WingMakers Forum
Visit SUMBOLA - The Social Reading Platform
Publishers, Authors, Readers, and Talent wanted.


All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 713 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 29  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Science of the Soul
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:26 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 250
This thread is intended for everyone who takes seriously the idea that there can be a scientific investigation of the soul.

Can we make a systematic analysis of the relevant material at the [url=http://www.wingmakers.com]Wingmakers[/url] and [url=http://www.lyricus.org/]Lyricus[/url] websites?

For example, can we come to understand exactly how the science of genetics is important for our understanding of the soul?

-John Schmidt


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:46 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 YIM  Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 5:53 am
Posts: 994
Location: The Right side of Lemuria
Do you have answers to your questions?

_________________
http://rick-says.livejournal.com/ <----Blog, Poetry, etc.


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:00 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 250
[quote]
Do you have answers to your questions?
[/quote]

Finding the answers to my questions depends on the social interactions of a group of people. A scientific investigation of any topic is not a trivial exercise. If there is not a core group of investigators who are willing to devote some thought and effort to the investigation, there will be no progress and no answers.

-John Schmidt


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:15 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:47 am
Posts: 541
Location: NE Georgia
Memenen..., a short while ago someone mentioned to me that your thread was one of the 'best ones going'..! My loss that I did not follow it more diligently. I have a sneaky suspicion that I would not have added to it in an appropriately intelligent manner. Twas the forum's loss that it went poof. But who knew a tsunami was about to hit and the thread could have been 'saved'..?? But in perspective terms.., it is a minor matter when compared to the 'reality' of the Asian Tsunami. And this is where this thread and ''3D'' pose a little problem for me. At what 'level' is 'soulism' felt and understood..? 'Science of the soul' leaves me 'sighing'.

Having read the "God Code''..., that is as close as I have come to any interest in the 'scientific' aspects of the 'soul'. When one speaks of 'genetics' and the 'Genome Project'.., it is 'relative' only to the 'matter' and 'materiality' of this universal plane construct. It's one thing to believe that there are many many others..., and I personally have no trouble believing that.., my trouble is the 'actuality of experience'. That's right.., I 'swim' in the water.., don't walk on it. I use 'doors' to go through walls.., and as far as I can see.., I don't 'glow' in the dark. I'm OK with that..!

But I'll never be one to say that someone else can't or isn't..! You know Memenem..., I am amazed at the progress that 'science' is making.., in all areas. In fact..., a while ago before you 'came on board'.., I transcribed a few pages from Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons''.., the one he wrote before the ''DaVinci Code''. It was an impassioned speech from the Pope's Secretary about how the 'church' gave up.., realizing it couldn't 'compete' with the ''Gods of Science''. It had rendered 'faith' untenable. It touched me deeply and was why I shared it. Relax..., I'm not gonna go all 'kooky' on ya..., but there is something I believe to the ''if you have but the faith of a mustard seed...'' kind of a thing. Before Gregg Braden wrote the ''God Code''.., he wrote the "Isaiah Effect''. Long and short of it..., the 'power of prayer'..., especially in instances of 'group' focus/intent. There is 'evidence' of an 'effect'. The "Holographic Universe'' is another book that relates many 'paranormal' experiences. Many 'clinical' psychologists are doing hypnotic 'regressions' and ''past lives'' are 'emerging' from the
'subconscious'.., or is that the 'unconscious'..? Is it that the 'unconscious' is our spiritual 'heritage'.., or 'connection'..?

So we move away from the physical 'brain'.., which to me is the 'hard science'.., the stuff that can be 'measured'.., and into the realm of the 'mind'. How does one 'quantify and qualify' something that doesn't exist..? In a 'physical' plane. I've read so much ''woo-woo'' over the past years that I'm not so sure of which pot to ''doo-doo'' in..! "Flip-flop'' the thought.., and what one gets is that it is ''all in the mind''..! I understand the 'triumverate' of our Sovereignty.., well to the best of my abilities.., and the 'physical/emotional/mental' aspects or 'bodies'. ''Terminology''.., aaarrrggghhh...!

Hahaha.., it can be said that it is all a 'mind game'. Out of the 'mind' of God came we. A ''God Thot''..! Our to go WMM, 'we' are but a 'thought-of-a-thought'..., (of a thought-of-a-thought-of-a-thought). And here we are..., dreaming in and of a dream..! I am of the belief..., when all is said and done.., that whenever the 'time' comes for the arrival of the Grand Portal.., which to me is the ''Christ Consciousness'' of 'actualized' and 'realized' ''reality''.., we will find that we.., as a 'mind'.., are our 'soul'..! It would make sense..., as it is our 'mind'.., that either 'creates' or 'responds' to a 'thought'.., and does appear to be the 'connection' to Source/Creation.

Anyway.., just some 'thoughts' to maybe help 'stir the soup' a little. I dunno. Like I said earlier.., it is unfortunate that I missed which direction the other thread was heading. My apologies if I've taken a 'wrong' turn here. I'm not really the one for 'scientific'.., ''just the facts, maam''..! Shoot me.

You did say something to 'Rick' that caught my eye though..., and could be other 'folder fodder'.., but you said.., [b]''Finding the answers to my questions depends on the social interactions of a group of people''[/b]..! Personally.., for me.., watching the 'social interactions' of a group of people causes me to scratch my own head. Any 'answer'..., just like "Heaven''.., is in our own 'mind'.

Ahh..., not to change the subject too much (TD is right.., I am one that tends to 'tangentialize') but do you.., or anyone.., remember Steve Winwood and ''Traffic''..? Again.., 'kudos' to a British Band. But........,

[u]Heaven is in Your Mind[/u]

''You ride on the swing in and out of the bars
Capturing moments of life in a jar.
Playing with children, acting as stars
Guiding your visions to heaven and heaven is in your mind
Take extra care not to lose what you feel
The apple you're eating, is simple and real
Water the flowers that grow at your heels
guiding your visions to heaven.., and heaven is in your mind.''


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:47 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 250
[quote]
Having read the "God Code''..., that is as close as I have come to any interest in the 'scientific' aspects of the 'soul'.
[/quote]

I never read the "God Code". I found this online by Eric P. Wilbanks [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1401902995]at Amazon.com[/url]:

[quote]
1. The ancient Hebrew name for God (YHVH) has three distinct letters, each of which can supposedly be ascribed a "hidden" numerical value.

2. Human DNA also has three distinct elements (a fourth is mentioned later); Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Oxygen, each of which can be given a numerical value based on it's atomic mass.

3. The atomic mass of the three elements (1, 5, and 6 respectively) corresponds directly to the numeric values of YVH as 1, 5, and 6.

The conclusion is that God's Sacred Name is written into the DNA of every human.

According to The God Code, the numerical value for Y is 10, not 1. The Hebrew letter "aleph" carries the value of "1" according to Mr Braden. Therefore, two of the three foundational assumptions for the God Code are wrong.[/quote]

What do you think, moonz?


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:11 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 250
[quote]
When one speaks of 'genetics' and the 'Genome Project'.., it is 'relative' only to the 'matter' and 'materiality' of this universal plane construct.
[/quote]

The "science of the soul" thread in the old forum had identified

[b]the distinction we make between a material world of matter and a nonmaterial world of spirit/soul/mind[/b]

as a central issue confronting anyone who seeks to create a science of the soul.

We previously explored several ideas related to the task of finding a way for science to deal with the world of spirit/soul/mind.

1. Maybe "spirit" is a physical thing that science is about to understand. This new scientific understanding might be like the discovery of neutrinos.....physicists recognizing the existence of something that was previously impossible to detect. Then neutrino detectors were invented and science could deal with neutrinos.

2. Maybe human brains are already a type of "spirit" detection device. Maybe what science can do is invent a prosthetic device that can amplify the existing human capacity for "spirit" detection. This would be like building a telescope that suddenly lets you see that Jupter has moons.

3. If we are going to be scientific, we also have to explore the possibility that our concepts of soul/mind/spirit are simply WRONG. Maybe our traditional views of soul are in error. Maybe the idea the soul is nonmaterial is simply wrong. Maybe the material of the human brain fully accounts for the human mind. Maybe thoughts generated by the brain simply allow us to imagine nonmaterial things, while in reality there are NO nonmaterial entities. If so, can we scientifically understand how a material brain can create the illusion of the existence of nonmaterial souls?

Such questions are the starting points for science. If we have good questions, then we can start looking for ways to get the answers. For the soul, I think that too many people decide either that they know the answers already or that the answers cannot be obtained by rational objective study. The Lyricua Teaching suggests that we can (and we MUST) assume that there is a scientific understanding of the soul that we can obtain.

-John Schmidt


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:31 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 250
[quote]
it is unfortunate that I missed which direction the other thread was heading. My apologies if I've taken a 'wrong' turn here.
[/quote]

I'm not sure that there really can be a science of the soul. We have many questions and few answers. What is needed is a desire to ask good questions. I think many people fear that the answers might not "turn out right" so they do not even try to ask the questions that can be asked.

I'm not sure that anyone can say which are the "right turns" and which are the "wrong turns". What we need are people with open minds who are willing to look in every direction. Once we look around and see what there is to see, then we will be able to start tring to decide what is wrong.

One conclusion that was reached in the old thread was that a major source of data for the "science of the soul" is personal experience. People have experiences that they interpret as providing evidence about the nature of the soul. We need to cooperate and report on such experiences. We need to share our experiences and discuss how it is that we build our conceptualizations of soul from our experiences. This fundamental aspect of a science of the soul is a place where everyone can participate. Humans need no special "scientific training" in order to have experiences that lead to belief in the soul.

After we start sharing our experiences and soul concepts, we can go on to the next level of analysis of the soul. We can compare the experiences and soul concepts of different people and look for a common thread. If we find that there is a common thread, then we can ask to what extent our common human genetic makeup leads us to have shared conceptualizations of the soul. I think that this is why it makes sense that Lyricus Teaching places genetics at the heart of a science of the soul.

How can our genes cause us to have certain beliefs about the nature of the human soul?

-John Schmidt


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:41 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 250
[quote]
watching the 'social interactions' of a group of people causes me to scratch my own head
[/quote]

In my view, the human instrument is a device for taking part in social interactions. I think the human instrument becomes sick when all it does is watch the social interactions of others. If you are not in the game, you are on the road to illness and extinction.

Personally, I do not understand why anyone would not want to participate in the social interactions that are going to be required to produce a science of the soul. Why would you want to sit on the sidelines while someone else figures out the true nature of the human soul?

Only "James" claims to understand the form that the science of the soul must take. For the rest of us, we must jump into game and try to find how to study the soul. I think it is a grand adventure that is open to all.

-John Schmidt


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:51 pm 
Offline
Posting Freak
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:32 pm
Posts: 2228
Location: Huntington Beach, CA USA
[quote][i]Originally posted by Memenen[/i]
This thread is intended for everyone who takes seriously the idea that there can be a scientific investigation of the soul.

For example, can we come to understand exactly how the science of genetics is important for our understanding of the soul?

-John Schmidt [/quote]

Hi John!

Good to see you here :)

The problem with Science is that the limitations of understanding the soul largely involve...

:o Marginalizing what may not be accepted by other scientists

:o Discounting possible leads if not supported by the almighty dollar to make research possible

Areas such as Theosophy, Metaphysics and Shamanism already reach deep into aspects of scientific examination of the soul, but these are considered non-consensus realities by mainstream science and so therefore, are discounted altogether or not taken very seriously. From what I have extracted from one extreem range to the other.....they all say the same thing in different languages.

:cool:
Kimberlee


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:02 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
 Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:28 pm
Posts: 960
Location: Athens / Greece
[quote][i]Originally posted by Memenen[/i]
One conclusion that was reached in the old thread was that a major source of data for the "science of the soul" is personal experience. People have experiences that they interpret as providing evidence about the nature of the soul. We need to cooperate and report on such experiences. We need to share our experiences and discuss how it is that we build our conceptualizations of soul from our experiences. This fundamental aspect of a science of the soul is a place where everyone can participate. Humans need no special "scientific training" in order to have experiences that lead to belief in the soul.
[/quote]

About sharing experiences, I think that in one Lyricus Discourse it sais to monitor "anomalous phenomena" and study them. We had such a thread in the old WM forum. I think it was called Phantom Core and 24 strata of the human instrument (or something like that).

This seems to be a good start which indeed can broaden the appeal of scientific inquiry, to the non-scientific leaning people.


Top
 

 Post subject: limits of science
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:41 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 250
[quote]
Marginalizing what may not be accepted by other scientists
[/quote]

problems with science-
Is there anything worse than ignorance? Yes. What can be worse is having part of an answer. When people think they understand something, they stop thinking and questioning. We are all in danger of being a part of a club that marginalizes outsiders.

What can save science from itself is that
1) anyone can do science
2) old scientists eventually die

If there is a science "club" that is failing to investigate some topic or even going out of its way to say that the topic is not worthy of study, then people who are not in the club can still do the work. Eventually the nay-sayers will be gone.

Many scientists have taken the position that souls and spirit and mind are not worthy topics for scientific investigaton. They might be wrong. If they are, then someone from outside the club may prove the club is wrong. The members of the old club might not like this turn of events, but resistance to the new discovery will die with them.

problems outside of science-
Many people have a strong intuition about science not being applicable to certain topics. I am skeptical about such intuitions. There are many different ways of doing science (some of which we have not found yet) and my guess is that if we work at it then we can find a way of creating a scientific study of every possible topic.

Some people go out of their way to proclaim that they have access to sources of knowledge that are hard (or impossible) to confirm by objective scientific methods. In my view, such claims are ALWAYS extraordinary claims and they need to be backed up by evidence. Many scientists take the position that science itself has no need to be concerned with such claims. In my view, claims of non-scientific sources of knowledge are inherently interesting and always worthy of scientific study.

There is a little dance that can be done. Science need not seek to verify claims of non-scientific sources of knowledge. Science can concern itself with an investigation into why it is that someone would make the claim. When particular versions of such claims are very common in many different human societies, then there is an associated issue of cultural evolution: why is it common for people to make a particular claim when that claim cannot be verified by objective means? In my view, there must be an interesting (and scientifically verifiable) reason for why human cultures tend to include people who believe certain unverifiable things.

Specific example: some people claim to hear voices from non-physical sources; voices that provide useful information. A fruitful scientific hypothesis might be that people who "hear voices" have a certain type of brain physiology. We can study the brain function of such people and look for unusual features that are not seen in other people who do not hear voices. Such a study of the brain might lead to the identification of drugs that can influence neurotransmitter systems and either increase or decrease a person's tendency to hear voices.

In a case like this (hearing voices), some people might decide that people who hear voices are sick. An alternative view might be that hearing voices is a wonderful gift, maybe a way to contact unseen worlds. Fears and other subjective biases often guide decisions about how to make such judgments. In my case, I try to keep an open mind. I think we need to ask how can we might find new data that would help us decide between the different interpretations of the phenomenon. Why be in a rush to judgment when we do not yet have all the facts?


Top
 

 Post subject: About those Hebrew letters . . .
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:50 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:45 am
Posts: 294
Location: NE Illinois
Memenen -

You posted this:
[quote]I never read the "God Code". I found this online by Eric P. Wilbanks [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1401902995]at Amazon.com[/url]:

[i]"1. The ancient Hebrew name for God (YHVH) has three distinct letters, each of which can supposedly be ascribed a "hidden" numerical value.

2. Human DNA also has three distinct elements (a fourth is mentioned later); Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Oxygen, each of which can be given a numerical value based on it's atomic mass.

3. The atomic mass of the three elements (1, 5, and 6 respectively) corresponds directly to the numeric values of YVH as 1, 5, and 6.

The conclusion is that God's Sacred Name is written into the DNA of every human.

According to The God Code, the numerical value for Y is 10, not 1. The Hebrew letter "aleph" carries the value of "1" according to Mr Braden. Therefore, two of the three foundational assumptions for the God Code are wrong."[/i][/quote]

First off, as I know it, in some numerology the values of letters are digested down to a single digit. In the Greek and Hebrew, after the first 9 letters, the next letter is given 100, the following is 200, etc. The 19th letter is given 1000 in both. But in some systems, the zeros are dropped, making the 10th letter AND the 19th letter both 1's. Braden is saying that his interpretation is the only correct one. I personally would say this is an ambiguous area where both people are partly right. Braden's claim that the God Code is wrong is only right if the other point of view is proven wrong. His claim by itself means little.

Take the following into consideration. Maybe the claim does have SOME validity, in ways that neither considered. Read on:

At [url=http://www.mysticalsun.com/cymatics/cymatics.html]Cymatics - Science of the Future?[/url], there is this statement:
[quote]In his research with the tonoscope, Jenny noticed that when the vowels of the ancient languages of Hebrew and Sanskrit were pronounced, the sand took the shape of the written symbols for these vowels, while our modern languages, on the other hand, did not generate the same result! How is this possible? Did the ancient Hebrews and Indians know this? Is there something to the concept of "sacred language," which both of these are sometimes called? What qualities do these "sacred languages," among which Tibetan, Egyptian and Chinese are often numbered, possess? Do they have the power to influence and transform physical reality, to create things through their inherent power, or, to take a concrete example, through the recitation or singing of sacred texts, to heal a person who has gone "out of tune"? [/quote]

One could argue that the numbers of the Hebrew alphabet are based on the order of the letters, and that the order of them was arbitrary, thus making those values 1, 5 and 6 meaningless and their equivalents to the atomic numbers of those elements a happy coincidence.

But, when it has been found that even the SHAPE of those letters is based upon a real, repeatable phenomenon, then what is one to think of the principles BEHIND the origin of the Hebrew alphabet? We normally think that someone just "came up with them" off the top of their head. But what if that is NOT the case?

Maybe our origins are more complicated and wonderful than we could imagine?

. . . . TD

_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is hard business. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." Rudyard Kipling


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2005 12:01 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 250
[quote]
Theosophy, Metaphysics and Shamanism already reach deep into aspects of scientific examination of the soul, but these are considered non-consensus realities by mainstream science and so therefore, are discounted altogether or not taken very seriously.
[/quote]

In the "science of the soul" thread in the old discussion forum, I think we reached an agreement about the need for science to find a way to deal with the idea of a non-material soul or spirit. Until we find an objective scientific method to deal with issues like reincarnation and other similar conceptualizations of how souls behave, mainstream science is going to have a problem with topics such as Theosophy. One suggestion made in the old forum was that maybe the methods of science can lead us to the discovery of devices that can amplify the brain's ability to contact non-material souls.

Alternatively, we might try to understand the basis for belief in soul concepts such as reincarnation. What are the human experiences that make people believe in reincarnation? What is it about the human genetic endowment that makes it so easy for people to believe in reincarnation? Would people tend to believe in reincarnation even if it never really happens? Why might primate brains evolve so as to be predisposed to belief in reincarnation? What would have to be true about the human brain for us to know about reincarnation if it does happen? How can a physical brain attain knowledge of the reincarnation of non-material souls?


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2005 12:10 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:45 am
Posts: 294
Location: NE Illinois
[i]Quote originally from Alex:[/i]
[quote]Originally posted by Memenen
[i]One conclusion that was reached in the old thread was that a major source of data for the "science of the soul" is personal experience. People have experiences that they interpret as providing evidence about the nature of the soul. We need to cooperate and report on such experiences. We need to share our experiences and discuss how it is that we build our conceptualizations of soul from our experiences. This fundamental aspect of a science of the soul is a place where everyone can participate. Humans need no special "scientific training" in order to have experiences that lead to belief in the soul.[/i]


About sharing experiences, I think that in one Lyricus Discourse it sais to monitor "anomalous phenomena" and study them. We had such a thread in the old WM forum. I think it was called Phantom Core and 24 strata of the human instrument (or something like that).

This seems to be a good start which indeed can broaden the appeal of scientific inquiry, to the non-scientific leaning people. [/quote]

Alex -

Why don't you go ahead and start a thread like that? Name it the same, too.

That is one point of view that is expressed. While I [b]know[/b] that those experiences are valid, I also know that to prove the existence of the soul, all of those will be thrown on the ash heap. They are what is called "anecdotal", and anything anecdotal is looked at as insignificant by scientists.

To "prove" the soul's existence will take laboratory experiments and/or measurable field testing with results that can be quantified (have number values). Nothing less will suffice. PROVING it is not a kindergarten exercise. It has to be a rigid - and I mean REALLY RIGID - airtight experiment that will be repeatable and repeatable and repeatable. Every scientist worth his salt will try to debunk any other lab's results if they show the existence of the soul.

[b]Science's very foundation is as a denial of all things religious. Period.[/b] That is why Darwin's Theory of Evlution is defended so assiduously (and attacked so vociferously): Darwin was the one that convinced the scientists that God is Dead (long live the Godhead of Science).

To show up 200 years after Darwin with results that imply (in almost everyone's mind) that God may have only been sleeping - well, that will take extraordinary proofs indeed.

Most people on this forum have no clear idea what "proof" really means, in a scientific setting.

All of you, [i]please[/i], understand the following have NOT been deemed proven yet:

1. Gravity
2. Evolution
3. The structure of the atom
4. The Big Bang
5. Relativity

ALL of these are still "only" theories.

The Grand Portal will have to PASS all of these on the totem pole of scientific standing.

And it is supposed to happen in the lifetimes of our children.

Think about that . . .

. . . . TD

_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is hard business. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." Rudyard Kipling


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2005 12:25 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 250
[quote]
Maybe our origins are more complicated and wonderful than we could imagine?
[/quote]

In my view, human history has shown this to be the case. Our imaginations are heavily shaped by rather mundane features of the world that are important for our survival. We evolved as "instruments" of survival. Most of what is interesting about our origins is hidden from our awareness. We have to work hard to reveal the true hidden nature of reality.

Many people do not like the idea that we have to do hard work in order to come to understand the world we find ourselves in. We always look for short-cuts to knowledge. This is where skepticism comes into play. We must question everything, particularly our own pet ideas and favorite beliefs. And discovery is a social activity. When we see others who are skeptical about something that we personally believe, we have to wonder why. We have to ask, am I wrong?

If we accept the idea that a scientific understanding of the soul will not be possible for several more decades, then we should not be in too much of a hurry to identify all the parts of this particular puzzle. First we have to sweep the floor and look in cabinets and other dark places for puzzle pieces. Let's get them all on the table and start fitting them together. Some of the pieces we have in hand will turn out not to fit into the final picture. My guess is that the "real" pieces will be far more wonderful than what we can now imagine and it will take much exploration and hard work to find them.

It should be a great adventure.


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2005 12:33 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 250
[quote]
Science's very foundation is as a denial of all things religious. Period.
[/quote]

There are some scientists who have started to take a different view. One I must mention is E. O. Wilson. In his book "Consilience", Wilson makes a serious effort to describe why it is that religion is built into our genes. Wilson constructs a very fundamental scientific validation of the importance of religion in human existence. Wilson also suggests that there need be no conflict between religion and science. I think the Lyricus Teaching is pointing to the same conclusion.


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2005 12:37 am 
Offline
Senior Member
 Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:28 pm
Posts: 960
Location: Athens / Greece
Personally I think I have an understanding of the scope and magnitute of research that is surrounding the Grand Portal. While I am not authorized to speak for Memenen, I think that both of us understand this is a long term project that will culminate in a long time - just as you (and the WM) say.

I would be overestimating myself enormously if I said I have the task of SCIENTIFICALLY proving the human soul (through all the rigid protocols). No. But I think that we can at least bring questions that spark research in the peripheries of science that will then converge to the GP.

I think that we can connect dots and hints from exists WM sources, that lead the way by using them as unproved theory to see if it gets anywhere. And of course, we can also examine anomalous phenomena to see why some things happen the way they do?

For example why do we have deja vus? Science does not offer proper answers to this one, as far as I'm concerned. Because they say it's some kind of brain lapse between sensory input - but that doesn't explain how I (and other deja-vu-ers) know what'll happen 10 seconds ahead.. does it?

Anyway.. :)


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2005 12:57 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 250
[quote]
we have deja vus? Science does not offer proper answers to this one, as far as I'm concerned. Because they say it's some kind of brain lapse between sensory input - but that doesn't explain how I (and other deja-vu-ers) know what'll happen 10 seconds ahead.. does it?
[/quote]

Deja vu is a great example of a phenomenon that is hard to deal with by standard science methods. Recent
[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15654548]review[/url].


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2005 11:45 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 250
New material has been added at the Science of the Soul wiki.

[url=http://protoscience.wikicities.com/wiki/Lyricus:neo-sciences]neo-sciences[/url]

Thanks, TravelerDiogenes!

Previous material on [url=http://protoscience.wikicities.com/wiki/Alex%27s_Scratchpad]genetic mind[/url] by Alexander.


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2005 12:19 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:47 am
Posts: 541
Location: NE Georgia
Memenem. You asked what I thought. About Gregg Braden/God Code/Isaiah Effect..? About the 'review' you provided.? I am glad for one thing to see that others have joined in with their 'thoughts'..!

"Reviews'' are like 'bum-holes' and 'opinions' and 'egos'. Everybody has one..! Similar to 'reviews' of the WMM as a 'website' or as a 'guiding light', what have you.., it is how anything personally resonates within one's
'self'..! And just to 'stay on topic'..., that which 'resonates' within one's self.., cannot be 'scientifically measured'. But I will grant you this..., the 'effects can be..!

I'm miffed here. Just recently I think I checked out a link provided by someone from WMF/USA. I apologize for not having it..., maybe someone will recognize it and will help. But it was about "Swami SahmBahdy'' or another. He was 'hooked up' to all sorts of 'gauges' and 'gizmos' and as 'yogis' have aptly demonstrated in the past..., they can.., at will, exert physical control over seemingly 'uncontrollable' functions of the body. Heart rate.., and 'brain wave' patterns, etc. They had him hooked up to a young boy and the 'swami' was asked to perform 'healing'. "EFFECTS'' were indeed registered in both..! Of course.., what was lacking..., was the 'source'.., or the 'cause'.., that 'created' such an 'effect'..! "Color'' it one more..., and I mean.., just another 'example' of 'paranormal' manifestations..!

Thoughts on Gregg Braden. In a nutshell..., the ''SI" known as 'GB' is doing more to 'unify' the 'collective conscious' than I have.! He and countless others..! http://www.greggbraden.com/ in case you are curious.! From this site.., I was reading that he has another 'book' to be 'out and about' about. "Divine Sounds''. I'm wondering if this is right up the same alley that TD mentioned about the formation of letters from the ancient Hebrew and Sanskrit languages. Just another 'convenient' coincidence..? Probably. The whole durned thing is just a 'convenient coincidence'..., if one tends to view things as such. It's an undebatable point of view.! Again..., 'science' may be able to 'detect the effect'..., but the 'source' remains hidden in the 'absolute' and made manifest in the 'relative'.

Another 'relative' thread going at the time of this one, was the
"Holographic Universe'' thread. TD inspired me to read the book. I'm still 'reeling'. Did you read any of it..? Or.., more to the point.., have you read the book..? I think you would find it enjoyable and most enlightening. But again.., it is 'theory' at its best. From whence does the 'Implicate' originate..? TD..? We know where the ''Explicate'' ends up.., at least on one 'plane of recognition'. For most of us.., it's here in ''3D(izzy-land)''..! But it would seem obviously apparent that it is not ''dimensionally challenged''.., so to speak. Most of us just can't 'see' it at this point. Because we think toooooooo dang much about it..., IMHO...! We're missing the 'attar' of the Rose. The 'forest' isn't a 'fixed' image filled with 'trees'..!

You asked what I think...? I 'think' that we are comparing ''apples to oranges'' when trying to 'scientificalize' matters of 'matter' and that of 'spirit'..! I spoke a little of my 'mind'.., on how I believe that if we are..., as the WM say.., ''imbued with the essence of First Source''..., then as a 'scientifice endeavor (and a worthy one at that..)..., where do you put this.....,

from My Central Message:

[b]''Do you realize how I am unfathomable? I am not what you can know, or see, or understand. I am outside comprehension. My vastness makes me invisible and unavoidable. There is nowhere you can be without me. My absence does not exist. It is this very nature that makes me unique. I am First Cause and Last Effect connected in an undivided chain."[/b]

It's the classic "ONE in ALL..., and the ALL in ONE''...! It's the 'two mirrors' on opposing walls. The 'image' goes on indefinitely.., into 'infinity'.., if we could but 'see' it. Memenem.., I am ''of the mind'' that we can only 'feel' it.., and in that 'sense of a sense'.., it too is as 'limiting' as there could be anything that could 'measure' it..!

I dunno Memenem. But I think I'm beginning to realize why I wasn't 'involved' with the counterpart thread before. I'm still just 'scratching my head'. It feels good though...!

....'moonz' - at his ambivalent best. :D


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2005 2:17 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 250
[quote]
"Holographic Universe'' have you read the book..?
[/quote]

I have not read it. In the old discussion forum's thread on it, I tried to make a critical observation about the idea of Holographic Universe, and I was invited to leave.

This reminds me of something that was discussed in the old "science of the soul thread". If we are going to function as a social group dedicated to exploring the soul, then we have to be willing to deal with challenges to our ideas. The discovery process does not work if we are just a mutual admiration society.

It is important to realize that within science and the process of scientific discovery, a critic of your ideas is a friend. Your ideas are only as good as the best critic you can defend your ideas against. We all need strong critics in order to help us find our errors.

-John Schmidt


Top
 

 Post subject: I am unfathomable
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2005 2:35 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 250
[quote]
I am ''of the mind'' that we can only 'feel' it.., and in that 'sense of a sense'.., it too is as 'limiting' as there could be anything that could 'measure' it..!
[/quote]

I think the idea of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_closure]cognitive closure[/url] is interesting. Are there some things that be cannot know? Are there some things that we can know but that cannot be studied by science? I am skeptical of such claims.

What is clear is that it takes some effort to understand some aspects of the universe. Just because it may be hard to know some things does not mean that it is impossible. If you adopt the attitude that we cannot know some things or that we can only know them by "magical intuition" then you are in danger of never doing the hard work that is needed to test your ideas and objectively prove that you know what you think you know.

Some people do not want to know. Some people fear that they are wrong and so they work very hard to avoid testing their beliefs.

I think we can come to a good understanding of what it means to "feel" that we know something. Psychologists have found many ways that we can be fooled by our brains. Lyricus Teaching suggests that there is a part of the brain that [url=http://protoscience.wikicities.com/wiki/Lyricus#The_neurobiology_of_consciousness]functions[/url]
to connect our consciousness to the genetic mind. I think that we need to do some hard work and start to test the suggestion that parts of the brain such as the reticular thalamic nucleus can function so as to give us special access to knowledge.

-John Schmidt


Top
 

 Post subject: The Holographic Universe and First Source
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2005 2:52 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:45 am
Posts: 294
Location: NE Illinois
Hey, moonzie!

Nice to be here,
Hope you agree!
Lying in the Sun...

Several comments about comments:
[quote]Thoughts on Gregg Braden... I was reading that he has another 'book' to be 'out and about' about. "Divine Sounds''. I'm wondering if this is right up the same alley that TD mentioned about the formation of letters from the ancient Hebrew and Sanskrit languages. Just another 'convenient' coincidence..? Probably. The whole durned thing is just a 'convenient coincidence'..., if one tends to view things as such. It's an undebatable point of view.! Again..., 'science' may be able to 'detect the effect'..., [b]but the 'source' remains hidden in the 'absolute' and made manifest in the 'relative'[/b].

Another 'relative' thread going at the time of this one, was the
"Holographic Universe'' thread. TD inspired me to read the book. I'm still 'reeling'. Did you read any of it..? Or.., more to the point.., have you read the book..? I think you would find it enjoyable and most enlightening. But again.., it is 'theory' at its best. From whence does the 'Implicate' originate..? TD..?[/i][/quote]

moonz, I think you actually have the answer further in your post , where you quote from "My Central Message":

[quote][b]''Do you realize how I am unfathomable? I am not what you can know, or see, or understand. I am outside comprehension. My vastness makes me invisible and unavoidable. There is nowhere you can be without me. My absence does not exist. It is this very nature that makes me unique. I am First Cause and Last Effect connected in an undivided chain."[/b]...[/quote]

The implicate is First Source, more or less. Do not the phrases "My vastness makes me indivisible and unavoidable?" and "There is nowhere you can be without me," and "My absence does not exist," describe the implicate?

I am not limiting the implicate to ONLY being First Source, at the "pinnacle" of all that is, though. As the WMM describes, there are many aspects to what lies between this 3D world and First Cause - The Phantom Core, the Entity, etc.

And the soul.

[quote]It's the classic "ONE in ALL..., and the ALL in ONE''...! ... Memenem..,[b] I am ''of the mind'' that we can only 'feel' it...[/b], and in that 'sense of a sense'.., it too is as 'limiting' as there could be anything that could 'measure' it..! [/quote]

But as First Source said above, "I am not what you can know, or see". I would venture that "seeing" as it is put here suggests all the senses, including feeling. I completely am sure that "feeling" is a level equivalent to the five senses, possibly even below them, as it involves a lot of misconceptions along with the legitimate ones, such as when one has a hunch that turns out wrong. There are certainly ones who would say that these feelings come from a higher source, but that in itself could certainly be argued to be part of the self-delusion.

Just because no one has "put their finger on it" and pegged it to a measurable scientific term does not mean it comes from somewhere "up there" in the implicate. I have long since been of the opinion that "emotions" are how we [i]misunderstand things[/i]. One of the keystones of Rational Therapy in psychology is the principle that we feel the way we do, we emote the way we do, we get depressed the way we do, we get happy the way we do, because we [b]choose[/b] to. People carry baggage with them because they choose to, they decide to, each and every day that the baggage burdens them. And people feel contentment and love because they choose to - each and every day. Rational Therapy is loaded with examples of people who changed their lives simply by learning mentally and trying in reality to change their choices of what they thought about themselves and what was in their lives. Feelings and baggage all start from the mind, and are practiced over years of choosing, so that when it hits us THIS day, without apparent thought, we usually perceive it as coming from somewhere outside us.

[b]But we here on WingMakers know better than that: There is no outside us![/b]

It all was generated in our own minds, and has been carried with us - as negative or positive baggage - to pop up at less than a moment's notice.

In [i]The Fourth Way[/i], P.D. Ouspensky teaches that "emotion is faster than thought", and he is right in saying that. But then he goes on to say that we can train ourselves to NOT have emotions exhibit the same way, [b]if we will put thought into changing how we can react to things that trigger our emotions[/b]. Then, if we have actually managed to change it, the next time the trigger comes up, we don't knee-jerk anymore - we stop it in its tracks and present it for a look-see, and we are then able to make a rational. mature, informed choice.

Feelings are not, as we think, from somewhere more pristine. Mostly they are delusions of our childhoods, because that is when TONS of our choices were made. We made those immature choices as kids, as ways of dealing with events that we thought we needed to figure out or cushion ourselves against, [b] and some of those choices were [i]wrong], and have handicapped us ever since. An example would be that as kids, we chose to want a certain type of a girl (maybe because of some commercial or TV show), so when we get older that type is what we are automatically attracted to, and we can't explain it - so we call it "love at first sight".

(This could also explain being gay. The current paradigm is that it is organic in many cases, and that most of the people have no choice in the matter. It could also be that at some early stage, a choice was made, for example, that a certain person of our own gender was seen very admirable in our eyes, and that we should like very much to have that person like us. In a generela sense, this is exactly what Rational Therapy says we do with all kinds of locked in thought patterns as kids. One of the case studies in the book [i]A Guide to Rational Therapy[/i] was, indeed, about a gay man who was able to simply choose otherwise. This is contrary to the current thiking, and may be politically incorrect, but it IS what happened in that case, even if others may explain it differently.----- BTW, please let's not go off on a tangent about gays and how they became that way - I am just suggesting something to think about in the wider picture of "feelings" and soul and all.)

And lest you think I have it all figured out and am immune to any of that (feelings, that is), I got lots of them baggages, too! Some women just sweep me off my feet, some intimidate me, some repulse me, but I am impacted by those "feelings" several times a week, if not a day. I also feel powerless against certain types of actions by others, though over the years I have learned that many of these I have learned, I can also unlearn. But there are many more to go.

[quote]You asked what I think...? I 'think' that we are comparing ''apples to oranges'' when trying to 'scientificalize' matters of 'matter' and that of 'spirit'..! [b]I spoke a little of my 'mind'.., on how I believe that if we are..., as the WM say.., ''imbued with the essence of First Source''[/b]..., then as a 'scientifice endeavor (and a worthy one at that..)..., where do you put this.....,[/quote]

But we have had this challenge put before us, not necessarily for US to do, but certainly for us to consider. And if it is not put there for US to think on, then who CAN start the ball rolling, and WHY did the WingMakers choose NOW and HERE to present this? I do not know the answers to those questions, but I have to think that we must have SOME capabilities that brought this to our doorstep - that the WingMakers think we can help it along. They have stated that it will happen, that it is something worthy of exploration and necessary for the race - a threshold we as a race must cross. And the whole Ancient Arrow site and the other six sites around the world were [b]built[/b] "long ago" as part of their plan [b]to prove the existence of the human soul[/b], so they must think it is important - else why go to all that trouble? All of this WingMakers website wasn't created as a cosmic lark, after all. (We do know there are those who think that Mark Hempel did it as a lark, but you and I don't think so.) So if we think it is real, then we are obligated to make an effort to move the Grand Portal discovery forward.

They have stated that the soul is something that can be proven, to the satisfaction of the corners of power, including the religious and scientific ones. We did not, ourselves, come up with this idea. We are only asking wherther we can contribute to laying any groundwork for it to happen.

ARE we capable? Heck if I know! But some of us are of a mind to try, and certainly we have that choice, don't we? (Speaking of choices . . .)

. . . . TD


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2005 3:14 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:45 am
Posts: 294
Location: NE Illinois
[quote][i]Originally posted by Alex[/i]
For example why do we have deja vus? Science does not offer proper answers to this one, as far as I'm concerned. Because they say it's some kind of brain lapse between sensory input - but that doesn't explain how I (and other deja-vu-ers) know what'll happen 10 seconds ahead.. does it?[/quote]

In reference to moonz' post that mentions [i]The Holographic Universe[/i], I would suggest that the universe as hologram does have a way of explaining dej vus, as I see it. I do not recall if they specifically address deja vu in the book, but I know I came away thinking that it explained it quite well.

One of the qualities of holograms is that if the reference laser is aimed at a slightly different angle, another image can be put [b]onto the same film[/b]. In fact, many, many images can be "saved" on the same film, each with a different reference beam angle. To play back a specific image, one needs to aim the "replay" reference angle at that same angle.

The book in no way suggests that the universal hologram is a 2D film, and does not go into what the (quite important) scientists (now dead) or the author think might be the actual workings of the 3D, moving-picture holgorams that they think is happening. They have only been able to show that there is quite a good dovetailing of the working principle with the reality.

In the section of the book "The Past as Hologram", it discusses psychometrists, those people who are capable of picking up artifacts and "seeing the past" that is connected to that artifact, including scenes, moving scenes, from its history, even back thousands of years. This was specifically talked about in regards to archaeological sites, and came up with provable results.

A few pages later it talks about people who see into the future as able to tap into the same type of imagery - some even with the "live-action" scenes.

The author offers the suggestion that in both cases the person is viewing the holographic record. As to the future ones, it is suggested that the closer to the present the future becomes, the more set into the hologram the image is written, while more distant future events are still malleable and can be changed, as when some people "warned" of the sinking of the Titanic chose not to board (though some still did).

I would put forth that 10 seconds into the future is probably pretty well set in stone, and the holographic redord is pretty well already in existence, and thus able to be accessed, given the right circumstances and mental receptivity (meaning able to get on the right frequency and access the proper reference beam angle).

BTW, I was the honored recipient of the only "deja vu" within a "deja vu" I have ever heard of. And THAT was an astounding experience, even though it was mundane in its particulars. To realize that, WITHIN a deja vu, that one was HAVING a deja vu - WOW! I went circular with THAT one for a while, I can assure you!

. . . . TD

_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is hard business. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." Rudyard Kipling


Top
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2005 4:49 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 250
[quote]
I completely am sure that "feeling" is a level equivalent to the five senses, possibly even below them.....without apparent thought, we usually perceive it as coming from somewhere outside us.
[/quote]

Your comments reminded me of a book called "The Intentional Stance" by philosopher Dan Dennett. Dennet explored the idea that a fundamental part of human nature is the innate tendency to assume that other people have a mind that is basically the same as our own. This "intentional stance" is so useful (when applied to other people), that we tend to apply it to everything. I often wonder to what extent human intuitions about non-material spirits are due to our brains having been adapted to the habit of imagining that there is mind in everything.

Request: when you have time, please add worthy books to [url=http://protoscience.wikicities.com/wiki/Suggested_reading]suggested reading[/url] at the wiki.

-John Schmidt

[Edited on 2-5-2005 by Memenen]


Top
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 713 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 29  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Copyright © 2005-2012 WingMakers.co.uk