TruthisLife7
New Member
Ben sent everyone on a massive red herring about telepathy. This was the actual part that I wanted him and others to read by Cambridge Scientist Rupert Sheldrake, PhD., who is ANYTHING but sloppy and has quite a bit of peer reviewed research published, including on telepathy (which wasn't my point and I don't have much of an opinion on it since I haven't studied it much). His statements on materialism are what's important to read and they also apply to methodological naturalism....esp.read the ***):
"Materialists believe that the mind is nothing but the brain.This is a theoretical definition (that telepathy, consciousness, etc. can't happen outside the brain) and in science, we're meant to look at evidence. If we look at the evidence, we get a very different picture. Things like telepathy are common. The majority of the population say they've experienced it. So, it happens. There's a lot of evidence, scientific evidence, it happens. So, it's normal, not paranormal. It's only paranormal from the point of view of a particular theory.
******IMPORTANT PART***********
And science isn't committed to particular theories. It doesn't have to adopt the materialistic ideology as its basis. Science is a method of inquiry where we can find out by looking at evidence and constructing hypotheses and understand the world better through proper investigation, not dogma.
One of the problems with research in this area is that because of the taboo, there's virtually no funding for this area, so there's very little research. Now the funding is decided by central scientific committees and they reflect scientific [establishment] prejudices and, and consensus values. It's partly a political question and I think that in a democracy, a certain percentage of science funding should be spent on research that actually interests voters. At the moment, it's all decided by small committees of scientific establishment people and representatives of big business.
Science is not committed to any particular ideology or worldview. It's a method of inquiry. There's a dominant materialism that grew up in the 19th century. It's become part of the culture of science. But, it's really a dogmatic belief system rather than a testable theory. Things that don't fit in with it, the evidence against materialism, like a lot for psychic phenomenon, is simply dismissed or treated as taboo. So, it's really a matter of maintaining a belief system. And that in my opinion is extremely anti-scientific. Science is not about dogma. It's about investigation.
Superstition is really believing something on the basis of a habit, a cultural habit..you are told about it and you go on believing it even in the absence of any evidence. I would say that in some ways the materialistic dogmas of science are a kind of superstition, a belief that anything that doesn't fit into this way of thinking, can't exist. It's a kind of anti-superstition superstition...We need to investigate things on an experimental basis.If a lot of people believe in telepathy for example, maybe it's a superstition, maybe it really happens. The only way to find out is to study the phenomenon and find out whether it happens or not, not to adopt the view that it's a superstition, a prejudice against it and then close off inquiry. That way we learn nothing. We remain trapped in our belief system.
Materialism for example is a metaphysical doctrine. It's says that the only physical reality is matter. Now it doesn't prove that. It says it. It starts from that as an assumption. And with that assumption you investigate what matter does. Anything that doesn't appear to be explicable in terms of matter is regarded as non-existent, as a metaphysical assumption.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frJpThIims8 (the whole interview is quite thought provoking interview.)
**********************
I'm not a proponent of telepathy, more of a skeptic of it for the most part, although some accounts and studies make me wonder a bit. To refuse to listen and read just 10 minutes, esp. something I had said was important regarding materialism, a foundational area of our discussion (the important part came AFTER the telepathy part) is completely anti-rational, putting you on the level of those who mocked Pasteur for claiming that bacteria couldn't possibly kill a human being since they just knew that couldn't be true. That's the level that you are unfortunately consistently operating at, being enslaved by the tyranny of your own lack of knowledge instead of following the evidence where it leads, something that is another way that atheism is diametrically opposed to rational thought. Anyone can dismiss any evidence they like using that technique.
Sheldrake and others have published peer reviewed evidence of telepathy and whether you and I like it or not, it IS EVIDENCE. PERIOD. That is indisputable.
Here are just a couple I found at pubmed in just a couple minutes.
**"Meta-analyses of "ganzfield" studies as well as "card-guessing task" studies provide compelling evidence for the existence of telepathic phenomena." And they add another study to that. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21829287
**"50 participants (29 women and 21 men) were recruited through an employment web site. Of 552 trials, 235 (43%) guesses were hits, significantly above the chance expectation of 25%. Further tests with 5 participants (4 women, 1 man, ages 16 to 29) were videotaped continuously. On the filmed trials, the 64 hits of 137 (47%) were significantly above chance." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16491679
**Evidence for a communal consciousness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21724158
**http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19733813
and there are some others, even though it's a fairly new field compared to many others and it is indisputable that not much funding has been given to it, esp. from public govt. and establishment sources, which is clearly what Sheldrake was referring to). Again, 1-2 studies doesn't prove something is true. Evaluation, etc. must be done. But, to say there is no evidence for telepathy is simply dishonest.
"Materialists believe that the mind is nothing but the brain.This is a theoretical definition (that telepathy, consciousness, etc. can't happen outside the brain) and in science, we're meant to look at evidence. If we look at the evidence, we get a very different picture. Things like telepathy are common. The majority of the population say they've experienced it. So, it happens. There's a lot of evidence, scientific evidence, it happens. So, it's normal, not paranormal. It's only paranormal from the point of view of a particular theory.
******IMPORTANT PART***********
And science isn't committed to particular theories. It doesn't have to adopt the materialistic ideology as its basis. Science is a method of inquiry where we can find out by looking at evidence and constructing hypotheses and understand the world better through proper investigation, not dogma.
One of the problems with research in this area is that because of the taboo, there's virtually no funding for this area, so there's very little research. Now the funding is decided by central scientific committees and they reflect scientific [establishment] prejudices and, and consensus values. It's partly a political question and I think that in a democracy, a certain percentage of science funding should be spent on research that actually interests voters. At the moment, it's all decided by small committees of scientific establishment people and representatives of big business.
Science is not committed to any particular ideology or worldview. It's a method of inquiry. There's a dominant materialism that grew up in the 19th century. It's become part of the culture of science. But, it's really a dogmatic belief system rather than a testable theory. Things that don't fit in with it, the evidence against materialism, like a lot for psychic phenomenon, is simply dismissed or treated as taboo. So, it's really a matter of maintaining a belief system. And that in my opinion is extremely anti-scientific. Science is not about dogma. It's about investigation.
Superstition is really believing something on the basis of a habit, a cultural habit..you are told about it and you go on believing it even in the absence of any evidence. I would say that in some ways the materialistic dogmas of science are a kind of superstition, a belief that anything that doesn't fit into this way of thinking, can't exist. It's a kind of anti-superstition superstition...We need to investigate things on an experimental basis.If a lot of people believe in telepathy for example, maybe it's a superstition, maybe it really happens. The only way to find out is to study the phenomenon and find out whether it happens or not, not to adopt the view that it's a superstition, a prejudice against it and then close off inquiry. That way we learn nothing. We remain trapped in our belief system.
Materialism for example is a metaphysical doctrine. It's says that the only physical reality is matter. Now it doesn't prove that. It says it. It starts from that as an assumption. And with that assumption you investigate what matter does. Anything that doesn't appear to be explicable in terms of matter is regarded as non-existent, as a metaphysical assumption.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frJpThIims8 (the whole interview is quite thought provoking interview.)
**********************
I'm not a proponent of telepathy, more of a skeptic of it for the most part, although some accounts and studies make me wonder a bit. To refuse to listen and read just 10 minutes, esp. something I had said was important regarding materialism, a foundational area of our discussion (the important part came AFTER the telepathy part) is completely anti-rational, putting you on the level of those who mocked Pasteur for claiming that bacteria couldn't possibly kill a human being since they just knew that couldn't be true. That's the level that you are unfortunately consistently operating at, being enslaved by the tyranny of your own lack of knowledge instead of following the evidence where it leads, something that is another way that atheism is diametrically opposed to rational thought. Anyone can dismiss any evidence they like using that technique.
Sheldrake and others have published peer reviewed evidence of telepathy and whether you and I like it or not, it IS EVIDENCE. PERIOD. That is indisputable.
Here are just a couple I found at pubmed in just a couple minutes.
**"Meta-analyses of "ganzfield" studies as well as "card-guessing task" studies provide compelling evidence for the existence of telepathic phenomena." And they add another study to that. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21829287
**"50 participants (29 women and 21 men) were recruited through an employment web site. Of 552 trials, 235 (43%) guesses were hits, significantly above the chance expectation of 25%. Further tests with 5 participants (4 women, 1 man, ages 16 to 29) were videotaped continuously. On the filmed trials, the 64 hits of 137 (47%) were significantly above chance." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16491679
**Evidence for a communal consciousness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21724158
**http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19733813
and there are some others, even though it's a fairly new field compared to many others and it is indisputable that not much funding has been given to it, esp. from public govt. and establishment sources, which is clearly what Sheldrake was referring to). Again, 1-2 studies doesn't prove something is true. Evaluation, etc. must be done. But, to say there is no evidence for telepathy is simply dishonest.