Discussions

Anonymous Icon

DISCUSSIONS AND REVOLUTIONS

Posted Sept. 28, 2013 by Jim Centi in Open

Anonymous Icon

commented on Nov. 29, 2013
by dustproduction

Quote

56

Generally these discussions reflect a harmonious and often interesting tone, but there are occasions in which feathers are fluffed and I admit to being occasionally involved.

I believe that disagreements have occurred because some individuals are unaware of the revolution occurring in science and unaware that IONS science is a major player in the revolution.

On one side of the revolution is Scientific Materialism (SM) often referred to as main stream science or traditional science.

On the other side are IONS science and a network of scientists who may or may not be directly affiliated with IONS.

There are many differences between these opposing sides and I will address one very fundamental difference.

SM holds that consciousness is created by each individual brain and the consciousness in each individual brain is imprisoned in that brain. That is to say each individual’s consciousness is separate from or exists completely independent of the consciousness confined in all other brains. This is only an assumption of SM. Although SM offers theories on how the brain creates consciousness, there is no scientific proof that SM offers for its position.

Because SM holds that each individual brain creates its own consciousness, they are adamant that the brain is the proper study of science and consciousness is not a proper study for science. SM is the dominant scientific paradigm.

For simplification I will refer to IONS science, simply as IONS.

IONS holds that consciousness is not imprisoned within individual brains, but that it connects individuals and their brains. There are a variety of ways to discuss this. Perhaps the “simplest” way to explain it is that consciousness is a characteristic or expression of the universe that connects all of us. From an informed position, it is not simply a silly romantic notion to say that we are all one.

There is more complex or sophisticated ways to describe the IONS position that involve the “non-locality” of atomic particles and I will not attempt to get into that in the introduction to this topic. It is important to be aware that IONS offers proof in the form of scientific evidence for its position and SM offers theories, but no scientific proof for its position.

Before we address the IONS proof, it is necessary to comment on an interesting side note.

IONS uses the term psi rather than ESP. ESP places phenomena such as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psychokinesis in the context of sensory or extra sensory experience.

Psi, pronounced (sigh) is the first three letters of the Greek word “psyche”, meaning soul or mind. Use of the term psi removes the phenomena mentioned in the previous paragraph from identification with sensory experience or extra sensory experience.

Naturally, when the evidence for psi is accepted, the fundamental assumptions of SM previously discussed become irrational and illogical.

EVIDENCE FOR psi (Proof supporting the IONS position on consciousness)

At the top of this page click NOETIC NOW and you will come to a page listing several topics.

The second topic down is entitled “SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE”, click it.

You will come to three paragraphs where Dean Radin discusses evidence for psi. At the end of those three paragraphs, click “See the evidence” and you will be taken to nearly one hundred Selected Peer-Reviewed Journal Publications on Psi Research. You can download a PDF file and read any or all of the articles.

You should be aware that these articles are written by scientists for other scientists and may not be easy reading for non scientists. There are also recommended books and websites to visit.

If IONS wins this revolution and replaces SM as the dominant scientific paradigm, I believe that the world will eventually experience a dramatic change for the better. Eventually there will be less injustice, corruption, conflicts and suffering.

A problem facing IONS is that for a variety several reasons, most dogmatic devotees of SM not only refuse to comment on the evidence, they simply refuse to review the evidence.

I hope that this topic explains one reason why we in discussions occasionally have our feathers fluffed because of someone’s comments or their posting. Often it has been because we and they are on different sides of the culture changing revolution in science and perhaps unaware of a fundamental purpose of IONS.

I admit to being a party to conflicts where my feathers were fluffed. It was through the attempt to resolve such conflicts that I did a little research and created this topic. Perhaps there is some good to be found in everything.

If you have friends who may be interested in this topic, email them a copy and invite them to explore the IONS website and participate in Discussions. It’s all free unless they wish to make a donation.

I may suggest to IONS that devotees of SM be charged $10,000 to post to Discussions. (Picture a laughing smiley face)

  • 56 Comments  
  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 29, 2013

    Oh look, a Noetic website that discusses neuroscience: http://www.noeticscientist.com/10-introduction-to-neuroscience-i/

    "Nathan Woodling and Anthony Chung-Ming Ng give a broad overview of the field of neuroscience and how it relates to human biology. They discuss the different lobes of the brain and the cells within as well as neuropharmacology and re-uptake."

    It is curious that Biology is so ignored in this thread since we all share at least that much. Is there some other non material explanation for our biology or are we to ignore it all together in the pursuit on the spiritual?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 29, 2013

    "Science focuses on external observation and is grounded in objective evaluation, measurement, and experimentation. This is useful in increasing objectivity and reducing bias and inaccuracy as we interpret what we observe."

    Cassandra VietenDirector of Research, Institute of Noetic Sciences; author, 'Mindful Motherhood'

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 28, 2013

    "Noetic sciences are explorations into the nature and potentials of consciousness using multiple ways of knowing—including intuition, feeling, reason, and the senses. Noetic sciences explore the "inner cosmos" of the mind (consciousness, soul, spirit) and how it relates to the "outer cosmos" of the physical world."

    Let's forgo the phrase "explorations into the nature and potential of consciousness since it is of easy to argue that this is the same objective as the Dali Lama's invitation to neuroscience. What do the words "reason" and "the mind" mean here? Does "of the physical world" refer to this scientific material realm that no one has defined here?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Nov 24, 2013

    However, When others are asked "Which of the research they have read?" the discussion seem to come to an end.
    Comments are fond of pointing at it but seem to have never read much of it.

  • A.R.K. Nov 24, 2013

    Found it Jim, thanks!

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Nov 24, 2013

    Just above where Discussions start, there are six sections listed in green, Big Questions, Consciousness and Healing ect. The last item is “Open”, click it then scroll down to the bottom of comments and you will see “start your thread”, click it.
    Select a title for your topic, and then post the body of your topic.

  • A.R.K. Nov 24, 2013

    In the spirit of new discussions, looking for help on how to post a new topic, Do I have to reach a certain number of comments, or is it just hidden somewhere?......thanks =)

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Nov 24, 2013

    During the past two years Discussions has deteriorated from several active participants to less than a handful.

    This topic explains what is causing this deterioration.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 14, 2013

    Richard Feynman compares Science to Mystic Answers

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YltEym9H0x4#t=34

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Oct 08, 2013

    I will not be posting for a week or two, due to a family matter that requires my complete attention......Jim

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 08, 2013

    But it is not about what you alone "think." The scientific method includes, analysis:

    Analysis: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take. The predictions of the hypothesis are compared to those of the null hypothesis, to determine which is better able to explain the data. In cases where an experiment is repeated many times, a statistical analysis such as a chi-squared test may be required. If the evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required; if the experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is not strong enough for high confidence, other predictions from the hypothesis must be tested. Once a hypothesis is strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on the same topic. Evidence from other scientists and experience are frequently incorporated at any stage in the process. Many iterations may be required to gather sufficient evidence to answer a question with confidence, or to build up many answers to highly specific questions in order to answer a single broader question.

  • Billgreenjeans Oct 08, 2013

    I think it would be good for Dean Radins own assessment of his research to be included because I think any other assessment is a lie.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 07, 2013

    Here is an analysis of Radin's research by Robert T Carroll that other's can discuss:

    "One of the latest attempts at establishing the reality of precognition in a scientific experiment involves measuring galvanic skin response or brain activity (as measure by an fMRI) in presentiment experiments. Presentiment is a feeling that something strange or unusual is about to happen. If the feeling is especially foreboding, it is called a premonition. In presentiment experiments, however, what is measured is not the conscious feeling of anything, but the alleged unconscious effect on a machine of a physical response occurring before a stimulus is presented. Those doing this kind of research have no way of knowing that what they observe on their machines is in any way related to the stimuli they present. Assuming such a connection begs the question. The researchers might equally assume that the electrical resistance of skin in a subject or the blip of color on an fMRI caused the researcher to select the stimulus presented.

    In 1993, Dean Radin got the idea "to monitor a person's skin conductance before, during, and after viewing emotional and calm pictures, and then see if the autonomic nervous system responded appropriately before the picture appeared" (2006, p. 184). He eventually did four tests with mixed results, but a meta-analysis saved the day. The first test was small (24 subjects) and he found that the subjects reacted 2 to 3 seconds after the presentation of the stimulus, as measured by a blip on a screen hooked up to a skin conductance measuring device. He also found blips occurring before the stimulus and he calculated their odds against chance at being 500 to 1, for what it's worth.

    His second experiment had 50 subjects. All he says about it is that the "results were in the predicted direction, but weren't as strong as those observed in the first experiment." The third experiment had 47 subjects. He says it "resulted in a strong presentiment effect, with odds against chance of 2,500 to 1." The third experiment used different hardware, software, and pictures. The fourth study produced results that "weren't statistically significant."

    Radin concludes:

    These studies suggest that when the average person is about to see an emotional picture, he or she will respond before that picture appears (under double-blind conditions). (2006, p. 188, emphasis in the original)

    That's how Radin sees his work. I see a mixed bag of results that assumes blips on a screen are caused by psychic means. The studies may be double-blind, but they don't use meaningful controls. Radin's kicker, however, is his meta-analysis. He lumped together the data from the four studies and produced a paper published in The Journal of Scientific Exploration (2004) called "Electrodermal Presentiments of Future Emotions." Voila! The odds against chance of getting just the results he got? 125,000 to 1, he says (2006, p. 188)."

  • Billgreenjeans Oct 07, 2013

    While precognition maybe dismissed in many ways as to call into question its validity, although much evidence indicates "something is going on", presentiment on the other hand can not be so easily explained away as the presentiment occurs unawares of the receiving person. This of course is a subject pseudo skeptics wish they had never heard of and refuse to look at its evidence or discuss the findings.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 05, 2013

    Repeat something enough times and it becomes a truth......without being a true at all.

  • Billgreenjeans Oct 05, 2013

    Presentiment. The Paradox
    There is no evidence that freedom of choice does not exist and yet results of studies indicate that presentiment occurs prior to stimulus in psi studies. There is no current theory for why presentiment occurs.
    So does the occurrence of presentiment mean that free choice does not exist or does it mean we have many choices presented and we select the one most logical one or does it occurs because we already know what is coming next because we know the beginning from the end? Or is it something else?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 05, 2013

    WHY THE INSINCERITY?

    I told the time to reply to the questions presented and still there is no discussion.

    "Do you believe that human subjective experiences such as compassion, a sense of justice, guilt, honesty and altruism have no intrinsic value as they represent nothing more than the interaction of atomic particles or chemicals within the brain?

    Allow me to ask you to return the favor of answering the question you have been avoiding, (or was it moved on from?), since you bring it up here. I wrote:

    "To say, "SM considers our subjective experience to be nothing more than the interaction of atomic particles within the brain.." is an oversimplification. It might be said that it is the unqualified perception of SM by the commenter? It is important to identify this as an oversimplification since it supports the commenter's the next claim, "This means that human subjective experiences such as compassion, altruism and a sense of justice have no intrinsic value..." Is this an accurate statement about SM, or is it the narrow perspective of the commenter?

    I will argue that the first statement is an oversimplification and that the second statement is unsupported by the commented, and in fact is a false."

    Why is this statement false, because science not only conducts research into these areas in humans, it does so in other animals as well. WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE? "

  • Billgreenjeans Oct 04, 2013

    Presentiment. The Paradox
    There is no evidence that freedom of choice does not exist and yet results of studies indicate that presentiment occurs prior to stimulus in psi studies. There is no current theory for why presentiment occurs.
    So does the occurrence of presentiment mean that free choice does not exist or does it mean we have many choices presented and we select the one most logical one or does it occurs because we already know what is coming next because we know the beginning from the end? Or is it something else?

  • Billgreenjeans Oct 04, 2013

    Presentiment. The Paradox
    There is no evidence that freedom of choice does not exist and yet results of studies indicate that presentiment occurs prior to stimulus in psi studies. There is no current theory for why presentiment occurs.
    So does the occurrence of presentiment mean that free choice does not exist or does it mean we have many choices presented and we select the one most logical one or does it occurs because we already know what is coming next because we know the beginning from the end? Or is it something else?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 04, 2013

    re: trolling for the government

    Why not respond to my comments instead of feeling so paranoid?

  • Billgreenjeans Oct 03, 2013

    Jim,

    We can only hope the government shutdown will last a bit longer because anyone here trolling for the government is not around to spread negative thoughts. It too bad taxpayer borrowed money is used to disrupt. We live in a age of government fear and apparently consciousness is something the government fears, so the hire someone to continually disrupt.

    I hope all those who have commented in the past will not let a government hired troll dissuade them from participating. Just ignoring his comments is not difficult.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Oct 03, 2013

    @ Billgreengeans,

    Hi Bill,

    I admit that I haven’t gotten around to reading your links, but I plan to.

    I’m working on a topic that doesn't deal with science that should be ready in a week or so. After it’s posted, I’ll get around to your links.

    As stated previously, a lot of good people have dropped out of Discussions within the past year or so. I would like to see participation build back to what it once was; a friendly second home for me.

    @ Everyone,

    If you see a topic or topics that friends may be interested in, refer it to them and invite them to join us. I don’t know how you will suggest that they avoid much of the negativity in comments, but you may be able to think of something……Jim

  • Billgreenjeans Oct 02, 2013

    This is a taboo of taboos subjects and as one here refers to it as "witchcraft". Much outlawed for humans by our benevolent government it is still taught for agriculture uses here. In other countries, especially the UK, it is recognised as a "complimentary" modality to regular medicine. How it works is the mystery. Many have attempted to explained it in different ways. It can be concluded that it is distant healing consciousness. So all I wanted was to get an article or talk for IONS on the subject.
    There is much positive information on the subject and of course much more negative:

    I would start here: http://www.creativespirit.net/learners/AUCulminatingProjects/CP-Cox.pdf. And then here:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/felfield/blackbox.htm

    If this doesn't interest you let us move on to Presentiment.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Oct 02, 2013

    @Billgreenjeans

    Bill,

    I’m fairly sure that it hasn't or it would come up when inserted in the IONS search engine. When a word or term is inserted into that search engine no matter where that word or term is mentioned on the IONS website it will open to that spot.

    As you are probably already aware the only page that comes up when radionics is inserted into that search engine is your topic Are Wikipedia Editors etc.

  • Billgreenjeans Oct 02, 2013

    Jim

    My question is has the subject of Radionics been addressed here before?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Oct 02, 2013

    @ Billgreenjeans

    Bill,
    Thanks for your advice on how to get to Dean Radin’s talk in which freewill is mentioned.

    The quick answer your question is; I don’t know.

    If you decide to create a topic on Presentiment, especially if it involves free will, I would offer a few comments on it.

  • Billgreenjeans Oct 02, 2013

    Jim

    At the end of his Google Tech Talk posted on this website at the bottom of the page of SHOW ME under videos. A question was ask about precognition being contrary to free will and Dean spouted off a couple of ideas. The questioner has some of his own.

    I have an expert on Radionics that I am encouraging to prepare a talk for such a venue. I noticed it is by invitation. How does one get invited or how can such a subject be addressed here at IONS?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Oct 02, 2013

    @Billgreenjeans,

    Hi Bill,
    I notice from your posting to another topic that you don’t need advice on how to repost comments.

    After reconsidering my suggestion I can see why you may feel that it is not such a good Idea.

    I also have a few ideas about Presentiment, but can’t find Dean Radin’s comments that you referred to. Where are they?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Oct 02, 2013

    @ Billgreenjeans

    Hi Bill,

    I believe that our exchange of comments on October 1st created the possibility for an improvement in Discussions.

    I have a suggestion. If you repost your comment to me, which contained four paragraphs, I will follow you by reposting my comment to you.

    Hopefully, others will join us and we’ll see what happens. If you agree, simply repost your comment.

    The best way I know how to do this is to copy your post here, paste it to a word processor and then re post it……..Jim

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 01, 2013


    I am traveling for the next month and that is all I currently have time to address.
    When time allows I will reply to the rest.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 01, 2013


    Re" "If you answer “yes” to any of the questions, your answer is based on an assumption or faith, not science." I have already addressed this as part of the first question. And here it is important to at least look at the semantics of the words assumptions, faith and even science.

    Is this a semantic trap, or are we in search of common definitions that will promote understanding?

    When I state that I subscribe to Demascio's framework there is a great deal of science to fall back on, meaning that framework is built upon lots of understanding about how the brain functions. Where is the alternative framework? What I get is a subjective perception attempting to be passed off as an objective reality.

    I continue to ask a simple question: " 1. What are the critical brain regions for consciousness?"

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 01, 2013

    Do you believe that human subjective experiences such as compassion, a sense of justice, guilt, honesty and altruism have no intrinsic value as they represent nothing more than the interaction of atomic particles or chemicals within the brain?

    Allow me to ask you to return the favor of answering the question you have been avoiding, (or was it moved on from?), since you bring it up here. I wrote:

    "To say, "SM considers our subjective experience to be nothing more than the interaction of atomic particles within the brain.." is an oversimplification. It might be said that it is the unqualified perception of SM by the commenter? It is important to identify this as an oversimplification since it supports the commenter's the next claim, "This means that human subjective experiences such as compassion, altruism and a sense of justice have no intrinsic value..." Is this an accurate statement about SM, or is it the narrow perspective of the commenter?

    I will argue that the first statement is an oversimplification and that the second statement is unsupported by the commented, and in fact is a false."

    Why is this statement false, because science not only conducts research into these areas in humans, it does so in other animals as well. WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 01, 2013

    Do you believe that because the brain creates consciousness, that the proper study for science is the brain and not consciousness?

    Science can and does study both, but how do you define consciousness. This is the question of what is meant by being "conscious," and the term consciousness itself. The word has a historical context in both philosophy and spirituality, but when Crick and science turned its attention to the study of consciousness it look for a biological connection, since we are all have a physical manifestation, and therefore started with what Searle defined as, "Our shared condition." The tradition of religious dualism argues that "Consciousness is not a part of the physical world. It's a part of the spiritual world. It belongs to the soul, and the soul is not a part of the physical world. That's the tradition of God, the soul and immortality." Searle defines consciousness in a much simpler way, "People always say consciousness is very hard to define. I think it's rather easy to define if you're not trying to give a scientific definition. We're not ready for a scientific definition, but here's a common-sense definition. Consciousness consists of all those states of feeling or sentience or awareness. It begins in the morning when you wake up from a dreamless sleep, and it goes on all day until you fall asleep or die or otherwise become unconscious. Dreams are a form of consciousness on this definition." S

    He adds, "All of our conscious states, without exception, are caused by lower-level neurobiological processes in the brain, and they are realized in the brain as higher-level or system features. This is the staring point, since it is observable and measurable. This makes common sense.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 01, 2013

    These are questions I have answered in the thread "Consciousness: The questions science must answer," but for your benefit I will answer them again, here, one at a time.

    Do you believe that the brain creates consciousness?

    My view my understanding, is that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain, with a mind and a self. There is a framework to support this view that is described in the book "Self Comes to Mind" by Antonio Demasio. Demasio makes it plain that when it comes to the topic of consciousness it is all belief and theory. But I will add that they are not the same thing. We can find reasons to support a particular theory and continue to search for more evidence, as opposed to a BELIEF that is unsupported and must be taken on faith alone. I have continually asked for a framework from those that subscribe to alternatives to science. It is intellectually dishonest to try and include every alternative when they are in conflict when there are kept separate. There must be a framework and science has one. Additionally, science has established biological rules for a physically conscious experience. Alternative explanations seems challenge to provide the interfacing elements between a spirit and our biology.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 01, 2013

    Re: Scientific Materialists (SM) hold that there is only one reality; “physical reality”.

    This to is a contrived statement, fitted to the commenters perceptions of SM..

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 01, 2013

    .....and this god of yours is a "he?"

  • Billgreenjeans Oct 01, 2013

    Your right Jim I didn't take my own advise with the response to the slander of my believes. I really have no excuse. I'll do better in the future. I just get carried away thinking this is a place for candour.

    I will post what I have in mind as to Presentiment. I heard Dean Radin say a view ideas he had on why that happens. I had already mentally reasoned a plausible theory it's just a matter of writing it out in some sane order.

  • Billgreenjeans Oct 01, 2013

    It is interesting how people's proclaimed beliefs fit their agenda. If you don't want there to be a god than just fit that into your doctrine of belief and ignore all evidence of the fact that there is a God. Also announce to the world that there is no evidence of a God.

    Keep believing all that hogwash and keep lying to yourself to keep up the agenda. It want work.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Oct 01, 2013

    Billgreenjeans

    Hi Bill,

    We seem to be on the same page and simply deciding how or where to set the margins.

    I’ll post a paragraph and then reminisce a bit.

    Scientific Materialists (SM) hold that there is only one reality; “physical reality”. Due to this they have a strong aversion to psi, because the evidence for psi reflects the existence of another realm or reality that exists apart from physical reality.

    A while back, participants in Discussions were not reluctant to use terms such as spiritual or spirituality to designate this realm that exists apart from the physical reality. Within the past year or so, any reference spiritual or spirituality causes something that could be referred to as mockery.

    I recall a time when comments to Discussions could be addressed “To all”, rather than specific individuals because we seemed to be of a common mind set.

    Back then, there were around 30 participants to Discussions who would post comments regularly and many others who would post only occasionally. Gradually, participants to Discussions began to drop off. I was one of them.

    I stopped posting to Discussions about a year ago because of the constant bickering and criticism of any mention of spirituality, higher states of awareness or consciousness.

    Recently I returned to Discussions with the intention to do what I could to bring it back to a time when it was a second home for me. This is why I may appear to be a shape shifter who oscillates between comments about love or unconditional love and a vampire who viciously attacks.

    Of course simply bringing the term “spirituality” back to Discussions won’t illuminate all disagreement because there are different forms of spirituality. Over the years there has been the occasionally individual with aspirations of being viewed as a teacher who will attempt to push “their” particular brand of spirituality on everyone else.

    I find that some progress seems to be occurring because of comments like yours, bestearth, mrmathew1963 and others I've failed to mention others who may eventually post to this topic.

    I like your idea of completely ignoring the naysayers and pseudo skeptics. To add a bit to you idea, I suggest that we not respond to them because any response can cause squabbles over semantics, the demand for sources and in general, some form of criticism……….Jim

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Oct 01, 2013

    Re: And He, God, has proven over and over again that that He probably is not going to do for us what we can do for ourselves since we are the trainees not Him

    I find it almost offensive, but not surprising, when people suggest that there subjective beliefs are the objective reality. What is missing from this sentence is the subjective qualifier, "I." Had the commenter written "And I believe He, God has proven...." I would have no qualms. But there is just NO evidence of a god, or that god is a he, or the he "probably" anything.

    Let's end this nonsense.

  • Billgreenjeans Oct 01, 2013

    Jim,
    thanks to you I have explored IONS website much more thourghy and find Dean Radins research on research quite complete. There is a lifetime of reading to be had on the subject of psi. What I find strange is that we are in the middle or beginning of a technological boom and the so called scientific community is not researching, to any great extent, what everybody and most of them already know exist they just can't seem to face the possibility of its truthfulness. However just as has been pointed out in an interview you lead us to, the ugly truth is really our own reflection, our words to that effect.

    It does seem ridiculous to investigate sea water, for example, when the tide is washing away our research vehicle. Oh we'll we have to occupy our time some way.

    Many people, even contributors here, may think the answers to this research will lead to an understanding of the purpose of life. Or at least a clarity of what is known. We have among us modern day Pythagoreans who say all answers are mathematic, which I know has some validity. I am not saying stop research or asking question because it was Kepler who said God wanted us to know the answers to our questions. And He, God, has proven over and over again that that He probably is not going to do for us what we can do for ourselves since we are the trainees not Him.

    Bill Cosby use to say if want to really get to someone give em the silent treatment. I suggests we totally ignore the naysayers and pseudo skeptics and continue with looking at the current subjects with what intelligent minds we have and when we strike a cord or tone that rings true we will all know it and agree. Then maybe the big skeptic Dean Radin and the like will say "that's and Idea" and in this we way we can be useful and good for something. They have proven that "something is going on". They don't dare say what it is. No theory exist yet. Maybe that is for us to develop.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Sep 30, 2013

    Hi bestearth

    I see the quote’s you posted as relevant to the topic.

    I have a collection of quotes and may post a few occasionally.

    Here’s one that’s appropriate to your recent post.

    “The wisdom of the wise and the experience of the ages are perpetuated by quotations.”………Benjamin Disraeli

  • bestearth Sep 30, 2013

    Hi Jim,

    I hope people will find this also relevant to the discussions.

    CONSIDER THE FOLLOW INSIGHTS BY INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE:

    You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.....Richard Buckminster Fuller

    Those who have changed the universe have never done it by changing officials, but always by inspiring people.....Napoleon Boneparte

    In times of profound change, the learners inherit the earth while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.....Eric Hoffer

    Change is the law of life and those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.....John Fitzgeral Kennedy

    The world hates change, yet it is the only thing that has brought progress.....Charles F. Kettering

    The soft-minded man always fears change. He feels security in the status quo and he has an almost morbid fear of the new. For him, the greatest pain is the pain of a new idea.....Martin Luther King

    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.....Margaret Mead

    Nothing we can do can change the past but everything we do changes the future.....Ashleigh Brilliant

    Change does not change tradition, it strengthens it. Change is a challenge and an opportunity, not a threat.....Prince Phillip

    It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.....Charles Darwin

    Progress is impossible without change and those who cannot change their minds, cannot change anything.....George Bernard Shaw

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Sep 30, 2013

    @ Dustproduction

    If you enter the term “Scientific Materialism” in the search engine of this website, you will come to a page which lists several books, dialogues and articles; along with a brief summary of their content. The first item in this list is entitled "Great Shift Dialogue: Steve Bhaerman and Bruce Lipton." If you read only the summary of this dialogue, you will see that the term Scientific Materialism is used.

    I have downloaded and read a few of the articles and read a few of the books and the term Scientific Materialism (SM) is used.

    There are occasions when these sources state that Scientific Materialism is often referred to as traditional science or mainstream science. That is why I used that phrase; in order to clarify what (SM) is.

    It seems that you have searched the web for a definition of SM and materialism and have ignored what is produced when the term Scientific Materialism is entered into the IONS search engine. I find particularly interesting because in reviewing your profile; for well over a year, you are the most active participant in Discussions which is sponsored by IONS.

    The last paragraph of your comment states “But some modern day physicists and science writers have argued that scientific finds in physics such as quantum mechanics and chaos theory have disproven materialism.“ I wish that I had entered that quote into this topic.

    I hope you don’t mind, but I would appreciate it if you would answer three questions by relying only on your subjective experience and not on quotes of those you consider to be authorities. All that is required is a simple “yes or “no”. You may answer them publicly or in your mind.

    Do you believe that the brain creates consciousness?

    Do you believe that because the brain creates consciousness, that the proper study for science is the brain and not consciousness?

    Do you believe that human subjective experiences such as compassion, a sense of justice, guilt, honesty and altruism have no intrinsic value as they represent nothing more than the interaction of atomic particles or chemicals within the brain?

    If you answer “yes” to any of the questions, your answer is based on an assumption or faith, not science. Are you on a personal mission to convert participants in Discussions to your faith or assumptions? If not, what is your purpose for posting in Discussions?

    Please don’t spam this topic with mundane squabbling over semantics. It makes you appear as someone hell bent on distracting us from discussing the topic.

    Since you wish to appear as a scientific authority in Discussions, I would like to hear from you again; AFTER you have reviewed the scientific evidence for psi, by following the guidelines in this topic.

  • Billgreenjeans Sep 30, 2013

    You have given a definition that seems to fit and no one is disputing that.

    "In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter."

    There is such a thing as beating a dead horse. Are you hoping that materialism will be proven correct and any other be proven wrong? If this is the case then you will be dragged kicking and screaming into the reality of the revolution. As much as it has served us in the past Materialists days are numbered.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Sep 30, 2013


    You repeatedly miss the point. Was the commenter correct in defining SM, or providing a distorted view of it, was the question.
    Define SM? Or are you suggesting that since SM is "dead" there is no need to define it?

  • Billgreenjeans Sep 30, 2013

    "But some modern day physicists and science writers have argued that scientific finds in physics such as quantum mechanics and chaos theory have disproven materialism"

    That being said there is no further need to discuss "materialism". It's on it's way out and we can be helping the transition or we can be stuck hoping materialism will have a come back. Revolutions are good to make progress as long as the change doesn't lead to more of the same only with a different face.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Sep 29, 2013

    Here is the unfinished business that needs to be address. What is SM? When it was questioned here it was stated that "we" had moved on. Since it is resurfacing again, I will repost this. Perhaps it will not be ignored this time.

    Let's tackle this debate head on: What is Scientific Materialism? There is more to it than the oversimplification the commenter has offered us.

    "In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter.

    Many current and recent philosophers—e.g., Daniel Dennett, Willard Van Orman Quine, Donald Davidson, John Rogers Searle, and Jerry Fodor—operate within a broadly physicalist or materialist framework, producing rival accounts of how best to accommodate mind—functionalism, anomalous monism, identity theory, and so on.[10]
    Scientific 'Materialism' is often synonymous with, and has so far been described, as being a reductive materialism. In recent years, Paul and Patricia Churchland have advocated a radically contrasting position (at least, in regards to certain hypotheses); eliminativist materialism holds that some mental phenomena simply do not exist at all, and that talk of those mental phenomena reflects a totally spurious "folk psychology" and Introspection illusion. That is, an eliminative materialist might suggest that a concept like 'belief' simply has no basis in fact - the way folk science speaks of demon-caused illnesses. Reductive materialism being at one end of a continuum (our theories will reduce to facts) and eliminative materialism on the other (certain theories will need to be eliminated in light of new facts), Revisionary materialism is somewhere in the middle.[10]
    Some scientific materialists have been criticized, for example by Noam Chomsky, for failing to provide clear definitions for what constitutes matter, leaving the term 'materialism' without any definite meaning. Chomsky also states that since the concept of matter may be affected by new scientific discoveries, as has happened in the past, scientific materialists are being dogmatic in assuming the opposite.[11]

    10 ^ Jump up to: a b http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/#SpeProFolPsy, by William Ramsey
    11 ^ Jump up to: a b Chomsky, Noam (2000) New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind

    But some modern day physicists and science writers have argued that scientific finds in physics such as quantum mechanics and chaos theory have disproven materialism.

  • Billgreenjeans Sep 29, 2013

    Addendum:

    Are we are taking SM medicine? Stop there are many many ways to solve problems without chemicals. Cut, burn and poison are no solution for cancer which the SM medical profession admits they do not know its cause. This quote should ruffle some feathers for someone:

    Modern medicine has thus become largely a question of giving a name to a complaint, and then of treating its signs and symptoms. This is neither intelligent nor scientific and certainly no matter for complacency and, still less for ignoring any theory which might lead to the truth.” Dr. Aurbrey T. Westlake B.A., M.B., B. Chir. (Cantab), M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., F.I.Pis. Med. “The Pattern of Health”

  • Billgreenjeans Sep 29, 2013

    " Perhaps there is some good to be found in everything"

    Not perhaps certain

    Everyone reading this knows that the only person we can change is ourselves. If we are truly serious about changing the scientific paradigm then began by changing ourselves. One small pebble in a pond makes a lot of waves.

    May I suggest the example set by Mahatma Gandhi and just say NO. Are we accepting something that may belong to someone else? Stop. Are we agreeing to something that harms others? Stop. Are we talking about someone and passing judgement on them? Stop

    The positive loving things we already know. Keep those in mind. We will make a difference.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Sep 28, 2013

    @Mrmathew

    You have a gasp of the problem. It does come down to egotism and I have no illusions that the revolution will be won easily. I don’t believe it will end during my lifetime, but that doesn't mean that I won’t do what I can while this body is on the planet.

    The revolution is being fought on many fronts. Most people in western society knew nothing of yoga or meditation fifty years ago. Now they are commonly discussed as a form of achieving peace of mind or combating stress. Of course, these practices also assist in dissolving the personal ego and creating the possibility to experience higher states of consciousness.

    Fifty years ago there was no serious science being done that attempted to validate psi. Now there are many scientists and authors who are devoting their lives or a portion of their lives to providing evidence that validates psi. There are others who are simply encouraging associates to treat is as subject.

    I have heard it said many times that real progress in battling SM will occur as the old dogmatists begin to die off. Currently, it is generally the younger scientists who see value in psi research.

    I really don’t think we have any disagreement at all; perhaps we differ only in what we areas of the problem we choose to discuss.

  • mrmathew1963 Sep 28, 2013

    G'day Jim

    SM is a dying art form/ideology which a lot of materialistic people are trying desperately to keep for the main reason they have more control over this than anything else & it's this controlling factor that dictates our lives at present. IONS refers to the collective but certain controllers of SM will not egotistically give up this control without a fight & we shouldn't expect them to either. Yes it all comes down to egotism once again!!

    Individual thinking modes allows any person to dictate to others however when everyone learns of the collective consciousness our modes of thought will become less reliant on these dictators to think for us, yes it comes down to others thinking for us over thinking for ourselves but we will also think collectively for the betterment of all man kind not just for the very few.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Sep 28, 2013

    I received a phone call from a friend who read this topic and said that I appear to be idealistic or overly optimistic when I say that if IONS becomes the dominant scientific paradigm there will be less injustice, corruption, conflicts and suffering.

    I realize that he is right because I left out something important in the topic.

    Because of my editing error, I will add something to the topic and this requires me to repeat the first sentence of the following correction:

    SM considers human subjective experience or consciousness to be the result of the interaction of atomic particles within the brain. This means that human subjective experiences such as compassion, a sense of justice, guilt, honesty and altruism have no intrinsic value as they represent nothing more than the random interaction of atomic particles within the brain.

    A large segment of the ruling class accepts SM because they believe it reflects intellectual sophistication and they follow SM like lemmings over a cliff which leads to extreme dishonesty.

    Included in the ruling class are boardroom members of corporations, those who express dishonesty in advertising, those who make political and economic decisions based on the influence of guiltless lobbyists and a large segment of the media etc.

    This culture cancer filters down to professions such as used car dealers, other sales people, contractors and almost anyone you try to do business with.

    Yes, I view SM as a hideous cultural cancer.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Sep 28, 2013

    I received a phone call from a friend who read this topic and said that I appear to be idealistic or overly optimistic when I say that if IONS becomes the dominant scientific paradigm there will be less injustice, corruption, conflicts and suffering.

    I realize that he is right because I left out something important in the topic.

    Because of my editing error, I will add something to the topic and this requires me to repeat the first sentence of the following correction:

    SM considers human subjective experience or consciousness to be the result of the interaction of atomic particles within the brain. This means that human subjective experiences such as compassion, a sense of justice, guilt, honesty and altruism have no intrinsic value as they represent nothing more than the random interaction of atomic particles within the brain.

    A large segment of the ruling class accepts SM because they believe it reflects intellectual sophistication and they follow SM like lemmings over a cliff which leads to extreme dishonesty.

    Included in the ruling class are boardroom members of corporations, those who express dishonesty in advertising, those who make political and economic decisions based on the influence of guiltless lobbyists and a large segment of the media etc.

    This culture cancer filters down to professions such as used car dealers, other sales people, contractors and almost anyone you try to do business with.

    Yes, I view SM as a hideous cultural cancer.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Sep 28, 2013

    I neglected to point out that if anyone wishes to contribute to the Nobel Cause of IONS, simply click on “Donate” on the top right of the IONS header.

  • Anonymous Icon

    RealityOverScience Sep 28, 2013

    I was thinking "10,000 things."

  • or Sign Up to Add a Comment

Stay in touch with IONS