Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Subatomic means within atoms. Within atoms, are protons, neutrons and a "cloud" of electrons. Then, within these are smaller subatomic phenomena called quarks and leprons and others.

1- While protons and neutrons are hadrons (composed of smaller particles), electrons are not. They are fundamental particles themselves.

2- There is no such thing as a lepron. The word you were looking for is lepton.

3- Protons, neutrons, and electrons are not made of leptons. Electrons are one of the six leptons themselves. The other five leptons are produced by certain quantum interactions but do not make up protons or neutrons.

If memory serves, they are as small compared to protons as protons are to atoms. And they apparently only get mass when they pass through the boson field, according to my most materialist post I made above.

There is no such thing as a boson field. A boson is a particle, not a field.

So does your course deal with these new discoveries?

So what do you think about the fact that matter dissolves into waves, fields and energies?

Matter does no such thing. From a standard model perspective, matter is interactions between energy density and various field properties. Matter does not "dissolve" into those others.

Where does that leave the idea that matter is what exists as opposed to energy and rhythm or vibration?

"The idea" you describe only exists in your ignorant straw man version of physics.

And what is this energy?

A property of the universe.

Time for a little "epistemology," do you think?

The notion of "matter" is still used by these physicists, but what does it mean now?

No. You are accusing modern physicists of holding views from the 19th century. That is your ignorance, not theirs.

From Wikipedia entry matter: Thus, matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept, in physics today. Matter is also used loosely as a general term for the substance that makes up all observable physical objects.

If you are going to pretend (lie) to understand what physics actual knows, could you at least take the time to read the first paragraph of a Wikipedia entry?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

No. You are accusing modern physicists of holding views from the 19th century. That is your ignorance, not theirs.

From Wikipedia entry matter: Thus, matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept, in physics today. Matter is also used loosely as a general term for the substance that makes up all observable physical objects.

Sounds like they are going back even further than the 19th century; back to Aristotle as maybe apollonian contends (not that I pretend to understand what apollonian contends). "Substance that makes up all observable physical objects!" bah. What primitive, ignorant language! "Matter used loosely as a general term." And yet it still defines their science and philosophy, as it does yours. If I or anybody else say otherwise, your answer is "and up is down." Based on what, then? A loose general term?

If you are going to pretend (lie) to understand what physics actual knows, could you at least take the time to read the first paragraph of a Wikipedia entry?

Why should I? Wikipedia articles on these subjects are written by skeptical dogmatic ideologues.

Originally Posted by apollonian

Eric: we know u're psycho, but have u ever been diagnosed as a schizoid?--I'm sure u have.

How do you know this?

But tell us why there's no consciousness in an objective, hence determined universe--is it because u say so?--after all, u say u're god, don't u?

I KNOW that I am God, and so are YOU.

How can a machine be conscious; you tell me. Consciousness means you know that you know. But if consciousness is all determined, it's just reaction; stimulus-response. There's no consciousness involved.

"If you are totally determined, then you are just a machine." --this is ur statement, fm #1729, above, and it's mere assertion, just as I noted, an assertion by u, moron.

Determined? What does this mean to you, then?

I know that it means moved and shaped entirely by what is external. A mechanistic explanation = machine.

We have created machines from this way of looking at the world, which gives us our "physical laws" like Newtonian physics, knowledge of which allowed us to create mechanisms.

If we're talking about "consciousness," then we're talking about something, aren't we?--and why can't consciousness be something itself subject to consciousness.

No, consciousness is not a thing; it's what observes things.

Consciousness can be an object of itself; that's knowing yourself; knowing that you know. That's your "soul."

"Philosophy"?--well, it's something we all struggle with, don't we?--esp. u. And philosophy begins w. assumptions, the domain of metaphysics, according to Aristotle.

I doesn't sound like you struggle with it much. You just throw out insults.

I don't insult u, eric, I speak the truth--as a Christian, don't forget.

"u brainless little punk-" is not an insult? "we know u're psycho" is not an insult? Do I need to quote all the posts you have made here? Show me even one without an insult.

You need to consult a dictionary.

And science is necessarily based/founded upon the assumption of objectivity, I assure u.

I agree.

But then, why assume objectivity is the only truth, when it's just an assumption?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Sounds like they are going back even further than the 19th century; back to Aristotle as maybe apollonian contends (not that I pretend to understand what apollonian contends). "Substance that makes up all observable physical objects!" bah. What primitive, ignorant language! "Matter used loosely as a general term." And yet it still defines their science and philosophy, as it does yours.

No it does not. Are you really going to pretend that the phrase "nor is it a fundamental concept" didn't appear in my quote? Do you really think that others reading this thread will be fooled by such a simple omission?

If I or anybody else say otherwise, your answer is "and up is down." Based on what, then? A loose general term?

No. Just stop accusing physicists of saying things which they aren't. Your straw men are supremely boring to refute.

The fact that we can use the term "matter" as a shortcut term to narrow our focus does not mean that we believe everything that has ever been claimed about the idea/term. Biologists can use the term "monkeys" colloquially while still being fully aware that the term has no actual zoological meaning.

Why should I? Wikipedia articles on these subjects are written by skeptical dogmatic ideologues.

So, in order to show that physicists have got it all wrong, you refuse to read what it is they actually are saying?

Is it any wonder why so many people in this forum think you are a fruit bat?

BTW: I notice that you edited out the parts where I showed how little of this topic you really understand. Why is that? It takes far more effort to delete stuff than to leave it in.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

No it does not. Are you really going to pretend that the phrase "nor is it a fundamental concept" didn't appear in my quote? Do you really think that others reading this thread will be fooled by such a simple omission?

No. Just stop accusing physicists of saying things which they aren't. Your straw men are supremely boring to refute.

And you can't refute a single word I have ever said (although you can correct my spelling).

The fact that we can use the term "matter" as a shortcut term to narrow our focus does not mean that we believe everything that has ever been claimed about the idea/term. Biologists can use the term "monkeys" colloquially while still being fully aware that the term has no actual zoological meaning.

"Monkey" has no zoological meaning? Your friends at wikipedia disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey
"Narrow your focus" indeed. That's what you do all right. And all your other silly contentions made up and down this thread and others are based on that narrow focus; and ONLY on it. You are indeed extremely narrow-minded; the most narrow-minded nitwit I have ever encountered; even apollonian!

So, in order to show that physicists have got it all wrong, you refuse to read what it is they actually are saying?

Is it any wonder why so many people in this forum think you are a fruit bat?

Fruit bat? Does that term have any zoological meaning? I guess so
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabat

But how in the world do you come to the conclusion that I am one of these creatures? How could a fruit bat write a cogent sentence, like this one? Or even log on to a computer? No, you got that wrong, if you think I am a fruit bat. Any biologist could disprove your earnest contention, which is about on the same level as all your other silly contentions.

Originally Posted by apollonian

Eric: u said u are god, didn't u?--this is HUBRIS, by definition, utter madness. U're pathetic and pitiable, comrade--THAT'S "How" I "know." And u DON'T "KNOW" u're god--that's just ur insane assertion.

No; what the fact is, is that YOU don't know that YOU are God.

Get with it. Mysticism is old news by now.

YOu are an example of how much millennials need to learn about spirituality, as I mentioned on another thread. No, indeed we will need another liberal spiritual awakening. Too many Millennials like youself have lost the previous awakening. So it will need to happen again.

And I never said "machine" could be conscious, stupid. I said determinism follows fm objectivity--and that we're conscious. U then twisted this to pretend I indicate we're "machines," following fm determinism. U're not all there, are u?

But there's no basis for you to say we're conscious, based on the sentence "determinism follows fm objectivity"

And I told u determinism means absolute cause-effect, period.

Yes, and that's what I said. If you are "determined," you are absolutely the effect of a cause. That is a mechanism.

U urself refer to consciousness as "it" in ur own sentence which u wrote, above--consciousness can well and easily be seen or understood as something, something that exists--within an objective reality.

Consciousness is not objective; it is what knows the objective. Consciousness is subjective, at least relative to complete objectivity.

Again, I don't "insult"; I speak truth like honest Christian. And "truth" is what refers to, reflects the objective reality, objectivity being necessary assumption, the only alternative assumption being absurd.

Objectivity is only a necessary assumption to the extent that it is a goal of science. And yet you yourself imply that science is not the only truth, since you claim truth is "Christian." Christianity is religion, not science. Or didn't you know that?

"U're pathetic and pitiable, comrade"

You have yet to make or show me a post of yours that does not include an insult. Learn the meaning of the word, or shut up.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And you can't refute a single word I have ever said (although you can correct my spelling).

Are protons and neutrons made of leptons?

What exactly is the boson field?

"Monkey" has no zoological meaning? Your friends at wikipedia disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey

From the entry: A monkey is a primate of the Haplorrhini suborder and simian infraorder, either an Old World monkey or a New World monkey, but excluding apes and humans.

Eric, that is the very definition of a colloquial term. Do you even know the difference between paraphyletic and monophyletic?

Quick test, which of the following organisms are most closely related: spider monkey, baboon, and human?

Edit- From further down the Wikipedia entry for monkey: Scientific classifications are now more often based on monophyletic groups, that is groups consisting of all the descendants of a common ancestor. The New World monkeys and the Old World monkeys are each monophyletic groups, but their combination is not, since it excludes hominoids (apes and humans). Thus the term "monkey" no longer refers to a recognized scientific taxon. The smallest accepted taxon which contains all the monkeys is the infraorder Simiiformes, or simians. However this also contains the hominoids (apes and humans), so that monkeys are, in terms of currently recognized taxa, non-hominoid simians. Colloquially and pop-culturally, the term is ambiguous and sometimes monkey includes non-human hominoids.[6]

Just to show how intellectually lazy Eric is.

"Narrow your focus" indeed. That's what you do all right. And all your other silly contentions made up and down this thread and others are based on that narrow focus; and ONLY on it. You are indeed extremely narrow-minded; the most narrow-minded nitwit I have ever encountered; even apollonian!

Sticking with what can be demonstrably shown to be accurate is not narrow minded. It is avoiding the pitfall of being so open minded that your brains fall out on the floor.

Fruit bat? Does that term have any zoological meaning? I guess so
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabat

But how in the world do you come to the conclusion that I am one of these creatures? How could a fruit bat write a cogent sentence, like this one? Or even log on to a computer? No, you got that wrong, if you think I am a fruit bat. Any biologist could disprove your earnest contention, which is about on the same level as all your other silly contentions.

Snark attempt fails . . . care to try again?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

How do you know that matter exists?

Yes, I said, we think matter exists and become materialists because that way of thinking is useful to us. It helps us make tools and machines that work or "treat" things the way we want. But that has nothing to do with what things are before we get a hold of them. To think technology is reality seems to me enormous idolatry on our part. The universe does not exist just for our use.

I have much more to learn too. But from "epistemology" I know that there is no matter. Many physicists insist on using the term anyway, but as you can see from what I posted, the notion is getting rather thin indeed.

Why call them "pieces and chunks?" A bit materialist there, don't you think?

Eric,

Rather than trying to argue with you, let me instead outline my perspective.

Background: I got my M.S. in Organic Chemistry in 1974, and have never practiced Academic Chemistry, so I would guess that the way folks teach and learn Chemistry at the graduate level these days is very, very different, and probably much dependent on sophisticated technological and computer-assisted tools. Hell, we even chafed at the limitations of our computers/calculators back in the day.

On the other hand, there are some durable principles around science that I still hold to be true. One principle which anyone talking about science must always remember is that what we do in science, especially arcane and sophisticated science, is make models.

A model of a thing is NOT the thing. A good model allows us to predict with some reasonable level of certainty, the behavior of the thing. That’s what makes the model valuable. We can fool around with the model, changing its characteristics and, if the model is a good model, its behavior will turn out to be much the same as the behavior of the thing we are interested in.

Since I am (or was) an Organic Chemist, let me trot out a model. Let us say we postulate something we call an “s orbital” on a carbon atom. Let us further say we think we know something about “p orbitals.” We further decide that we will model a system that allows us to moosh the s orbital together with three of these p orbitals, stir them all up and create a model of four equivalent sp3 orbitals. Then, because we have noticed that the geometry of carbon compounds seems often to be tetrahedral in nature, we’ll say that sp3 orbitals are tetrahedral in their geometric relationship to an individual carbon atom.

Well, blah, blah, blah, huh? Not much here but word salad, is there? What do we mean by “s” or “p?” What do we mean by the word “orbital?” What do we mean by “tetrahedral?” Shit, what do we mean by “carbon atom?”

What really helps, though, is if we can attach mathematics to all this. If I can come up with a wave function that might describe an s orbital, and a different one that describes a p orbital, and then do some math, maybe I can get to a function that describes an sp3 orbital?

Now, back to my point about models. We now have a mathematical model. And it probably works a lot better at predictions than does my word salad model, wouldn’t you think? But still, the model is NOT the thing. And it may work “pretty good,” but still fail someplace along the line. Probably will, as a matter of fact.

But that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful. We can very likely keep this “picture” in our mind and do all sorts of valuable chemistry that works really well, that we couldn’t do if we didn’t have the model.

Here’s my bottom line, speaking for myself. I’ve decided for myself that science is virtually ALL about description, which in turn needs models. Words themselves are nothing but imprecise models. Lord Almighty, we see that on this forum aplenty! Often, two or more folks can’t even agree on simple words.

Thus, in my opinion, if we choose to discuss something in science, we need to move to the mathematical model as it probably has the best chance of accurately describing the phenomena being discussed. If we choose a more general word conversation, and talk about something scientific, then we need to use words very, very carefully, and all involved in the conversation must agree on a rigorous definition of these words. Just because we have a word, or even a mathematical description of something, doesn’t mean we understand the thing at a deep, profound philosophical level.

You ask, “What IS energy?” Hell, I don’t know. Maybe we can ask Bill Clinton to help us define the word “IS.” But we sure can crank out a bunch of math that describes literally thousands of phenomena in and about “energy.”

We can toss around people’s names like de Broglie, Planck, Heisenberg, etc. Does that mean we truly understand their work? Well, maybe, but I suspect that’s only true, if and only if, we can convincingly fill a blackboard with their math, answer tough questions about it, and not get shouted down by knowledgeable academics in the field.

I suppose that if I devoted a couple years to learning the math and then studying the concepts floating around in the physicists’ worlds, I’d better understand their models. But in the end, their models are still models, and are not the thing.

The best scientists can hope for is that their models get better and better and better, until someday everything of interest in the “real world” is predicted when they tweak their model.

Originally Posted by TnT

Eric,

Rather than trying to argue with you, let me instead outline my perspective.

You don't need to argue, but you could learn another perspective from my posts that might be valuable (if you can follow the line of my thought and my posts/links)

Background: I got my M.S. in Organic Chemistry in 1974, and have never practiced Academic Chemistry, so I would guess that the way folks teach and learn Chemistry at the graduate level these days is very, very different, and probably much dependent on sophisticated technological and computer-assisted tools. Hell, we even chafed at the limitations of our computers/calculators back in the day.

On the other hand, there are some durable principles around science that I still hold to be true. One principle which anyone talking about science must always remember is that what we do in science, especially arcane and sophisticated science, is make models.

A model of a thing is NOT the thing. A good model allows us to predict with some reasonable level of certainty, the behavior of the thing. That’s what makes the model valuable. We can fool around with the model, changing its characteristics and, if the model is a good model, its behavior will turn out to be much the same as the behavior of the thing we are interested in.

I agree

Now, back to my point about models. We now have a mathematical model. And it probably works a lot better at predictions than does my word salad model, wouldn’t you think? But still, the model is NOT the thing. And it may work “pretty good,” but still fail someplace along the line. Probably will, as a matter of fact.

Although it seems that in the formulas I see, they are using letters and Greek letters and all sorts of symbols I don't understand.

But that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful. We can very likely keep this “picture” in our mind and do all sorts of valuable chemistry that works really well, that we couldn’t do if we didn’t have the model.

Here’s my bottom line, speaking for myself. I’ve decided for myself that science is virtually ALL about description, which in turn needs models. Words themselves are nothing but imprecise models. Lord Almighty, we see that on this forum aplenty! Often, two or more folks can’t even agree on simple words.

Thus, in my opinion, if we choose to discuss something in science, we need to move to the mathematical model as it probably has the best chance of accurately describing the phenomena being discussed. If we choose a more general word conversation, and talk about something scientific, then we need to use words very, very carefully, and all involved in the conversation must agree on a rigorous definition of these words. Just because we have a word, or even a mathematical description of something, doesn’t mean we understand the thing at a deep, profound philosophical level.

You ask, “What IS energy?” Hell, I don’t know. Maybe we can ask Bill Clinton to help us define the word “IS.” But we sure can crank out a bunch of math that describes literally thousands of phenomena in and about “energy.”

I think math gives a model greater working precision; that seems obvious. Where you need to go to words, or indeed with silent realization of experience, is not so much in the models, but the meta-models. I think that philosophy trumps science, because it describes the concepts we use, including math ones. So, there's a larger context for the models.

The best scientists can hope for is that their models get better and better and better, until someday everything of interest in the “real world” is predicted when they tweak their model.

That's where I question your perspective. What is the "real" world, and what is not? Is science the only way to understand this world? I think not.

To start with, besides models of reality, we have reality itself. Just getting in touch with reality directly is a deeper connection to it.

The science models, as I have said, are mainly not ways of understanding, but of "prediction" and "what works" as you said too. That's again where I question; does usefulness = truth and reality?

Math isn't much help on that one.

Originally Posted by apollonian

Eric: I swear, u're absolutely psycho, buddy. I don't think I'm "millennial," either.

Gen X, that would figure.

I'm obviously conscious, otherwise I wouldn't be responding to ur moronic postings, eh?

You are conscious, but like any other materialist, you have no consistent or meaningful explanation for that fact, so you just ignore it and believe a worldview that makes consciousness impossible. Noone ever said you are consistent.

Consciousness is perfectly objective, fool--ur asserting it isn't doesn't make it the fact. But u seriously think u're god, don't u?--u're in bad shape, buddy--and this is what's called "compulsive behavior," I believe in psycho-therapeutic terms.

I also think seriously that YOU are GOD. What does that make me?

Next, u start babbling about Christianity--Christianity is a larger philosophy, specifically an aesthetic, esp. literary. Religion merely means it's made into a habitual program, ideally integrated for both conscious and sub-conscious, pervading the entire personality or "spirit"--but it is NOT NOT NOT mystic, or irrational, and isn't meant to be. Christianity is worship of truth, hence includes science, but it doesn't exclude or reject poor stupid people (like u) who have difficulty w. science or reason.

Well, I certainly have trouble with your alleged science and reason.

Christ was certainly a mystic; that's all that counts on that score.

U're NOT NOT NOT god, eric--and u better get it straight, "God," by definition, among other things, being of PERFECT free will, which u don't have. U're suffering gross HUBRIS (look it up), including distinct schizoidal symptoms, to the extent u're quite psychotic, w. inferiority-complex--which is why u insist upon compensation in way of calling urself "god," u pathetic fool. Get a clue.

Get a clue; mysticism is old news by now.

Originally Posted by apollonian

Christ was not mystic, stupid. For Christ, A is A, no less than for Aristotle, u utterly stupid, wishful-thinking little idiot--and u can't even begin to demonstrate Christ was mystic. U just make moronic assertions like u breathe, eh? Ho ho ho ho

You think insults are funny; they are just boring.

So are you, but oh well; Eric is indulgent and wasteful of his time.

Where does Christ say "A is A?"

Since when is "I and the Father are one" not mysticism? He DID say that acc. to the Bible.

"You are conscious, but like any other materialist, you have no consistent or meaningful explanation for that fact, so you just ignore it and believe a worldview that makes consciousness impossible. Noone ever said you are consistent." This, preceding, is more idiotic assertion w. no foundation--LYING. Consciousness is axiomatic, a necessary assumption, as I explained, u brainless fool.

Necessary axiom for what? In your view?

And I don't "ignore" consciousness, and don't believe a worldview making consciousness impossible, u utter brainless dumbass. But I do say I'm quite consistent--and u can't demonstrate otherwise.

No, I probably can't. Your views are such a mishmash that no-one can make any sense out of them enough to even try to demonstrate anything about them.

Originally Posted by apollonian

Christ didn't have to say A is A, idiot--he invokes TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH as foremost ideal, several times, esp. in Gosp. JOHN, at 14:6, 8:32, and 18:37. Truth as ideal only makes sense w. objective reality, brainless moron.

YOu are disproven. He did not say "A is A."

"I and Father are one" is a literary phrase or statement; Christ is TRUTH the only way to Godly happiness (JOHN 14:6)--it's like saying truth = happiness, and this is NOT mysticism, u little narcissistic moron.

It is the truth of what Christ said. Oneness with God is the essential truth of mysticism. Look it up.

Here's info from one source:

1.2 The Narrow Sense of ‘Mystical Experience’
In the narrow sense, more common among philosophers, ‘mystical experience’ refers to a sub-class of mystical experience in the wide sense. Specifically it refers to:

A (purportedly) super sense-perceptual or sub sense-perceptual unitive experience granting acquaintance of realities or states of affairs that are of a kind not accessible by way of sense-perception, somatosensory modalities, or standard introspection.

A unitive experience involves a phenomenological de-emphasis, blurring, or eradication of multiplicity, where the cognitive significance of the experience is deemed to lie precisely in that phenomenological feature. Examples are experiences of the oneness of all of nature, “union” with God, as in Christian mysticism, (see section 2.2.1), the Hindu experience that Atman is Brahman (that the self/soul is identical with the eternal, absolute being), the Buddhist unconstructed experience, and “monistic” experiences, devoid of all multiplicity.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/

In modern times, "mysticism" has acquired a limited definition, but a broad application, as meaning the aim at the "union with the Absolute, the Infinite, or God". This limited definition has been applied to include a worldwide range of religious traditions and practices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism

Originally Posted by apollonian

Oh, that's great, u brainless fool, but mysticism is not scientifically verifiable, stupid. Mysticism is just whatever u want it to be.

But it is what Christ was; he was a mystic, according to the definition, and according to what he said. QED.

Mysticism is other than reason.

Yes, and reason is other than mysticism. So?

Mysticism IS NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT "oneness w. God"--it's simply non-rational, that's all--and this is verified in any dictionary, u utter, complete schizoid, narcissistic moron w. a raging inferiority-complex. Ho ho ho ho ho

Ignore the definition as stated in any source. That's a good way to proceed

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You don't need to argue, but you could learn another perspective from my posts that might be valuable (if you can follow the line of my thought and my posts/links)

Perhaps I COULD learn another perspective. However, in order to do that, we need to develop a MODEL of what you think is reality. When you use words imprecisely, then we wind up in these arguments. And I don't like to do that.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... Where you need to go to words, or indeed with silent realization of experience, is not so much in the models, but the meta-models. I think that philosophy trumps science, because it describes the concepts we use, including math ones. So, there's a larger context for the models. ...

"Silent realization of experience?" Hey I'm a fan of meditation, etc. But I would not expect someone else to have to accept my experience as some sort of absolute reality.

And "meta-models?" Wtf is a "meta-model?" See, here you go with the word salad.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The science models, as I have said, are mainly not ways of understanding, but of "prediction" and "what works" as you said too. That's again where I question; does usefulness = truth and reality?

Math isn't much help on that one.

Why DOES usefulness have to "equal" truth and reality. In fact, who in their right mind would EXPECT a MODEL to "equal" truth and reality?

Eric, your model is a model. I'm sure it works for you. But just because it does, does not mean that it EQUALS reality. A model is never the thing.

Originally Posted by TnT

Perhaps I COULD learn another perspective. However, in order to do that, we need to develop a MODEL of what you think is reality. When you use words imprecisely, then we wind up in these arguments. And I don't like to do that.

I don't mean to; I can just do the best I can.

"Silent realization of experience?" Hey I'm a fan of meditation, etc. But I would not expect someone else to have to accept my experience as some sort of absolute reality.

What happens, as far as I know, is that people have their own meditation experience, but come to the same realization. There is truth to be gained through that method.

And "meta-models?" Wtf is a "meta-model?" See, here you go with the word salad.

I meant the larger context of the model. The concepts and definitions you use, the worldview it is based on. Metaphysics. It's a broad term, I agree.

Why DOES usefulness have to "equal" truth and reality. In fact, who in their right mind would EXPECT a MODEL to "equal" truth and reality?

Eric, your model is a model. I'm sure it works for you. But just because it does, does not mean that it EQUALS reality. A model is never the thing.

So, that indicates to me that is it also desirable to get to know the thing itself, and not just the models of it. Meditation is a good way to connect with being, beyond our word salads and models.

And, given that you understand that the model is not the thing, on what basis do you so definitely exclude "woo" from your model?

Originally Posted by apollonian

U are a raging, screaming, schizoid psycho, no doubt about it, Q.E.D., narcissistic and w. gigantic inferiority-complex, without any doubt.

"But it is what Christ was; he was a mystic, according to the definition, and according to what he said."--just ur idiotic assertion. No, u dumbass fool, Christ was God the Son, according to the religious tradition, in accord w. the literary text.

Jesus DID say he was one with the Father; that he was in the Father and the Father was in him, and his disciples could have himself in them even as he was in the Father. Mysticism.

He did NOT say "I am God's only begotten Son."

Go to the source; Jesus' words. Not to the distortion of those words by the authoritarian tradition seeking power over us. But I would understand that you would prefer the latter.

Brower points out that some of your views are reprehensible. But I am not angry with you; you're just a useless distraction, and not worth discussing anything with. I can always click to see your posts, but from now on, you join a group of other Xers on my ignore list

(just to help myself not get distracted; but yes Rags, I like to announce it and rub it in )

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... And, given that you understand that the model is not the thing, on what basis do you so definitely exclude "woo" from your model?

Well, first off, I'm not even sure what "woo" is. But let me try to stay rooted in my own experience.

Given my background and experience, I have had, and have read about mystical/spiritual experiences. And I think that my experience likely parallels similar experiences that others have had. These others, and I, can share the sensations that went through us during these episodes. We can compare and contrast them, seeing where there were similarities and where there were differences.

One can further determine through reading material such as William James’ Varieties of Religious Experience, that these events can be life-changing. They can be very dramatic. In fact, some of my own have been so.

And, I would agree that the scientific (and/or materialistic) approach to these experiences is not very helpful. The main reason is that these experiences happen within me. No one else, standing nearby, would have had an inkling that anything special was going on. It was entirely a personal, private, emotional event for me. From a science perspective, I can’t very well repeat the “experiment.” And even if I could, I doubt if there would be much to be gained.

So perhaps, at least in my life, there are at least two avenues for the search for “truth.” There is the reproducible, demonstrable scientific approach, where one can actually show someone else something. Then there is the personal, private, emotional event that transpires entirely within me.

I truly believe that you, too, have personal emotional experiences that I am not privy to. Further, you do a credible job of trying to describe them to all of us. I also believe that there exists a community of folks out there who totally understand what it is you’re saying, and likely agree with it in the terms you have chosen to describe it – your model.

One Model of epistemology says that for me to “Know” something there must be three conditions met:

1. I have to think that I “know” something.
2. The something that I think I “know” must actually be there in “reality.”
3. And finally, that knowledge must be verifiable.

For example:

1. I believe that a crow sits on the power line outside my house.
2. The crow must actually be sitting on the power line.
3. I must be able to walk outside and see it sitting there.

If these conditions are met, then I am entitled to “know” that a crow sits on the power line.

But how could I “know” that perhaps “god” has given me my mystical experiences. How do I know that it is not simply brain chemistry firing away? How do I know that there is not a species-wide consciousness that intervenes occasionally to give us all such internal events? How indeed?

Epistemology isn’t much help either, is it? Any of the three models makes a kind of sense I suppose. Are any credible? Not without some kind of confirmatory evidence, and that may not be possible.

Does that invalidate my experiences? No. They still impacted me. William James was called a “Pragmatist” and was said to have given birth to “Pragmatism” with a capital P. It works. It had an impact on me. Must I either confirm or deny its “reality?” I don’t think so.

Bottom line? I really don’t know what happens when I experience a mystical experience. I know it changes me, but I don’t know how and I don’t know why. This makes it quite different from determining the heat energy given off a sugar cube burned in oxygen in a thermodynamic experiment.

And yet, as we drill down into the nature of the “physical” world we encounter mysterious stuff, exciting stuff. Perhaps your approach IS the one needed. Perhaps someday the two approaches to “truth” seeking will converge. Or not.

Thus, Eric, compare and contrast your “spiritual experiences” with mine, and tell me how you “know” these things that you so passionately believe represent actual true reality?

Oh, and by the way, leave apollonian alone; he is merely a vexation to our spirits. Violates the "Life's Too Short Rule" to interact with his venom.

Originally Posted by TnT

Well, first off, I'm not even sure what "woo" is. But let me try to stay rooted in my own experience.

Given my background and experience, I have had, and have read about mystical/spiritual experiences. And I think that my experience likely parallels similar experiences that others have had. These others, and I, can share the sensations that went through us during these episodes. We can compare and contrast them, seeing where there were similarities and where there were differences.

One can further determine through reading material such as William James’ Varieties of Religious Experience, that these events can be life-changing. They can be very dramatic. In fact, some of my own have been so.

And, I would agree that the scientific (and/or materialistic) approach to these experiences is not very helpful. The main reason is that these experiences happen within me. No one else, standing nearby, would have had an inkling that anything special was going on. It was entirely a personal, private, emotional event for me. From a science perspective, I can’t very well repeat the “experiment.” And even if I could, I doubt if there would be much to be gained.

So perhaps, at least in my life, there are at least two avenues for the search for “truth.” There is the reproducible, demonstrable scientific approach, where one can actually show someone else something. Then there is the personal, private, emotional event that transpires entirely within me.

I truly believe that you, too, have personal emotional experiences that I am not privy to. Further, you do a credible job of trying to describe them to all of us. I also believe that there exists a community of folks out there who totally understand what it is you’re saying, and likely agree with it in the terms you have chosen to describe it – your model.

Thanks; I hope I will see from you more acknowledgement of the spiritual side; it does not get much support here on this site. And yes, there is wide agreement on basic aspects of mysticism; in that sense, what is revealed "within" is as valid as what is demonstrated "without" with repeat experiments and sense-tools.

One Model of epistemology says that for me to “Know” something there must be three conditions met:

1. I have to think that I “know” something.
2. The something that I think I “know” must actually be there in “reality.”
3. And finally, that knowledge must be verifiable.

For example:

1. I believe that a crow sits on the power line outside my house.
2. The crow must actually be sitting on the power line.
3. I must be able to walk outside and see it sitting there.

If these conditions are met, then I am entitled to “know” that a crow sits on the power line.

But how could I “know” that perhaps “god” has given me my mystical experiences. How do I know that it is not simply brain chemistry firing away? How do I know that there is not a species-wide consciousness that intervenes occasionally to give us all such internal events? How indeed?

Because there is a wide body of knowledge gained through many others. There may not be complete agreement, but that is also true in science. The world "within" is as valuable (if not more so) and as basic (very-likely more-basic) as the world "without." Through philosophy as well as experience, we know that brain chemistry cannot account for mystic experience, because through the experience you know that you are not your brain. That is very basic too. And since that is true, there is no reason to deny such things as psychic non-physical telepathy, or life after death, even if you can't verify these things through your own experience.

But the worldview engendered by mystical experience, as well as that engendered by quantum physics, invalidates any dogmatic claims that such things are inherently bogus. That doesn't mean we have to believe any claim that somebody makes; far from it. Science as well as intuition can help verify claims. But evidence for psychic ability, life after death and so on exists, even if research has not been extensive because of the denial and outright suppression that dominates the scientific and skeptical worlds. Just denying the evidence, as vandal does, does not seem productive to me. For example, I just posted evidence verifying "remote viewing." And yet the dogmatic skeptics don't allow it to be made available on wikipedia. And vandal would find a way to just dismiss and insult it, as he always does. That's why the views he expresses here are not credible, and should not be deferred to.

Epistemology isn’t much help either, is it? Any of the three models makes a kind of sense I suppose. Are any credible? Not without some kind of confirmatory evidence, and that may not be possible.

Which "three models" do you mean? You referred above to 3 conditions, not 3 models.

Does that invalidate my experiences? No. They still impacted me. William James was called a “Pragmatist” and was said to have given birth to “Pragmatism” with a capital P. It works. It had an impact on me. Must I either confirm or deny its “reality?” I don’t think so.

Bottom line? I really don’t know what happens when I experience a mystical experience. I know it changes me, but I don’t know how and I don’t know why. This makes it quite different from determining the heat energy given off a sugar cube burned in oxygen in a thermodynamic experiment.

And yet, as we drill down into the nature of the “physical” world we encounter mysterious stuff, exciting stuff. Perhaps your approach IS the one needed. Perhaps someday the two approaches to “truth” seeking will converge. Or not.

I think truth will converge, even if different methods retain their integrity and differing approaches. It does appear that the "physical" world is as mysterious as the "psychic" world, doesn't it? I don't understand why such folks as vandal don't see that.

Thus, Eric, compare and contrast your “spiritual experiences” with mine, and tell me how you “know” these things that you so passionately believe represent actual true reality?

I think my experience, everyday, as well as more rare and extraordinary (probably not any more so than yours or other peoples'), validates the knowledge that mystics have taught for millennia. I think this is a valid and extensive body of knowledge, no less valid just because contemporary conventional academic culture usually does not include it. I think all you need to do to verify some of the things that I and other spiritually-minded people say, is look within yourself and your own experience more clearly. Sometimes that takes practice. But nothing I say about the mystical is usually very out of the ordinary, and these truths are easily available to anyone.

I realize that this does not include such things as astrology, which modern science rejects, but which I have validated for myself just from verifying that my own chart was what I thought it would be, and doing other research and work with it.

Oh, and by the way, leave apollonian alone; he is merely a vexation to our spirits. Violates the "Life's Too Short Rule" to interact with his venom.

As you can see, I just put him on my ignore list. That should help me not indulge in that distraction. I do waste too much time in my life, as I said; mea culpa. I am not the only one though. Why pick on me?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... And yes, there is wide agreement on basic aspects of mysticism; in that sense, what is revealed "within" is as valid as what is demonstrated "without" with repeat experiments and sense-tools.

Perhaps here is where you and I tend to disagree. I am skeptical of being able to demonstrate with any experiment, something that is going on in my mind, and only there. Perhaps MRIs and Petscans and the such can track the electrical signals, but those don't tell us much more than rudimentary info about what's going on up there.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... because through the experience you know that you are not your brain. That is very basic too. And since that is true, there is no reason to deny such things as psychic non-physical telepathy, or life after death, even if you can't verify these things through your own experience.

I honestly don't "know" these things. I have absolutely no evidence that I exist outside my physical structure. Nothing in 72+ years has indicated to me that I do.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... That doesn't mean we have to believe any claim that somebody makes; far from it. Science as well as intuition can help verify claims. But evidence for psychic ability, life after death and so on exists, even if research has not been extensive because of the denial and outright suppression that dominates the scientific and skeptical worlds. .... For example, I just posted evidence verifying "remote viewing." And yet the dogmatic skeptics don't allow it to be made available on wikipedia.

Here's my problem with all this ... if phenomena such as you describe were truly and easily available for observation by we skeptics, then it would have happened. It just would have. Stuff like that would be too cool for a few folks to keep secret. AND, stuff like this is simply made-to-order for the snake oil salesmen. Going to conspiracy theories as you have simply makes me even more skeptical.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

As you can see, I just put him on my ignore list. That should help me not indulge in that distraction. I do waste too much time in my life, as I said; mea culpa. I am not the only one though. Why pick on me?

It looked to me like you were engaging him a LOT. It's my sense that we won't be rid of him until he gets bored screwing with us.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Thanks; I hope I will see from you more acknowledgement of the spiritual side; it does not get much support here on this site. And yes, there is wide agreement on basic aspects of mysticism; in that sense, what is revealed "within" is as valid as what is demonstrated "without" with repeat experiments and sense-tools.

"As valid?" The whole point of objective experiments is that they eliminate all "revealed within" bias. Refer to them as different if you want; but, there is no equivalency.

Because there is a wide body of knowledge gained through many others. There may not be complete agreement, but that is also true in science.

Science has a built in, objective way to eventually reach agreement.

The world "within" is as valuable (if not more so) and as basic (very-likely more-basic) as the world "without." Through philosophy as well as experience, we know that brain chemistry cannot account for mystic experience, because through the experience you know that you are not your brain.

You know no such thing. You just assume it is true. Cognitive and neuroscience has repeatedly shown that things people claimed couldn't just be chemistry/biology are just that. Out of body experiences can be induced through magnetic fields. Hearing voices can be induced through certain medications.


No one is claiming that everything about brain function is currently known but the New Age belief that it is impossible for science to discover anything has been repeatedly refuted.

That is very basic too. And since that is true, there is no reason to deny such things as psychic non-physical telepathy, or life after death, even if you can't verify these things through your own experience.


But the worldview engendered by mystical experience, as well as that engendered by quantum physics, invalidates any dogmatic claims that such things are inherently bogus.

Hasn't there been enough evidence in this thread to show you don't actually understand quantum physics well enough to declare anything about it?


Are protons and neutrons made of leptons?


What is the boson field?

That doesn't mean we have to believe any claim that somebody makes; far from it. Science as well as intuition can help verify claims.

Intuition can not verify a claim. You don't seem to grasp what the word verify means.

But evidence for psychic ability, life after death and so on exists, even if research has not been extensive because of the denial and outright suppression that dominates the scientific and skeptical worlds.

If there really was evidence for such things, engineers would be dedicating massive resources toward using them. Conspiracy mongering is a giant sign of pseudoscience.

Just denying the evidence, as vandal does, does not seem productive to me.

I don't deny evidence. I deny that what you have actually is evidence.

For example, I just posted evidence verifying "remote viewing." And yet the dogmatic skeptics don't allow it to be made available on wikipedia.

Because your "evidence" is not up to snuff.

And vandal would find a way to just dismiss and insult it, as he always does. That's why the views he expresses here are not credible, and should not be deferred to.

Can electrons travel at the speed of light?

Which "three models" do you mean? You referred above to 3 conditions, not 3 models.


I think truth will converge, even if different methods retain their integrity and differing approaches. It does appear that the "physical" world is as mysterious as the "psychic" world, doesn't it? I don't understand why such folks as vandal don't see that.

The mysterious nature of the physical world can be investigated and rendered understandable through hard work and study.


The mysterious nature of the "psychic" world can only be looked at by choosing to believe the words of different so called experts. Every independent attempt to verify those experts views has shown them to be nothing more than wish expression, confirmation bias and statistical fraud.

I think my experience, everyday, as well as more rare and extraordinary (probably not any more so than yours or other peoples'), validates the knowledge that mystics have taught for millennia. I think this is a valid and extensive body of knowledge, no less valid just because contemporary conventional academic culture usually does not include it. I think all you need to do to verify some of the things that I and other spiritually-minded people say, is look within yourself and your own experience more clearly. Sometimes that takes practice. But nothing I say about the mystical is usually very out of the ordinary, and these truths are easily available to anyone.

Confirmation bias.

I realize that this does not include such things as astrology, which modern science rejects, but which I have validated for myself just from verifying that my own chart was what I thought it would be, and doing other research and work with it.

The epitome of confirmation bias.

As you can see, I just put him on my ignore list. That should help me not indulge in that distraction. I do waste too much time in my life, as I said; mea culpa. I am not the only one though. Why pick on me?

Originally Posted by TnT

Perhaps here is where you and I tend to disagree. I am skeptical of being able to demonstrate with any experiment, something that is going on in my mind, and only there. Perhaps MRIs and Petscans and the such can track the electrical signals, but those don't tell us much more than rudimentary info about what's going on up there.

I wasn't even talking about brain scans. We were discussing whether a personal mystical experience can give you a verifiable truth, or whether it's only personal. I am pointing out to you that it gives verifiable truth, because there is a common body of knowledge that mystics have attained. Each mystic sees the same truth, and each one can verify it for him/herself by looking within. Brain scans are looking without, not looking within.

I honestly don't "know" these things. I have absolutely no evidence that I exist outside my physical structure. Nothing in 72+ years has indicated to me that I do.

But that's what "mystical experiences" are supposed to indicate to you. If you have really had one, then you'd know, for all time, and without any question, that there is more to you than your own physical structure.

Let's back up and look at what you said above:

For example:

1. I believe that a crow sits on the power line outside my house.
2. The crow must actually be sitting on the power line.
3. I must be able to walk outside and see it sitting there.

That's one way of looking at things. But the mystic has another way. A Taoist would read your statement and say, "naming is the mother of the 10,000 things."

We are used to seeing separate objects. And that's one way of looking at things; the one that facilitates our manipulation of the world for our uses. Remember that I said that the worldview of ourselves and the world as "physical structures" is based on our desire to control and predict them. You see a crow. But it is not true that a crow exists apart from its environment. The more sensitive way is also to see the whole; that's both mystical and ecological. There is no crow apart from its environment. That's what the point of view I am discussing ads to our knowledge.

You also said, you "see it sitting there." In other words, you rely on your senses to give you knowledge. But there's no basis whatever to believe that your senses give you all the truth. They only provide a narrow window on reality. There's a lot you can't see.

And most of what you can't see with just your senses, is the Spirit or Soul in things. But unlike vandal, I can see that the crow could spontaneously fly away at any moment, just because it wants to. Vandal can describe the mechanics of bird flight. But the crow has violated Newton's laws of physics, because an object at rest did not stay at rest. It exercized its soul, its free will, and flew away. The mechanics of how it flies, does not explain that it flew.

And remember Socrates made the same point in his famous statement about his own "choice of the best" which I quoted above. There is no excuse for not knowing about this statement and what it means.

Now, vandal can't accept any of this. But you I would expect at least to credit the mystic as having a valid point of view, even if you can't agree with it. There are whole cultures that are based around it, and they have deep knowledge that we in the materialist West do not have.

Here's my problem with all this ... if phenomena such as you describe were truly and easily available for observation by we skeptics, then it would have happened. It just would have. Stuff like that would be too cool for a few folks to keep secret. AND, stuff like this is simply made-to-order for the snake oil salesmen. Going to conspiracy theories as you have simply makes me even more skeptical.

I don't know about any conspiracy theory. The suppression on wikipedia and TED and in academia is something I have first-hand and second-hand knowledge of. It is simply the fact that alternative views are suppressed. That's why I mentioned it. Not because of any conspiracy theory.

But that only means folks like you are shaped by the predominant worldview, and so you don't get the alternative view. I just mentioned that I posted evidence of remote viewing. Did you go back and read this? Did you read the other links posted on this page, and watched the other videos? All this phenomena that I describe is very much available, and many people know it and experience it. The secret is out.

But no, skeptics cannot see it. If you are invested in materialism, then it is easy to deny these experiences. All you have to do is say that science can't observe them. And to some extent, it can't. It can demonstrate them; and has. But it can't directly observe them. The point is that they go beyond the senses and conventional thinking. It is just circular, self-serving thinking to say that experiences that go beyond the senses and conventional thinking, can't be demonstrated to the senses and conventional thinking; so therefore they don't exist.

You are a skeptic. Apparently you did not read the links and the videos I posted. How can you see that the secret is in fact out, if you refuse to see it? QED: skeptics cannot see it.

And certainly, you might have fewer experiences of a psychic and spiritual nature, if you are trained to be blind to them. It takes some practice and some interest to open yourself up to them. Society demands that most of us have to keep our eyes and noses to the grindstone and manipulate things most of the day. That keeps us chained to that mechanical worldview.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I wasn't even talking about brain scans. We were discussing whether a personal mystical experience can give you a verifiable truth, or whether it's only personal. I am pointing out to you that it gives verifiable truth, because there is a common body of knowledge that mystics have attained. Each mystic sees the same truth, and each one can verify it for him/herself by looking within. Brain scans are looking without, not looking within.

Confirmation bias.

But that's what "mystical experiences" are supposed to indicate to you. If you have really had one, then you'd know, for all time, and without any question, that there is more to you than your own physical structure.

Let's back up and look at what you said above:

For example:

1. I believe that a crow sits on the power line outside my house.
2. The crow must actually be sitting on the power line.
3. I must be able to walk outside and see it sitting there.

That's one way of looking at things. But the mystic has another way. A Taoist would read your statement and say, "naming is the mother of the 10,000 things."

We are used to seeing separate objects. And that's one way of looking at things; the one that facilitates our manipulation of the world for our uses. Remember that I said that the worldview of ourselves and the world as "physical structures" is based on our desire to control and predict them. You see a crow. But it is not true that a crow exists apart from its environment. The more sensitive way is also to see the whole; that's both mystical and ecological. There is no crow apart from its environment. That's what the point of view I am discussing ads to our knowledge.

You also said, you "see it sitting there." In other words, you rely on your senses to give you knowledge. But there's no basis whatever to believe that your senses give you all the truth. They only provide a narrow window on reality. There's a lot you can't see.

And most of what you can't see with just your senses, is the Spirit or Soul in things. But unlike vandal, I can see that the crow could spontaneously fly away at any moment, just because it wants to. Vandal can describe the mechanics of bird flight. But the crow has violated Newton's laws of physics, because an object at rest did not stay at rest.

Just stop with this. You look like a complete moron every time you spout this gibberish.

It exercized its soul, its free will, and flew away. The mechanics of how it flies, does not explain that it flew.

And remember Socrates made the same point in his famous statement about his own "choice of the best" which I quoted above. There is no excuse for not knowing about this statement and what it means.

Now, vandal can't accept any of this.

No. I accept the fact that you consistently refuse to learn what science actually is.

But you I would expect at least to credit the mystic as having a valid point of view, even if you can't agree with it. There are whole cultures that are based around it, and they have deep knowledge that we in the materialist West do not have.

I don't know about any conspiracy theory. The suppression on wikipedia and TED and in academia is something I have first-hand and second-hand knowledge of. It is simply the fact that alternative views are suppressed. That's why I mentioned it. Not because of any conspiracy theory.

It is not suppression. You are free to spout your nonsense anytime you want. But, Wikipedia, TED and academic journals all operate under self imposed rules concerning the objective validity of anything they publish under their names. Repeatedly telling you that your bullshit does not meet their required level of evidence is your problem. None of those organizations goes around attempting to remove your claims from the Internet or the books you are trying to sell. They just have enough intellectual integrity to not allow charlatans and pseudoscientists to co-opt the hard earned respect and trust of people who want objective, verifiable information.

Your wishes just don't cut it. Get over it.

But that only means folks like you are shaped by the predominant worldview, and so you don't get the alternative view. I just mentioned that I posted evidence of remote viewing. Did you go back and read this? Did you read the other links posted on this page, and watched the other videos? All this phenomena that I describe is very much available, and many people know it and experience it. The secret is out.

And every time an independent attempt to replicate the results is run, it fails.

But no, skeptics cannot see it. If you are invested in materialism, then it is easy to deny these experiences. All you have to do is say that science can't observe them. And to some extent, it can't. It can demonstrate them; and has. But it can't directly observe them. The point is that they go beyond the senses and conventional thinking. It is just circular, self-serving thinking to say that experiences that go beyond the senses and conventional thinking, can't be demonstrated to the senses and conventional thinking; so therefore they don't exist.

Pure pseudoscience.

You are a skeptic. Apparently you did not read the links and the videos I posted. How can you see that the secret is in fact out, if you refuse to see it? QED: skeptics cannot see it.

Only those who believe can see? Confirmation bias.

And certainly, you might have fewer experiences of a psychic and spiritual nature, if you are trained to be blind to them. It takes some practice and some interest to open yourself up to them. Society demands that most of us have to keep our eyes and noses to the grindstone and manipulate things most of the day. That keeps us chained to that mechanical worldview.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... And most of what you can't see with just your senses, is the Spirit or Soul in things.

But you I would expect at least to credit the mystic as having a valid point of view, even if you can't agree with it.


I just mentioned that I posted evidence of remote viewing. Did you go back and read this? Did you read the other links posted on this page, and watched the other videos? All this phenomena that I describe is very much available, and many people know it and experience it. The secret is out.

The point is that they go beyond the senses and conventional thinking. It is just circular, self-serving thinking to say that experiences that go beyond the senses and conventional thinking, can't be demonstrated to the senses and conventional thinking; so therefore they don't exist.

You are a skeptic. Apparently you did not read the links and the videos I posted. How can you see that the secret is in fact out, if you refuse to see it? QED: skeptics cannot see it.

Eric,

It's like you want to have it both ways. You seem to want to say that spiritual experiences and the like can't be measured and detected with the senses. And yet, demonstrable.

My experience tells me that these experiences are private, personal and emotional. I can compare notes with others. We can perhaps come close to agreeing on certain features of them. But we can't KNOW someone else's experience in the same way that we can in a scientific activity.

Furthermore, just because someone has a "white light" near-death experience, doesn't prove anything at all. No matter how passionately they tell me the story.

And as for the secret, if "remote viewing" were demonstrable and easy to perform, even by a select few of folks, they'd be in HUGE demand.

Anyway ... thanks Eric. It's been fun.