Metaphysics - Science and the Superphysical

[Wes83]

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Yep, pretty much.

Yes

Mainly bad diets 

Bad diets and bad practices mostly.

There's no one reason. From a lifetime of abuse to a genetic disorder, there are many reasons.

Ask any athlete.

Last one was smallpox in the 70s.

Sure. That's not what's going on in this thread though. I'm not seeing heads popping out of boxes, but thrust quickly into sand.

Hidden human organs in quantum dimensions is beyond manical, beyond silly. It's a really dumb idea.

As far as new organs go....

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/health/new-organ-human-body-interstitium-cancer-skin-scientists-discovery-new-york-a8275851.html%3famp
 

doesn’t necessarily have to be in another “dimension “ for us to have missed it. I wonder If perhaps the woo can be found within the electromagnetic spectrum and we interact with it. Perhaps it’s only at least responsible for hallucinations and impacting the way we “feel”. I still see plenty of wonder left In the world

Edited December 9, 2019 by Wes83

[+joc]

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Hidden human organs in quantum dimensions is beyond manical, beyond silly. It's a really dumb idea.

Especially organs that aren't even organs but rather a concept.  Who does one go to if one needs Open Concept Surgery?  

And you are entirely correct about the Chakras.  And...that's why colors were given to the centers originally.  To help one focus.  

Let's say the 'base' chakra is at the base of the spine...so we give that the color red.  Well, there are also 'frequencies' associated with colors.  The Color of Sound

So...the point is...if we focus our meditation on the base of the spine...we become acutely more aware of what we are actually feeling in that part of our body.  Typically what chiropractors do is manipulate the spine back into a more uniform position.  They do this by manipulating the body in certain ways.  

The thought is:  If you focus your attention on one part of your body and relax your entire body with that extremity in mind that it enhances one's overall well being.  By relaxing, we can allow the spine to realign itself, so to speak.  It's all about a muscle to spine ratio of pressure.  By listening to 'tones' of frequencies and visualizing colors that associate with that frequency of sound...and by focusing on a certain part of the body, we can relax...that's what it is all about.

[XenoFish]

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

The original idea as I understand it was that one could focus on certain centres of the body whilst meditating imagining each focus point as a spinning wheel of energy to concentrate on harmony.

It seems to have drifted along way from there to the new age nonsense PG is fumbling around.

I figure it as a way of focusing on a single idea. Since a large amount of attention is being brought upon that idea. It should have a dominate affect on consciousness.

[psyche101]

26 minutes ago, Wes83 said:

As far as new organs go....

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/health/new-organ-human-body-interstitium-cancer-skin-scientists-discovery-new-york-a8275851.html%3famp
 

doesn’t necessarily have to be in another “dimension “ for us to have missed it. I wonder If perhaps the woo can be found within the electromagnetic spectrum and we interact with it. Perhaps it’s only at least responsible for hallucinations and impacting the way we “feel”. I still see plenty of wonder left In the world

If you read the article it wasn't missed or discovered. It was redefined, originally thought to be dense connected tissue.

Why would woo be found in the electromagnetic spectrum?

[Wes83]

8 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

If you read the article it wasn't missed or discovered. It was redefined, originally thought to be dense connected tissue.

Why would woo be found in the electromagnetic spectrum?

Just a hypothesis, and I did read the article.

if we have a misunderstanding of what something we can see is actually doing, certainly you can see the door cracked open a bit for more discoveries in things we think we know?

 

[papageorge1]

9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Well, without the woo, I hope you rub of on the more ignorant posters who confuse the term dimensions on a regular basis. That's a good description and I hope the less informed posters take note of it.

Yes, I'm looking at you @papageorge1

I just don't think there's a need to overthink things. They tend to reveal themselves if we pay attention.

haha....I'm looking at you too psyche101!! And here's what I have to say.

I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the so-called paranormal occurs and advanced/gifted clairvoyant seers can perceive with more than the known physical senses. That is probably our divergent point right there.

My other thought is that we have minds conditioned to think only in ways of our normal three-dimensional experiences. Our minds struggle with conceptualizing more dimensions than what we are conditioned to think in. 

My concern is not trying to convince others of the best way to conceptualize all this. The important part is that this extra-dimensional and super-physical is a reality and the spiritual teachers I have reasoned to be the most advanced tell us how one ought to live in this grander reality.

 

[XenoFish]

Yep, definitely unreasonable. 

[onlookerofmayhem]

12 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

advanced/gifted clairvoyant seers can perceive with more than the known physical senses.

Care to actually name any of these "seers"?

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Care to actually name any of these "seers"?

Why? So you can quickly go to the internet and find the Skeptics Dictionary or similar outlet that full-heartedly attacks everything psychic or paranormal. And then present the link as a credible find? 

So, no, I don't care to name any of these seers/clairvoyants for you. You have a 'history' with me, that tells me not to cast pearls before the swine. You have only the interest to attack, so why?

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

Why? So you can quickly go to the internet and find the Skeptics Dictionary or similar outlet that full-heartedly attacks everything psychic or paranormal. And then present the link as a credible find? 

So, no, I don't care to name any of these seers/clairvoyants for you. You have a 'history' with me, that tells me not to cast pearls before the swine. You have only the interest to attack, so why?

You don't offer pearls. You offer dollar store knockoffs. Why not give the names of these seers? Can you? Or are you afraid to do so? 

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

Why? So you can quickly go to the internet and find the Skeptics Dictionary or similar outlet that full-heartedly attacks everything psychic or paranormal. And then present the link as a credible find? 

So, no, I don't care to name any of these seers/clairvoyants for you. You have a 'history' with me, that tells me not to cast pearls before the swine. You have only the interest to attack, so why?

No. So your claims can be evaluted.

You make outlandish claims and never back them up.

Any link I would post would contain pertinent and reasoned thoughts about the individual you present as these amazing, trailblazing "seers."

The only history I have with you is presenting questions and comments about why you consider "beyond reasonable doubt" when you fail to show the slightest reason to come to the conclusion that you have. I find it insulting that you consider the evidence as such, while continually avoiding to provide any source material. 

Just as you are doing in this instance. Making the excuse that I will find a source that contradicts your narrative.

You are judging my response before I have even made it.

And even so, you are completely free to rebut any information I present. That's how this works.

Your failure to reveal these "psychic sources" is only making your case look even shakier.

Do you think it's unreasonable to ask for these sources as opposed to taking your word on it?

If you have been convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these sources are credible, then you should have no problem sharing them to be honestly evaluated. 

What are you scared of?

I find it amusing that you consider my inquiries as "attacks."

 

[papageorge1]

14 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

 Why not give the names of these seers?

I answered that question. It's because of the individual's history with me. I found the pointlessness of discussing with determined negativists.

17 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Why not give the names of these seers? Can you? Or are you afraid to do so? 

There are untold numbers of names in various eastern and western esoteric traditions. And various many types of psychic and mediumistic abilities,

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

 

If you have been convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these sources are credible, then you should have no problem sharing them to be honestly evaluated. 

 

 

I'll share with 'honest evaluators' but not with 'determined attackers of all that is paranormal/psychic'.  The latter are a waste of good time.

[onlookerofmayhem]

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I found the pointlessness of discussing with determined negativists.

No. You find it pointless to discuss the point with somebody who disagrees with you. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "determined negativist." Care to clarify?

6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

There are untold numbers of names in various eastern and western esoteric traditions. And various many types of psychic and mediumistic abilities,

Name the three you consider most credible.

[XenoFish]

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I answered that question. It's because of the individual's history with me. I found the pointlessness of discussing with determined negativists.

There are untold numbers of names in various eastern and western esoteric traditions. And various many types of psychic and mediumistic abilities,

Here's the problem and it's the same issue I have with macqdor. You shutdown any conversation you don't like. 

[onlookerofmayhem]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

I'll share with 'honest evaluators' but not with 'determined attackers of all that is paranormal/psychic'.  The latter are a waste of good time.

The problem here is who you consider an honest evaluator. The arguments presented should rest on themselves alone. Not on whether you get along with who is presenting them.

Sounds like a bias towards those who disagree with your assertions. 

[onlookerofmayhem]

9 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I'll share with 'honest evaluators' but not with 'determined attackers of all that is paranormal/psychic'.  The latter are a waste of good time.

You have used the word attack multiple times now.

I don't believe in the paranormal/psychics because I have never been presented any evidence that they exist.

You have repeatedly said that you do believe "beyond reasonable doubt."

Well, since I have doubts I ask questions in order to clarify what it is I seem to be missing.

I try to be reasonable. 

I'm sorry if you're not capable of presenting a reasonable case for your beliefs and I only question in order to receive answers.

[papageorge1]

20 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Here's the problem and it's the same issue I have with macqdor. You shutdown any conversation you don't like. 

No, only when it’s been done before with the same characters. 

[XenoFish]

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

No, only when it’s been done before with the same characters. 

The offer up these seers you believe to be correct. If not then why did you even bother to create this thread, if you're not will to actually discuss. 

[papageorge1]

20 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

You have used the word attack multiple times now.

I don't believe in the paranormal/psychics because I have never been presented any evidence that they exist.

You have repeatedly said that you do believe "beyond reasonable doubt."

Well, since I have doubts I ask questions in order to clarify what it is I seem to be missing.

I try to be reasonable. 

I'm sorry if you're not capable of presenting a reasonable case for your beliefs and I only question in order to receive answers.

I think your claim of ‘reasonableness’ is a sham.

Start  your own thread with a specific topic you would like to address and I’ll contribute with my thoughts . Let me know.

[onlookerofmayhem]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

I think your claim of ‘reasonableness’ is a sham.

Start  your own thread with a specific topic you would like to address and I’ll contribute with my thoughts . Let me know.

And I think your claims of quantity, quality and consistency are a sham. So we are on an even playing field. 

No. I am addressing this topic in this thread. 

Your OP is about dimensions, invisible organ systems and such.

You said,

"Our minds conditioned by the three dimensional world asks where are these so-called chakras, astral bodies, etc. claimed by many with extra-sensitive psychic (beyond three-dimensional) senses. There is theorizing going on already (string theory) that shows some ability to address these so-called super-natural things."

I am asking you to provide one or more sources of the "many with extrasensitive psychic senses" and what they are actually claiming. 

Since you have admitted, 

"This thread is using the term 'dimensions' not 'planes' anyway. Though I am not clear on what is really different between saying additional dimensions/additional planes/additional facets of reality."

I'm trying to to clarify what is actually being claimed.

[psyche101]

9 hours ago, Wes83 said:

Just a hypothesis,

Based on ....... ?

9 hours ago, Wes83 said:

and I did read the article.

Not my fault. Blame PG for that.

9 hours ago, Wes83 said:

if we have a misunderstanding of what something we can see is actually doing, certainly you can see the door cracked open a bit for more discoveries in things we think we know?

Misunderstanding of what exactly? 

That's a not what the story in the OP is based on. We don't have unknown processes in our body happening that could be explained by a dimensionally hidden organs. It's pure imagination, and not a very good one at that. 

[papageorge1]

4 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

 

I am asking you to provide one or more sources of the "many with extrasensitive psychic senses" and what they are actually claiming. 

 

Vedic (Eastern Hindu, etc.), Western (Theosophy, Rosicrucian, etc.) have developed through the efforts of many gifted individuals. These wisdom traditions are amazingly consistent about the basic constitution of man beyond the reach of physical senses. There are more contributors to these field of study than I can count or know of.

The consistency and detail of knowledge across these traditions and their contributors of things like the chakra system can not be satisfactorily explained-away as only imagination and copy-catting in my serious consideration. The issue of proving to others what is beyond the realm of the physical senses is perhaps not possible.

[onlookerofmayhem]

39 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Vedic (Eastern Hindu, etc.), Western (Theosophy, Rosicrucian, etc.) have developed through the efforts of many gifted individuals.

Like who? How many times must I ask you for something as simple as a name? I'm being as polite as I can, but you're being very rude with all this hand waving. 

41 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

There are more contributors to these field of study than I can count or know of.

Yet it seems impossible for you to name a single one of these contributors.

42 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The consistency and detail of knowledge across these traditions and their contributors of things like the chakra system can not be satisfactorily explained-away as only imagination and copy-catting in my serious consideration.

What detailed knowledge and information are you referring to? This is why I'm asking for a name. You have admitted you don't really know the difference between dimensions, planes and other terms. If you can't explain it I'm asking you for the best place to find someone who can.

If you consider others much well versed in the knowledge of these things then I don't see the issue providing where you are reading the things that swayed you into understanding.

51 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The issue of proving to others what is beyond the realm of the physical senses is perhaps not possible.

So you claim. I didn't ask for proof of anything. I asked for a name.

Perhaps there is no "realm beyond" the physical senses.

[Wes83]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Based on ....... ?

Not my fault. Blame PG for that.

Misunderstanding of what exactly? 

That's a not what the story in the OP is based on. We don't have unknown processes in our body happening that could be explained by a dimensionally hidden organs. It's pure imagination, and not a very good one at that. 

Fair enough- Tesla’s writings on the aether and armchair speculation. 
 

I’ll humbly bow out as I’m more into conversing on possibilities openly vs defending a position, which I have none to defend either way. I simply enjoy the conversation of what may be absurd, or could very well be possible-but can usually provide me with another way to consider something I may never have thought of... for instance, I have never considered the possibility of having organs not in my body, let alone this realm.