have been replying to posts in sequence and found that I seem to be echoing you quite accurately. From this I conclude that we must have some psychic connection. Shall we go to Mr Randi and claim our prize?Edited by Larni, : No reason given.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Jung (like Freud) pulled many non sensical theories out of his arse. None are based on evidence based research.

Ah, another skeptic. I've been in quite a few conversations since I last wrote in this topic and I think I probably would change some of the things I said here. I do believe that positive and negative thinking have a big impact on a person's life. I entertain the possibility of synchronicity, which I believe involves getting in touch with the life force, the chi, or whatever it is that permeates the universe and connects all life. This may sound like mumbo-jumbo to you, but I will say at least that I do think the Law of Attraction is a bunch of nonsense dreamed up to get money out of people, and to give some form of validation to those who are rich. ("See, it's because I really do deserve it!!")I accept that maybe I'm generalising about energy and the nervous system without knowing what I'm talking about. Well actually . . . yes I am. I wasn't aware of the knowledge that exists. Do you know of any sources I might look into that take a layperson's approach to the subject? I would be interested.You said: I don't know that it necessarily is. And it will be less and less mysterious, the more we learn about the body and brain.In the Poltergeist thread, Nator picked out something I said and held it up as a reason for why I'm even interested in the topic in the first place, when science has little to say about it. I said "These things make life interesting." Why do I not want to take a 100% skeptical approach to everything in my life? Because I don't think rigorous skepticism can appropriately be applied to everything in life. I feel that certain forms of evidence that skepticism rejects, like personal testimony, can be valid sometimes.I also just have a very deep need to believe that there's more to life than what we see. That is probably what interests me in the transcendent in the first place, and in spirituality. If I took the attitude, "I won't believe it until proof exists," I would find life to be cold and empty. Every fibre of my being says no, there's more to life than that. I listen to that voice. I believe it's right. I have no proof of course, but sometimes I think that's OK.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

LindaLou This is not the case at all. All that occurs is when you view in negative terms you pay attention to negative things and the same is true of positive terms.
How you feel is a result your of outlook and not a function of how the world is. The world is neutral and we color the world in the way we do by choosing to look at it in terms of negative or positive.
Like the old adage of the glass that is half empty or half full dependent on how you view it what is missed is that the view is in reality exactly the same amount of water in both cases.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

---

Seriously, an A level human biology text book is more than adequate to give you the bare bones of all things neurological.The thing is the more you learn the more you listen to what people come out with and say "that's obviously crap". This need distorts your perceptions. This is where bias creeps in. We can't be intellectually honest unless we control for bias and ones learns all about it in statical reasoning.Layperson logic is almost always burdened with unseen bias as we draw conclusions based on what we feel is right. This is hardly ever an accurate way to draw conclusions.Would you say "I feel this man is guilty of murder?". No, you would do your best to examine evidence in a systematic way and reject what you feel in favour of the balance of evidence. Again, would you use this logic if it was in a court of law?Is it ok now?

Next time I'm in a school, I'll see if I can find a biology textbook to borrow. I'm on a course right now, not currently teaching."The need to believe" applies, in my case, to spirituality. I would be perpetually depressed if I thought that all there is to the world, is what we perceive. I love learning new things about physical reality, but I need the spiritual as well. But even there I do try to apply some skepticism. I stopped being a Catholic when I learned about other religions, and that the Bible is a historical work by a past culture and not the holy book of God that I'd been taught. I now consider myself an agnostic.Skepticism is needed in a court of law. It is needed in any scientific or logical discipline. I feel that to apply it across the board in one's life, however, means that you stand to miss out on some otherwise unobtainable truths.Are there not evolutionists here who are also theists? What do they say about applying skepticism?

Why is that? What is there in the world that we cannnot percieve? Do you imply that you would rather adopt a feel good conclusion that is wrong rather than an unpleasent conclusion that is correct.I used to believe that climate change was not true; it reduced my anxiety to believe so. There came a point however when the evidence I examined rendered my belief irrelevent.Reality has no recognition of what we believe and the only thing that can really challenge what we believe is hard evidence.A really good book to read on this is 'The Demon Haunted World' by the late great Carl Sagan. Yup. I think Jar is a good example on the boards.

Maybe you're not perceiving enough. I assure you that there's more out there in this universe than you're perceiving, if you're saying that it's not enough for you.Look out the window at your lawn. If you can envision a cube, one meter on each side, and imagine this cube sunk halfway into your lawn so that half of the cube was full of soil, imagine then that you were to take everything currently located in that cube and teleport it into a laboratory.You could spend a hundred lifetimes studying everything that was going on in that cube. Potentially millions of individual organisms, each with countless chemical life processes occurring every instant. Predator-prey interactions. Reproduction and population genetics.And that's just the biology. The chemistry that was occurring in that cube could keep a university busy for a century. The geology of the soil in that cube could take a generation to study in depth.And can you imagine how much more there would be to discover if, wonder of wonders, a squirrel had managed to be trapped within that cube's volume?I can think of nothing more meaningful than a life spent plumbing the mysteries of that cube. And how much more meaningful that knowledge - that struggle - would be, for it being hard. It's not easy to follow the strictures of rigorous scientific inquiry. Certainly nowhere as easy as spirituality or theology, which simply require an indolent fascination with one's own fantasies.So for someone to say that they would be disappointed if "this was all there is", is to be simultaneously ignorant and arrogant in my eyes. People only say that when they have no idea of what is going on around them at every second. When you truly get an idea of the complexity of the operation of the universe at literally every level, it's incomprehensible to me that someone would shrug and say "well, it's just not enough."Not enough? The whole universe is not enough for you? Is it possible, maybe, that you say that because you don't know what's going on around you?

I would imagine that the brain itself is very mortal. The evidence that we have concerning thoughts of others being transcendent is the writing and speaking that they have left behind.