I hate to double-post, but I wanted to add a couple of links: Articles by Charles Tart, a foremost expert on scientific corroboration of psychic ability. Debunking Common Skeptical Arguments Against Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena. Long, but comprehensive. Distinguishes "cynical" scientists from "skeptical" ones. And, just to show how far stigmatism can take things... "Are you psychic?" This fascinating individual once practiced black magic while on hard drugs, but has reformed. He now believes that "Psychology has contributed greatly to the chaos of hedonism, secularism, and nihilism in our modern society," and that martial arts are on par with a Satanist cult, among other lucid observations.
I have the evidence that you are seeking..... If anyone else has psychic powers, or knows someone that does, please, PM me. I would like to talk to you... Regards, J.
Have you any evidence whatsoever to support these extraordinary claims? I got two questions out of this, so I'll answer them both. The first is, "can I cite evidence that many people believe in this cosmological model and this view of the human potential?" Yes, there is tons of information out there from many parts of the world. So, there is the ontological "social construction of reality" angle. I suspect that what you're really asking is, "do I have evidence that some variation on clairvoyance (or clairsentience) is possible?" Like so many people, if you mean first-hand anecdotal evidence, then sure, I've had some personal experiences. If you want me to shoot lightning bolts at Geraldo Rivera on national TV... sorry, I can't deliver those kind of results. There are a number of scientific studies which suggest that people are affected by various types of electromagnetic fields, including finely tuned EM field that originates in the heart muscle and extends beyond the body. This field changes its frequency and rhythmical fluctuation intervals depending on a person's emotional state, among other variables. Mainly, I have known a lot of otherwise sharp, lucid, and discerning individuals who believed that they had empirically explored an innate ability to perceive energies (in themselves and others) produced by thoughts and emotions. After corroborating this with my own exploration, I have concluded that some degree of telepathy and empathy are possible. In addition, scientific studies over the last few decades have laid bare many previous assumptions about the fabric of space and time. Discoveries such as dark matter and zero-point energy, or the sometimes bizarre behaviors of photons, neutrinos and twin-particle systems, validate that reality may consist of interconnected layers, or dimensions--in contrast to Materialists' notion of a giant post-big-bang electromagnetic melting pot. Anyone has the right to doubt these claims, but in my experience, few of the skeptics have tried to intensively practice Tai Chi, Kung Fu, Pranayama Yoga, or any other widely practiced method for perceiving and utilizing subtle energies. Maybe they're too smart for it, or maybe they're afraid to let go of internal anchors that don't actually define their ultimate capabilities. It could just depend on the person.
There are a number of scientific studies which suggest that people are affected by various types of electromagnetic fields, including finely tuned EM field that originates in the heart muscle and extends beyond the body. Perhaps, but this in no way is an explanation or evidence to your claims, which at this point shall remain empty. Discoveries such as dark matter and zero-point energy, or the sometimes bizarre behaviors of photons, neutrinos and twin-particle systems, validate that reality may consist of interconnected layers I've never seen bizarre behavior in photons so I have no idea what you're talking about. And again, nothing you've said supports your claims. Maybe they're too smart for it, or maybe they're afraid to let go of internal anchors that don't actually define their ultimate capabilities. Or maybe they know its pure bunk. So, you've managed to provide nothing more than your own unfounded opinions, as I suspected. Thanks.
You're a nasty one, aren't you? I've been reading your posting history; your M.O. is to go around trying to convince people that you are some kind of logic maestro. Your words ooze with contempt. I suppose you really think that this attitude affirms your objectivity, but you are mistaken; it keeps you in a state of tunnel-vision, where you end up with the same assumptions every time, convincing yourself that you "won." I hope you realize that there is nothing original about this methodology: you fit a very specific profile, which I have come across in many other forums. Different agendas, with the same spiteful approach to discourse. Here is what I was going for in my post: 1. Establish that energy fields may exist parallel to the known EM spectrum 2. Reaffirm my claim about a widespread consensus that human beings can perceive some sort of energy fields tied to thoughts and emotions. You seemed to be challenging this, among other things. 3. Argue that while anecdotal evidence for psychic ability does not meet a certain standard of proof, it would be callous to ignore such a massive correlation between cultural belief systems. As for the cross-cultural correlations, Michael Murphy's book The Future of the Body says it all for me. I would elaborate on that, but why bother? You would just plug any research I cite into your narrative and send it back stamped "inconclusive." Have a nice day.
I hope you realize that there is nothing original about this methodology: you fit a very specific profile, which I have come across in many other forums. Different agendas, with the same spiteful approach to discourse. Ah, then you've met other people who actually use their heads who have also questioned your claims and have received nothing other than horsepucky. How nice. And, most likely they've also told you your claims are unfounded and are little more than deluded opinions. Great. Have a nice fantasy.
I was not plagarizing Q. Really, I wasn't. I would have thought of it first, even if he didn't say it before me. Really, I would have. Q being the unorignal thinker you need him to be to fit your own telling M.O..
What exactly do you mean by 'parallel to'? It's already amply established that co-existing in Nature with electro-magnetic fields are strong-nuclear, weak-nuclear and gravitational fields. Please provide sources confirming the ubiquitous 'imaginary field'. Ah, the Irrationality Field. Old news. Ah, the "Let's Pretend" effect. Didn't we automatically design that effect out of each and every one of our science lab experiments in school, and all our real world experiments, too? Let's all wonder why.
Wrong again. I'm a complete skeptic, and fairly well versed in martial arts, and one of my best friends is a kung fu instructor. The secret of Chi? Practice. Nothing more. It's all quite scientific really, breathing, blood flow, angles, balance, anticipation, training and self belief. Nothing mystical. This is the essence of Zen. The koans used to illustrate the ideologies don't have to be true to have value, they are like Fables. Same goes for Chi. It doesn't have to be a real force for it to work. It is a way of concentrating your mind on the task in hand, a way of psyching yourself up for a feat. These days, we call it 'sports psychology' but in essence, it's the same thing. Supposed feats of extraodinary prowess, which are often claimed to be superhuman, mystical acts by the perpetrators, are known as 'vagabond moves' to trained kung fu practioners. They are hard to perfrom, without doubt, they do take skill, but there is always a trick to them, which makes them look far harder than they are. They are used to dupe the gullible. And this is the trick. See beyond what you are seeing, question things. This is the secret to an open mind, not trying to explain what you see, but working out what you _didn't_. Remove yourself from the spectacle, and view things from a 3rd party perspective, and lots of things lose their mystical qualities.
i am curious though. i agree with you, i am not for mysticism and 'superhumanness'...ancient Indigenous people who understood animaism, were rather Naturalstic but let me ask you...how does Zen undrstand 'ghosts'?
Q, I was drawing attention to your generally spiteful tone, not to the content. I had conceded that there is not enough proof at this point for science to accept the existence of something like chi. In fact, I conceded that very point in my web site--incidentally, in a paragraph that directly followed your excerpt. To quote: "For the time being, the theory of vital energy is relegated to religious and mystical belief systems. No one has proposed a theory of human sentience that subsumes biology; at best, there are a bunch of scattered clues that don’t yet add up to a comprehensive secular metaphysics." To me, your claim of being "rationally empowered" clashes with the fact that you put your points across through infantile jibes at others' intelligence. There are some "rationally empowered" people who are so confident in themselves that they don't rely on a smug, elitist persona for self-esteem. Maybe that's how you feel powerful, but I wouldn't try to cast all scientists in your mold. Some are emotionally mature, too. Phlogistician, as a case in point, gave a straightforward argument, with supporting details, and didn't resort to the obnoxious goading tactics that are the stock in trade of your ilk, Q. I may not agree with all of it; for instance, most of the martial arts adepts I've met actually believed the subtle-energy cosmology behind their techniques. However, the delivery at least carries a sense of respect for my ability to consider different viewpoints. By the way, Q, how often do you concede a point in your role as a logic-marauder? If the answer is "barely ever," it could be indicative of a) A superior level of comprehension 10 times out of 10, or b) a pathetic dependency on affirming your own self-worth through win-win scenarios. Maybe that's why you tend to attack the weakest link in others' arguments instead of the strongest supporting evidence. Mr. G: What kind of field holds a twin particle system together? If you know, please tell me. Yes, I know of strong and weak nuclear force, and I imagine that whoever discovered them had to tolerate many people who sneered, "Strong and weak what? It's called gravity, dumbass!" Where would science be if people never considered unorthodox possibilities, or gave credence to enticing--but still inconclusive--evidence? With some puzzles, you can see a pattern forming before the last pieces fit into place. For anyone who hasn't entered into this thread with a preconceived agenda, here is a link on coherent human energy fields which appear to transmit emotional content: The Electricity of Touch: Detection and Measurement of Cardiac Energy Exchange Between People, by R. McCraty, M. Atkinson, D. Tomasino, W.A. Tiller.
I was drawing attention to your generally spiteful tone, not to the content. I was drawing attention to the lack of content in your claims. The void persists. Where would science be if people never considered unorthodox possibilities, or gave credence to enticing--but still inconclusive--evidence? With some puzzles, you can see a pattern forming before the last pieces fit into place. Science is exactly where it should be, ignoring those with extraordinary claims and no evidence. Sorry if I've exposed your website as complete horsepucky, but I have little respect for those who propagate such nonsense. And of course, attacking me personally for exposing that crap does little to support said crap. All it does is support the notion there is NO content to your claims, o' delusional one.
"Horsepucky," "nonsense" and "crap," huh? Thanks, because I was waiting for this to feel like a REAL debate. There is a whole "other world" of discourse out there, Q, though you can't seem to see it... there is a magical Shangri-La, where people give each other the benefit of a doubt, look for common points of understanding, avoid redundant arguments in favor of challenging ones, and refrain from emotionally loaded cheap shots. You did not, in fact, "win." You claimed that I had certain intentions and assumptions, and I disproved your claim. I never said that I had absolute proof of chi/prana/vital energy, proof that can be verified in controlled studies on command. As far as I know, nobody has that proof, and I have believed this for years. In fact, you took a quote from my web site out of context, just to make that erroneous claim. I believe that human beings possess 6+ innate "senses," sure. Think what you will of me on that score; just save a bit of scorn for the hundreds of millions of people around the world, and the thousands of human cultures, that have believed this as well. I admit it--we're even bigger morons than those folks who said "the earth revolves around the sun," or "if you sail across the Atlantic you won't fall off the edge of the world." At the time, all the self-proclaimed authorities on reality knew that those folks were full of horsepucky and didn't give them a second thought. I never claimed, however, that chi's existence has been proven to the satisfaction of the scientific community. Remember logic, Q? "If it's raining, the ground must be wet, but if the ground is wet, it isn't necessarily raining." Ring a bell? Here is what happened: I had already conceded your main argument from the start, but your ego was in full gear, so you thought you'd pull out your logical superpowers and show me who's boss. Having already "lost," and not being to proud to admit it, I took the opportunity to pick apart your spiteful style of communication. Hopefully, this one recommendation will stick: all of these "deluded" parapsychology buffs whom you so eagerly deride might actually listen to a point or two if you could dispense with the insecurity-driven emotional attacks. You don't have to give up your delusions of grandeur, Q; just be respectful for a change.
"Horsepucky," "nonsense" and "crap," huh? Thanks, because I was waiting for this to feel like a REAL debate. There must be REAL content before one can enter into a REAL debate - creations from ones imagination is not content for debate, nor is it REAL. just be respectful for a change. See above post re: respect. And once again, the void persists.
