My responses to you and Ginkgo will be brief because I am tired and having a bad week. Please consider:
Greylorn Ell wrote:Beginning at age 12 I have had randomly scattered psychic experiences, beginning with telepathy, at which I'm a good transmitter. I'd studied dozens of books on the subject, including the occult, and found that every kind of psychic phenomena fit nicely into the early version of Beon Theory, except precognition. I could not envision a mechanism for it, so decided that it was impossible despite plenty of reports in the literature.
This makes sense, as most people, who have random experiences start to have them at puberty, or when hormones in the body change. People who have consistent psychic experiences, such as aura readers, seem to have the experiences from early childhood along with their first memories. I suspect these people have a 'hard-wired' type of psychic brain, that is not dependent upon chemical changes for the experience.
I'm falling back in love with your mind. Thanks for an excellent post.
I was not aware of the distinction between those who have random psychic experiences, like myself, and those whose experiences are consistent. E.g: my oldest daughter, who claimed to have such experiences from preconsciousness but neglected to share this information with me until in her 20s. Had I trusted her prediction that the Packers would win the 1996 Superbowl, which she made at the start of the season, and driven to Vegas to make a long-odds $10K bet, I'd be rich today. She's been making a living as a psychic healer for quite a while.
I've not encountered this information before and would appreciate a reference. Not because I'm skeptical, but because it is information that I would like to reference in future communications with skeptical others.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Then three days before the Apollo 13 launch I awakened at 5am amid an unusual dream...
1. 1 minute or so into the launch, the central engine inexplicably shut down. Etc...
while the astronauts were on their way to the moon, I learned of the explosion and instantly was required to accept that precognitions were a fact. How I wish I'd shared my dream with the skeptical professors and engineers with whom I worked at the time!
I don't doubt that this happened, but unfortunately other people will. They will say that a dream state is unreliable and non reproducible so it is not valid. It is very difficult to try to get people to give up their biases in order to see something for what it is.
Tell me more about that, for I've never experienced such a thing.
Greylorn Ell wrote:SR predicts that matter cannot exceed the speed of light, because an infinite amount of energy would be required to accelerate matter to "c." However, the theorist hypothesized that "information" might not be similarly limited, and did the math on what would happen to information transmitted faster than "c." It would move backward in time, and thus into into the future!
I was surprised that Science, a journal for the hard science community, published this paper, because the fastest way we have to transmit information is via electromagnetic signals, which move only at "c," light-speed. There is no way to transmit information faster, according to conventional physics.
This is all very interesting, but not something that I can understand. Not a scientist.
You only need a good mind to understand this stuff. A B.S. degree in some bullshit science would only get in your way. A Ph.D would render you incapable of imaginative thought. Why hide your mind beneath the bushel, keeping it safe like the servant in the Parable of the Talents? That your mind is confused, as are the minds of others, by the garbage learned in the process of living in a confused society, is a common experience above which you can rise. The garbage was allegedly a pathway to higher understanding, but in practice was an impediment. You've overcome more of it than most thinkers.
The difference between scientists/technologists and non-whatevers is largely a matter of reading skills. Most people seem to think that one read should be enough for them to grasp a concept. That works if you are reading a newspaper, promotional blurb for some product, or People magazine. It is insufficient for reading serious material, such as a physics or microbiology textbook. I found that after 3-4 reads, I could just begin to get a sense of what a particular chapter was about, and was ready to try my hand at the post-chapter exercises.
Non-scientists stop after a read in which they come away realizing that they did not understand an effing word, much less a concept. The difference between them and those who genuinely seek understanding is that the latter will reread, re-think, and continue until the understanding arrives.
Often, understanding is a matter of presentation, and emotion. I once had a girlfriend who was going through realtor school, stymied by her frustration with the math components. We talked. I learned that she had been bullied and intimidated by a nitwit Algebra I teacher. Yet, the key to her course difficulties was algebra. So I taught her algebra using English instead of algebraic terminology, without telling her that she was learning algebra. She got top score on the "mathematics" part of her course's final exam.
You have chosen to limit yourself by your "not a scientist" statement. Don't do that. You do not need to be a "scientist" to understand these concepts. All you need is a good mind. Do not deny the excellence of your mind.
This is true for others on this forum. Your brain may have been filled from the top of the hypothalamus to the base of the pineal gland with horseshit, but you
your brain. You can evaluate the crap and think for yourself.
Greylorn Ell wrote:I recommend more research on your part before opening a "supernatural" thread. Dean Radin is a fairly good start, but his chapters should be interspersed with repeated viewings of Rupert Sheldrake's Youtube videos.
I don't agree. I do not need to know everything to start a thread on the supernatural, I only need to share what I think and know, then learn from other people. This post that you wrote and I am quoting would be an asset to a thread on the supernatural -- and valued input. The point is to share information.
You are correct. You only need to be slightly smarter than a bag of hammers to start a thread on the supernatural, or anything else. But somehow I got the notion that you would want to start a quality thread, and lead it from a combination of informed knowledge and personal experience.
Gee wrote:The problem that I am having is with energy. I can only type one or two posts per day, and that is on a good day, so I am not sure that I could properly respond to and maintain a new thread.
Prior to the onset of 'Lou Gherig's' disease, Steven Hawking was an ordinarily bright physics student, more interested in rowing boats on the Thames river and getting laid than in Black Hole theory. His illness gave him the choice to focus upon his physical deficiencies or his mental potential.
His choice to focus upon his potential, in the context of physical limitations, forced him to be extremely conscientious about the small amount of information that he could physically deal with. For what its worth, DUAS was written during a period of extreme pain in which I walked with a crutch or a stick and ingested a considerable amount of ethanol by way of pain killer (thus accounting for the negative attitudes and political incorrectness in the book). My ideas are out there ugly, but at least they are out there.
Gee wrote:I watched some of Sheldrake's videos. He is an interesting man.
Yes, but it is his ideas, his thoughts that make him interesting. Once they are presented, does it matter if Sheldrake himself is interesting?
The difference between you and I is that you put emotions at the core of everything. I put ideas at the core. Sheldrake makes a good presentation of some excellent and intriguing ideas. You find the man/presentation interesting. And he is, if only because he has the mind and the balls to speak out as he does. My interest is in his ideas.
Can you describe any of the core concepts that Sheldrake presents? (Without first reviewing his videos?) Do you have a sense of what he means by a "morphogenetic field?" Or are you more concerned with his style of presentation (I'd kill for it), how he dresses, or how he looks? Are emotions, feelings, presentations, etc. more important to you than quality of thought? Seems like.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Why isn't all information from the future transmitted back to the past? It is, but there is a lot of it, and none of it is focused. Obtaining a specific complex pattern of information would be like taking a photograph with a camera that had no lens.
So, what might focus the simultaneous transmission of specific information, ideally from multiple sources at the same moment? You are allowed one and only one guess.
Bonds entangle minds and information, and they work through emotion. If you want to call that Beon, then you can, but I can't.
You blew what I figured would be a no-brainer, for you. Over-thinking, the trademark of the professor that you seem not to want to be, and probably will become, next lifetime. Regrettably. The answer is simply, emotion
I am delighted that you do not call an entanglement of minds and information "beon," because I sure as hell do not.
Greylorn Ell wrote:First you profess not to have a theory of consciousness, then make some statements about the nature of consciousness, that, although confused, represent a serious, faulty, and trivial theory of consciousness.
I do not yet have a theory on consciousness. The statements that you noted were not a theory, they were the terms that I used to define the word, 'consciousness'. I worked hard to determine what basic simple consciousness means, because the word is so horribly abused by philosophy and science.
Defining a term is not creating a theory.
IMO you've written enough about your opinions of the nature of consciousness to have created a theory about it, nevermind that the theory is as inconsistent and as poorly defined as Darwinism or Christianity. I acknowledge that you've not formalized your opinions as a theory, and that's a good thing, because they pretty much suck.
You are clear about the importance of emotions to consciousness, etc., and lots of other stuff which any biographer could encompass as a theory-- one of better quality that most of the belief systems that millions of human beings use to guide their life choices.
I invite you to get your act together, in whatever manner you can manage, and assemble your ideas, opinions, and beliefs into a coherent theory. Get them together, and present them in public. The worst that can happen is that the geniuses on this forum show you that your opinions are mistaken. This is also the best that can happen, for it opens one of two mental spaces, wherein you:
1. Show that your ideas are valid.
2. Abandon your ideas and devise better ones.
What have you to lose?