CIA explored use of psychic in Lockerbie bomb

[coolguy]

This bomb was supose to go off over the ocean, but something happned the actor was playe larry Tate in bewitched david white his son was on this plane

[aquatus1]

7 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I'm perhaps not clear on what you mean that I need to come up with 'useful questions'. If one wants to better understand the mechanisms on how these thing can work I think the wisdom traditions of the east/Vedic, theosophy and occult studies are where to look. They describe the dimensions/realms invisible to the cruder physical senses. They provide explanation on many things we call paranormal as normal in this expanded view beyond the realm of the senses. These things can not at this time be explored through physical science. Physical science can only see the effect of these things on the physical realm, it cannot at this time study the causes directly.

What I mean is that how, if one wants to better understand the mechanism on how these things could work, would you do so?  What descriptions of invisible realms are you talking about?  What explanations are you referring to?

You are rather enamored with claiming that there are other ways to get information, but other than making vague references to other systems, you don't seem to have the faintest idea of where to start with them.

So, here is my question to you:  What would be the first question you would ask yourself if you were tasked with deciding on a direction of research?  How would that question help you understand this phenomena?

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

What I mean is that how, if one wants to better understand the mechanism on how these things could work, would you do so?  What descriptions of invisible realms are you talking about?  What explanations are you referring to?

You are rather enamored with claiming that there are other ways to get information, but other than making vague references to other systems, you don't seem to have the faintest idea of where to start with them.

As, I said earlier I do not see how materialist science at this time can do more than just observe the effects of these other dimensions that are unobservable to the physical senses and instruments. The cause of these events can not be seen or studied at the physical observation level.

I am not sure why my reference to other wisdom traditions is being called vague, but these are very complex and quite advanced models of the non-physical levels of the universe. When I started looking into this stuff I was amazed at the level of detail and consistency contained in these traditions. Most people are quite uninformed about this stuff because of a societal prejudice towards scoffing at any knowledge beyond physical science. I wish more people would at least read and consider say an introductory Theosophical description of the planes of nature.

2 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

So, here is my question to you:  What would be the first question you would ask yourself if you were tasked with deciding on a direction of research?  How would that question help you understand this phenomena?

One thing science can do is to look for and study the variables that enhance or detract from anomalous cognition. However understanding the cause will be beyond the reach of a discipline that relies solely on physical senses and instruments. We need an integration of science and eastern/Vedic, theosophical and occult wisdom traditions at this time to progress and create a bridge between science and the so-called psychic/spiritual. There is also an emotional position of many in the scientific field that they alone rule the roost of knowledge. That attitude would have to be the first thing to conquer if mainstream science is to progress in understanding these issues as opposed to a vehement dislike of scientifically done studies showing things that do not fit current understanding. Any scientifically done studies should be praised as adding to our knowledge even when the results are not what we think we want to hear.

[aquatus1]

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

As, I said earlier I do not see how materialist science at this time can do more than just observe the effects of these other dimensions that are unobservable to the physical senses and instruments. The cause of these events can not be seen or studied at the physical observation level.

Yes, we know, you've repeated this many, many times.  I'm not asking you about materialistic science.  I'm asking you about these theosophical, Vedic, Masonic, Occult, or what-have-you methods you keep bringing up.  Tell us about those.

Quote

I am not sure why my reference to other wisdom traditions is being called vague, but these are very complex and quite advanced models of the non-physical levels of the universe.

Because I've asked you three times already to start talking about the actual functions of these traditions, and instead, all you do is keep repeating the same thing about them being superior in regards to understanding this, but never actually get around to explaining how this would be understood in those traditions.

Quote

When I started looking into this stuff I was amazed at the level of detail and consistency contained in these traditions. Most people are quite uninformed about this stuff because of a societal prejudice towards scoffing at any knowledge beyond physical science. I wish more people would at least read and consider say an introductory Theosophical description of the planes of nature.

By all means, educate us.  What is the first step to understanding this phenomena?  Can you tell us anything about these traditions other than "Science won't help you in this"? 

For the sake of the argument, we'll accept that science is inadequate to understand this phenomena.  We'll also accept that Remote Viewing does indeed exist as a phenomena.  Okay, so, now what?  We have assumed the phenomena, what's next?

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, aquatus1 said:

Yes, we know, you've repeated this many, many times.  I'm not asking you about materialistic science.  I'm asking you about these theosophical, Vedic, Masonic, Occult, or what-have-you methods you keep bringing up.  Tell us about those.

Because I've asked you three times already to start talking about the actual functions of these traditions, and instead, all you do is keep repeating the same thing about them being superior in regards to understanding this, but never actually get around to explaining how this would be understood in those traditions.

By all means, educate us.  What is the first step to understanding this phenomena?  Can you tell us anything about these traditions other than "Science won't help you in this"? 

For the sake of the argument, we'll accept that science is inadequate to understand this phenomena.  We'll also accept that Remote Viewing does indeed exist as a phenomena.  Okay, so, now what?  We have assumed the phenomena, what's next?

OK, now I understand what you are asking. We had a communication gap.

Basically a human being has a physical body and an interpenetrating astral/mental body (not physically detectable). This astral/mental body has sense organs that receive information in its plane of existence just as the physical body has senses that operate on its plane of existence. Certain more psychically advanced types can consciously attune their astral senses to where they want to see (remotely view). This would be akin to what Theosophy calls 'intentional clairvoyance'. Chapter 4 of this book goes into that ability in considerable detail.

Now Remote Viewing is considered to be a cocktail of different psychic abilities. How did the viewer even know what he was supposed to look at; that would be even another psychic skill. Here is something from the International Remote Viewing Association (IRVA) Link.

Unlike most other psi disciplines, remote viewing is not precisely one thing, but rather an integrated "cocktail" of various phenomena. Despite the "viewing" part of the term, remote viewing is only partly about experiences associated with what might be visible about a target. It also involves mental impressions pertaining to the other senses, such as sounds, tastes, smells, and textures, as well as limited telepathy-like effects, and in some cases just plain intuitive "knowing." RV owes some of these qualities to the fact that lessons learned from research in clairvoyance, telepathy, and even out-of-body experiences -- traditionally considered separate disciplines -- played a role in its development.

I hope this better addresses your question.

Edited February 12, 2017 by papageorge1

[NightScreams]

So where's the link to the declassified documents themselves?

[aquatus1]

13 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

OK, now I understand what you are asking. We had a communication gap.

Basically a human being has a physical body and an interpenetrating astral/mental body (not physically detectable). This astral/mental body has sense organs that receive information in its plane of existence just as the physical body has senses that operate on its plane of existence. Certain more psychically advanced types can consciously attune their astral senses to where they want to see (remotely view). This would be akin to what Theosophy calls 'intentional clairvoyance'. Chapter 4 of this book goes into that ability in considerable detail.

Apparently, it is not enough to assume the existence of the phenomena itself; this explanation also requires us to assume the existence of etheric vibrations, astral currents, and nature spirits.

Now, at some point, will all of this lead to understanding how the phenomena itself actually works for ourselves?  Or will we always have to rely on the word of someone else? 

After all, it is one thing to determine something through direct intuition (that's theosophy); it is quite another to be told what exists and have to believe for it to work (that's preaching).
 

Quote

 

Now Remote Viewing is considered to be a cocktail of different psychic abilities. How did the viewer even know what he was supposed to look at; that would be even another psychic skill. Here is something from the International Remote Viewing Association (IRVA) Link.

Unlike most other psi disciplines, remote viewing is not precisely one thing, but rather an integrated "cocktail" of various phenomena. Despite the "viewing" part of the term, remote viewing is only partly about experiences associated with what might be visible about a target. It also involves mental impressions pertaining to the other senses, such as sounds, tastes, smells, and textures, as well as limited telepathy-like effects, and in some cases just plain intuitive "knowing." RV owes some of these qualities to the fact that lessons learned from research in clairvoyance, telepathy, and even out-of-body experiences -- traditionally considered separate disciplines -- played a role in its development.

I hope this better addresses your question.

 

Not...really.  I mean, it is a definition (of sorts) of RV, and that's great, but we already assumed the existence of the phenomena (for the sake of this discussion), and the definition isn't particularly controversial, so my question is still: what's next?  Right now, we are still in the exact same position as before in regards to the phenomena.  Our understanding as to how it works hasn't advance much, beyond hearing someone else tell us of what they believe is happening.

Would it be fair to say that you currently only have a basic level of understanding of Theosophy?

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

Apparently, it is not enough to assume the existence of the phenomena itself; this explanation also requires us to assume the existence of etheric vibrations, astral currents, and nature spirits.

Now, at some point, will all of this lead to understanding how the phenomena itself actually works for ourselves?  Or will we always have to rely on the word of someone else? 

Actually that is correct. It is presented by those who claim perception beyond the physical and cannot be corroborated by physical science. These theosophists report what they observe and study things carefully and present it to us for consideration, I see nothing wrong with that. They are doing us a service which I appreciate.

2 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

After all, it is one thing to determine something through direct intuition (that's theosophy); it is quite another to be told what exists .and have to believe for it to work (that's preaching)

 

 They are recording their observation and understanding for our consideration. That is not preaching. How should they proceed then?

2 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

Not...really.  I mean, it is a definition (of sorts) of RV, and that's great, but we already assumed the existence of the phenomena (for the sake of this discussion), and the definition isn't particularly controversial, so my question is still: what's next?  Right now, we are still in the exact same position as before in regards to the phenomena.  Our understanding as to how it works hasn't advance much, beyond hearing someone else tell us of what they believe is happening.

You say that our understanding hasn't advanced much but you can't speak for everybody. I believe my personal understanding has advanced phenomenally. I for one want to hear all theories and for many reasons believe eastern/Vedic and theosophical knowledge are on the right track and for reasons far beyond this RV explanation. Science needs to be conservative and remain agnostic. Not being a follower of scientism, I consider wisdom traditions beyond science in forming my personal worldview.

3 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

Would it be fair to say that you currently only have a basic level of understanding of Theosophy?

I'd call it an intermediate level. I am not psychically gifted but a student.

[aquatus1]

10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Actually that is correct. It is presented by those who claim perception beyond the physical and cannot be corroborated by physical science. These theosophists report what they observe and study things carefully and present it to us for consideration, I see nothing wrong with that. They are doing us a service which I appreciate.

I'll wait to count something as a service until an actual result has been produced.

Quote

They are recording their observation and understanding for our consideration. That is not preaching. How should they proceed then?

The same way all other direct experience wisdom traditions do:  By guiding the student to the experience, not by telling them about it.

Quote

You say that our understanding hasn't advanced much but you can't speak for everybody. I believe my personal understanding has advanced phenomenally.

What phenomenal understanding have you gained that you did not convey to us in the few sentences above?  How does this understanding help you determine a goal for understanding and how does it help you to progress towards those goals?

Quote

I for one want to hear all theories and for many reasons believe eastern/Vedic and theosophical knowledge are on the right track and for reasons far beyond this RV explanation. Science needs to be conservative and remain agnostic. Not being a follower of scientism, I consider wisdom traditions beyond science in forming my personal worldview.

Yes, yes, as I said, you've repeated this over and over again, and absolutely no one is unaware of your position at this point.  The question is not what you think about science, but rather, what you think other wisdom traditions would approach the subject.

Quote

I'd call it an intermediate level. I am not psychically gifted but a student.

For someone at an intermediate level, you seem to have a great deal of difficulty explaining the actual process.  Since I am not asking you to keep to scientific standards, don't worry about linking the first results of a Google search.  Rather, explain to me, in your own words, how you believe whichever wisdom tradition you choose will result in useful information, as in, information which will lead to the successful reproduction of the phenomena.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, aquatus1 said:

I'll wait to count something as a service until an actual result has been produced.

The same way all other direct experience wisdom traditions do:  By guiding the student to the experience, not by telling them about it.

What phenomenal understanding have you gained that you did not convey to us in the few sentences above?  How does this understanding help you determine a goal for understanding and how does it help you to progress towards those goals?

Yes, yes, as I said, you've repeated this over and over again, and absolutely no one is unaware of your position at this point.  The question is not what you think about science, but rather, what you think other wisdom traditions would approach the subject.

For someone at an intermediate level, you seem to have a great deal of difficulty explaining the actual process.  Since I am not asking you to keep to scientific standards, don't worry about linking the first results of a Google search. 

Our conversation seems to be caught in a loop and I don't need to hear how I keep repeating myself, so I won't repeat myself

1 hour ago, aquatus1 said:

 Rather, explain to me, in your own words, how you believe whichever wisdom tradition you choose will result in useful information, as in, information which will lead to the successful reproduction of the phenomena.

Well, I never claimed to have a way to the 'successful reproduction of the phenomena'. I merely offered explanations as to how gifted psychics can perform the phenomena. And that tells me more of the construction of the universe which is what I call 'useful'.

[aquatus1]

52 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Well, I never claimed to have a way to the 'successful reproduction of the phenomena'.

There's nothing wrong with that.  The entire purpose of a wisdom tradition is to guide someone to finding answers.  That is what I am asking you about: how do you go about finding answers to questions about the phenomena?  If repetition of the phenomena is not your goal, what is your goal in terms of understanding it?  How do you determine when you have actually understood it?

Quote

I merely offered explanations as to how gifted psychics can perform the phenomena. And that tells me more of the construction of the universe which is what I call 'useful'.

How so?  What use can you make of the explanation?

[papageorge1]

15 minutes ago, aquatus1 said:

There's nothing wrong with that.  The entire purpose of a wisdom tradition is to guide someone to finding answers.  That is what I am asking you about: how do you go about finding answers to questions about the phenomena?  If repetition of the phenomena is not your goal, what is your goal in terms of understanding it?  How do you determine when you have actually understood it?

How so?  What use can you make of the explanation?

My interest in all this was finding answers to the big questions of existence; what are we? what/if there is a purpose?, etc.. My interest was initially piqued by various types of paranormal phenomena that I felt had unsatisfactory natural explanations. What could this 'more' to reality be, and what can I know about it. This lead me to traditions with rich detail that showed paranormal phenomena to be really just be part and parcel of an expanded view of the normal. It is not just magic. Also the masters of the eastern tradition had a huge influence on me. They convinced me that their knowledge of the nature of reality exceeded materialist science and western religions.

My goal comes from my religious philosophy Advaita (non-dual (God and creation are not-two) Vedic philosophy). In this tradition the goal is Self-Realization (another subject that can be discussed). The development of psychic abilities are considered to be unimportant and even a distraction on the path to Self-Realizations. My interest in psychic abilities is really just in how it shows there are important things beyond the physical world as we live in an age where scientific materialism is such a strong force.

[stereologist]

Not once has a remote viewer been able to report something of value, not once. There are many instances of failure such as the reports of the mother ship behind the comet that possibly led to many people committing suicide. There was to mother ship, but there were a lot of dead people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group)

RV is all about self delusion. There is nothing there, but self delusion. That is why the program was dropped. It was worthless.

Here is a completely nonsensical statement.

Quote

I do not see how materialist science at this time can do more than just observe the effects of these other dimensions that are unobservable to the physical senses and instruments.

If the physical senses and instruments cannot detect something then it is a delusion. Simple as simple can be. Some people pretend there is something out there, but there is no evidence. Testing has shown that these ideas are in fact nothing more than delusions. When people have been confronted with the uncomfortable fact that these ideas of the paranormal are nothing more than delusions they built up a collection of reasons as to why their delusions must be true and the testing has failed. But it is all a delusion and no house of cards changes that.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Our conversation seems to be caught in a loop and I don't need to hear how I keep repeating myself, so I won't repeat myself

Well, I never claimed to have a way to the 'successful reproduction of the phenomena'. I merely offered explanations as to how gifted psychics can perform the phenomena. And that tells me more of the construction of the universe which is what I call 'useful'.

Here i a big joke: gifted psychic. There are none. There is no such thing as a psychic, let alone a gifted psychic. There are plenty of people pretending to have extraordinary powers and there are many more gullible people out there buying into this joke.

[stereologist]

This thread is like crop circle threads and end of the world threads. People make all sorts of stories up about this and that and when push comes to shove they can't produce even one piece of evidence. There are more excuses than there are examples. That is what these hoaxes are all about - excuses and failures and the gullible.

[ChrLzs]

On 2/12/2017 at 3:09 AM, papageorge1 said:

As, I said earlier I do not see how materialist science at this time can do more than just observe the effects of these other dimensions that are unobservable to the physical senses and instruments. The cause of these events can not be seen or studied at the physical observation level.

I think this is where the problem rests...  I and others have now asked many times for your best example of an "effect of these other dimensions that are unobservable to the physical senses and instruments".  Just one example, papa.  Preferably the best one in your opinion (or if not, please explain your reason for not picking the best).

Because if it is 'unobservable' and you can't even give an example of something unexplainable, then as far as I can see, it doesn't exist - and you have no argument.  It's no wonder it goes in circles when you never give 'the' example - the one that you find compellingly in need of an explanation.

On 2/12/2017 at 3:09 AM, papageorge1 said:

I am not sure why my reference to other wisdom traditions is being called vague

Perhaps if you re-read my two paragraphs above, that might tell you why it is in fact well beyond 'vague'.  You still haven't given an example...

On 2/12/2017 at 3:09 AM, papageorge1 said:

When I started looking into this stuff I was amazed at the level of detail and consistency contained in these traditions.

When you give your example, feel free to elaborate on that..

On 2/12/2017 at 3:09 AM, papageorge1 said:

Most people are quite uninformed about this stuff because..

There is no evidence of anything that requires it..?  That's certainly my opinion, but I will welcome the first example of something that makes me accept your approach..  I'd love to go through an example with you, in detail.  Is that vague claim about RV, the best thing you've found?  Was their one particular RV study that stands out, perhaps?  I do know Dean Radin's 'work' very well - and I'm happy to go through where it falls down, in great detail, and perhaps even give a demonstration of how it works right here...  But please pick your BEST example, no handwaving...

On 2/12/2017 at 3:09 AM, papageorge1 said:

.. a societal prejudice towards scoffing at any knowledge beyond physical science...

I think it rather insulting and unjustified to call someone prejudiced and uninformed, when you have yet to show us anything.  It is like getting angry at someone who doubts your assurance that the empty space beside them is full of demons and invisible pink unicorns.... Up until you either show them the unicorn/s, or at least something speared by its horn or trodden upon by its hooves.. they are correct and sensible to ignore your claims...

[papageorge1]

9 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

I think this is where the problem rests...  I and others have now asked many times for your best example of an "effect of these other dimensions that are unobservable to the physical senses and instruments".  Just one example, papa.  Preferably the best one in your opinion (or if not, please explain your reason for not picking the best).

Because if it is 'unobservable' and you can't even give an example of something unexplainable, then as far as I can see, it doesn't exist - and you have no argument.  It's no wonder it goes in circles when you never give 'the' example - the one that you find compellingly in need of an explanation.

Perhaps if you re-read my two paragraphs above, that might tell you why it is in fact well beyond 'vague'.  You still haven't given an example...

When you give your example, feel free to elaborate on that..

There is no evidence of anything that requires it..?  That's certainly my opinion, but I will welcome the first example of something that makes me accept your approach..  I'd love to go through an example with you, in detail.  Is that vague claim about RV, the best thing you've found?  Was their one particular RV study that stands out, perhaps?  I do know Dean Radin's 'work' very well - and I'm happy to go through where it falls down, in great detail, and perhaps even give a demonstration of how it works right here...  But please pick your BEST example, no handwaving...

I think it rather insulting and unjustified to call someone prejudiced and uninformed, when you have yet to show us anything.  It is like getting angry at someone who doubts your assurance that the empty space beside them is full of demons and invisible pink unicorns.... Up until you either show them the unicorn/s, or at least something speared by its horn or trodden upon by its hooves.. they are correct and sensible to ignore your claims...

We have been discussing the government Remote Viewing experiments statistical anomalies and the analysis by Jessica Utts to a great extent in this thread. You can explain the error of her analysis as a start.

Edited February 13, 2017 by papageorge1

[ChrLzs]

35 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

We have been discussing the government Remote Viewing experiments statistical anomalies and the analysis by Jessica Utts to a great extent in this thread. You can explain the error of her analysis as a start.

Before i do that, can YOU explain why you would point at Utts, and a METAstudy???  What actual studies did Utts do?  The fact that you would, instead of pointing at an actual single study, rather point at a statistical meta-analysis of other studies - one that includes studies that have been shown to be horrifyingly flawed, tells me that you are not debating in very good faith.  I asked for an example of something unexplainable, and you show me someone who has gathered statistics from flawed sources????  A meta analysis that is not published at a credible journal, and the summary of which is so vague as to be useless, other than to suggest 'further research is warranted'?  

How about you point out the one study that was the best, and we'll then look at the documentation for that study and how the results were obtained.  I'll wait for a day or two for you to do that.  If you won't then I'll take the first 'anomalous' study that Utts used.  Fair enough?

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Before i do that, can YOU explain why you would point at Utts, and a METAstudy???  What actual studies did Utts do?  The fact that you would, instead of pointing at an actual single study, rather point at a statistical meta-analysis of other studies - one that includes studies that have been shown to be horrifyingly flawed, tells me that you are not debating in very good faith.  I asked for an example of something unexplainable, and you show me someone who has gathered statistics from flawed sources????  A meta analysis that is not published at a credible journal, and the summary of which is so vague as to be useless, other than to suggest 'further research is warranted'?  

How about you point out the one study that was the best, and we'll then look at the documentation for that study and how the results were obtained.  I'll wait for a day or two for you to do that.  If you won't then I'll take the first 'anomalous' study that Utts used.  Fair enough?

No. I have told you before that I already know it is possible to obfuscate anything forever if one wants to. At some point, we have to make our own determination on reasonableness. Even an arch skeptic (Ray Hyman) who was charged by the government to study these results had to yield to the most reasonable position: "The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort…. I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments.

Edited February 13, 2017 by papageorge1

[ChrLzs]

And that is textbook cherry picking of quotes - did you not see the APPEAR TO BE  words in that quote?  And how is it that your open mind is not considering that the 'real effects' do not have to be psychic at all, and could simply be flaws in the experiments.  Indeed, when you start to look at the ridiculous convoluted complexities and ludicrous subjectivfe judgement regimes involved in these parodies of 'science'...  There is a reason these 'studies' don't get into credible science jourmals, but are fodder for those who must try to justify their funding and positions in lame organisations like the RVA...

 

I'll be back later to give specific examples of the tripe that passes for 'success' in these silly studies..  That's if Utts and her crew give enough clues to actually find the original papers, and those papers actually properly document the tests - often this stuff just conveniently vanishes or has no proof that anything really happened anyway...  Yes, it is THAT bad in this field of snake oil merchants and woo peddlers.  

[papageorge1]

10 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

And that is textbook cherry picking of quotes - did you not see the APPEAR TO BE  words in that quote?  And how is it that your open mind is not considering that the 'real effects' do not have to be psychic at all, and could simply be flaws in the experiments.  Indeed, when you start to look at the ridiculous convoluted complexities and ludicrous subjectivfe judgement regimes involved in these parodies of 'science'...  There is a reason these 'studies' don't get into credible science jourmals, but are fodder for those who must try to justify their funding and positions in lame organisations like the RVA...

 

I'll be back later to give specific examples of the tripe that passes for 'success' in these silly studies..  That's if Utts and her crew give enough clues to actually find the original papers, and those papers actually properly document the tests - often this stuff just conveniently vanishes or has no proof that anything really happened anyway...  Yes, it is THAT bad in this field of snake oil merchants and woo peddlers.  

Well, you are free to go through that effort but I am not sure how many will accept the conclusions you are aiming to produce except for those that just want to hear negative conclusions about psychic functioning because of a pre-standing dislike of the paranormal. As I said, at some point we have to determine reasonableness for ourselves or we can debate forever. Your point is that all these people involved in studies such as this are too incompetent (or biased or out-and-out cheaters) to fairly design, fairly perform and fairly analyze controlled experiments investigating anomalous cognition.  I have read, seen and heard too many of these highly intelligent people and the analysis of the most respected statistical experts to convince me beyond reasonable doubt that there is a psychic effect not currently understood by science occurring.  If this was all based on terribly done experiments as you claim, I would think Hyman would have screamed that out in these RV experiments, but that is not what we are seeing. The quality parapsychologists are fully aware of the importance of excellent experimental design and execution and they spend a great effort on this; in fact it is part of their specialty.  

 

Edited February 13, 2017 by papageorge1

[stereologist]

We've been through this again and again. Hyman pointed out numerous flaws in the experiments including the use of a single judge.

The results of the reports from Utts and Hyman was the cancellation of the project a it was deemed worthless. Utts' report led to the closure of the project. How do you explain that?

Quote

Based upon both of their collected findings, which recommended a higher level of critical research and tighter controls, the CIA terminated the 20 million dollar project, citing a lack of documented evidence that the program had any value to the intelligence community.

http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Stargate_Project

Quote

According to the American Institute for Research, which performed the review of the project, no remote viewing report ever provided actionable information for any intelligence operation.

The project was a failure. It did not work. The experiments were poorly done.

[aquatus1]

22 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

My interest in all this was finding answers to the big questions of existence; what are we? what/if there is a purpose?, etc.. My interest was initially piqued by various types of paranormal phenomena that I felt had unsatisfactory natural explanations. What could this 'more' to reality be, and what can I know about it. This lead me to traditions with rich detail that showed paranormal phenomena to be really just be part and parcel of an expanded view of the normal. It is not just magic. Also the masters of the eastern tradition had a huge influence on me. They convinced me that their knowledge of the nature of reality exceeded materialist science and western religions.

That's really cool, but I didn't ask you why you believe what you believe.  Again, we know that you are convinced they know more than science does, no one is the slightest bit unaware of your position, there is no need to keep repeating it.  The question is about the nuts and bolts of it, the process, the guidance, the progress, not about whether you believe it or not.

Quote

My goal comes from my religious philosophy Advaita (non-dual (God and creation are not-two) Vedic philosophy). In this tradition the goal is Self-Realization (another subject that can be discussed). The development of psychic abilities are considered to be unimportant and even a distraction on the path to Self-Realizations. My interest in psychic abilities is really just in how it shows there are important things beyond the physical world as we live in an age where scientific materialism is such a strong force.

Then it really isn't a system of understanding, is it?  It is a system of introspection.  Advaita Vedanta is a rather well-known and I am fairly familiar with it from back when I was in my spiritual phase (I was more into Vajrakilaya, myself).  I'm curious as to how you reconcile the search for evidence of things beyond the physical world with trying to achieve viraga.

In all cases, it seems that you understand that science and mysticism share two distinct purposes.  One is the explanation of phenomena through logic and data, the other is achieving a state of union with an altered stated of reality, usually religious in nature, but not necessarily so.

While I wish you the best in your spiritual studies, assuming you are indeed a student of them, and not simply a fan, I think you are doing yourself more harm than good by mentally placing them in competition with science (which is what you are doing, even though you might not think so).  I would run this conversion through your counselor (or guru, if you are a student) so he can fill you in on some of the errors you are making.

[papageorge1]

31 minutes ago, aquatus1 said:

That's really cool, but I didn't ask you why you believe what you believe.  Again, we know that you are convinced they know more than science does, no one is the slightest bit unaware of your position, there is no need to keep repeating it.  The question is about the nuts and bolts of it, the process, the guidance, the progress, not about whether you believe it or not.

I think you are asking about what is called sadhana or spiritual practices?? Well, in a nutshell, there are four processes of Yoga; Bhakti (devotional), Karma (good works), Jnana (knowledge) and Raja (meditation). These are not really separate but more integrative to achieve the goal of Self-Realization. I am personally more inclined to Jnana Yoga living in the knowledge that I am Brahman living a finite experience learning to understand what I truly am (Brahman) which necessarily involves a mindset of detachment from the material ups and downs.

41 minutes ago, aquatus1 said:

Then it really isn't a system of understanding, is it?  It is a system of introspection.  Advaita Vedanta is a rather well-known and I am fairly familiar with it from back when I was in my spiritual phase (I was more into Vajrakilaya, myself).  I'm curious as to how you reconcile the search for evidence of things beyond the physical world with trying to achieve virago.

In all cases, it seems that you understand that science and mysticism share two distinct purposes.  One is the explanation of phenomena through logic and data, the other is achieving a state of union with an altered stated of reality, usually religious in nature, but not necessarily so.

I don't see any conflict. Why can one not be BOTH involved in the practice of Self-Realization under Advaita philosophy AND ALSO be interested in learning about paranormal phenomena and the design of the universe above the physical as taught by occult traditions like Theosophy. These things may have differences in focus but they are not incompatible and one can have an interest in all of them as I do; Advaita, the paranormal and Theosophy.

47 minutes ago, aquatus1 said:

 

While I wish you the best in your spiritual studies, assuming you are indeed a student of them, and not simply a fan, I think you are doing yourself more harm than good by mentally placing them in competition with science (which is what you are doing, even though you might not think so). 

I believe science and spirituality are compatible but study different things. Science is concerned with understanding the operation of the material world and spirituality involves things above the sensory world. They are different but not incompatible. Oh by the way, I will add I am also interested in learning about material science too.

53 minutes ago, aquatus1 said:

I would run this conversion through your counselor (or guru, if you are a student) so he can fill you in on some of the errors you are making.

I am not seeing the error in being interested in multiple non-conflicting things. Though the path towards Self-Realization is my most important endeavor.

[aquatus1]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

I think you are asking about what is called sadhana or spiritual practices?? Well, in a nutshell, there are four processes of Yoga; Bhakti (devotional), Karma (good works), Jnana (knowledge) and Raja (meditation). These are not really separate but more integrative to achieve the goal of Self-Realization. I am personally more inclined to Jnana Yoga living in the knowledge that I am Brahman living a finite experience learning to understand what I truly am (Brahman) which necessarily involves a mindset of detachment from the material ups and downs.

No, I was asking about how they helped you understand the phenomena of RV.

Quote

I don't see any conflict. Why can one not be BOTH involved in the practice of Self-Realization under Advaita philosophy AND ALSO be interested in learning about paranormal phenomena and the design of the universe above the physical as taught by occult traditions like Theosophy. These things may have differences in focus but they are not incompatible and one can have an interest in all of them as I do; Advaita, the paranormal and Theosophy.

They don't.  You do.

Everything you have stated to date shows that you view your beliefs to be in competition with science.  How many times have I had to remind you that we understand you think your beliefs are superior?  You are the one that is treating them as opposite camps.  The conflict is one of your own creation, because you are using them for things that they were not meant for.

Quote

I believe science and spirituality are compatible but study different things. Science is concerned with understanding the operation of the material world and spirituality involves things above the sensory world. They are different but not incompatible. Oh by the way, I will add I am also interested in learning about material science too.

And yet, you continue claiming that one is superior than the other, instead of understanding what the other has to say.  This is going to be one of the hardest things you will attempt, and to be honest, most people don't even notice it enough to be able to attempt it:

If you ever expect to understand any vedic system of spirituality, you have to achieve a separation of desires.  Right now, your desire to have your beliefs acknowledged is screaming out to all of us.  Making peace with that, understanding that desire, and removing it, should be your goal right now.

Quote

I am not seeing the error in being interested in multiple non-conflicting things. Though the path towards Self-Realization is my most important endeavor.

That is why you should talk with your spiritual counselor, after showing him this discussion.