[Royce]

As someone who worked at University and in a field where concise and precise working is a must (mathematics) i just find that a lot of people are too...vague...in their construction of their points and discussions. And don't get me wrong - this is not meant as a "you guys can't" ... i know that i have too high a standard but after some years as a mathematician, i just...see...all that imprecision "ruling" our lives.

When we are discussing something as vague and imprecise as paranormal phenomenon,it is difficult to be precise .
Mathematics is somewhat more precise yes

My autobiography, however, remains, for now, shrouded in mystery

You are a disciple of the mysterium

You know I'm lurking. Few instances so far have qualified, by my count, intervention as necessary. My hedonistic philosophies of communication will allow for a broad, if not unlimited, spectrum of perspective. The crux is to balance that with open, honest, and rigorous engagement.

And that is why this is such a great forum!

[Kellais]

@ sci - no hard feelings ... i'm glad we could "clear the air". Funnily enough, this exactly shows what i was trying to say  And i agree with what you said in your last post.

@ Wilshire -

@ Madness - Your posts are not very numerous but always a) very long and quote-rich and b) worth reading. P.S.: No i am not trying to "suck up" to the "man in power"  P.S.S: I'd be honored if you do  ...

@ Royce - Well, i guess you are partly right. It is difficult to be precise if the field itself is vague-ish...but i was also talking about the structure and clarity of ones point which can be independent (at least partly) from the topic at hand.
And lol...somewhat more precise? ... you are trying to rattle me, right? 
And i agree with you, i'm still a newb here but i feel that this is a place where i can feel at home.

[Royce]

And lol...somewhat more precise? ... you are trying to rattle me, right?

haha I was definitely joking around

It is kind of funny that the teacher in the house enters a discussion to grade each participant

[Madness]

I for one appreciate correction when necessary.

Let me see the Inverse Fire .

[Kellais]

It is kind of funny that the teacher in the house enters a discussion to grade each participant

lol...yeah...i'm sorry, i can't help myself 

The inverse fire is:

1
----
fire

 

I apologize...but that is mathematician's humor for you

[Royce]

Just thought I should throw some more speculation into the mix This a lecture by Michael Persinger.It is called "no more secrets" and he basically claims there is technology out there capable of making people read each others minds.He calls it "the god helmet".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9l6VPpDublg

[Madness]

I will watch it but I'm fairly familiar with Persinger's work and, worst of all, his research hasn't enjoyed much, if any, replication.

Also, the spectrum of experience is uninspiring to say the least - Dawkins, for instance, says he felt nothing more than a mild headache in Persinger's Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation helmet.

[Royce]

I will watch it but I'm fairly familiar with Persinger's work and, worst of all, his research hasn't enjoyed much, if any, replication

Yeah,I guess he faces the same problems that Sheldrake does

I am not sure I like the premiss of this technology either.Maybe I am a bit paranoid,but I do want my thinking to exist inside my head,and my head alone.

[Madness]

TMS...

It's only a half-step better than TDCS. Accepting that half-step is TMS can depolarize or hyperpolarize, not simply the latter (as far as I've understood the mechanisms involved.

To clarify, also, participants in Persinger's pattern of stimulation can report from God clearly while others claim Aliens, or rather, simply vague personifications in their presence.

Perhaps, he's simply highlighted an area of the brain that works to integrate multiple aspects of sensation to selectively perceive physical presences in a certain sensory peripheral...

[Royce]

Perhaps, he's simply highlighted an area of the brain that works to integrate multiple aspects of sensation to selectively perceive physical presences in a certain sensory peripheral...

Yeah,I have been wondering about that.So you are saying that there is a part of your brain that can cause the illusion of perceiving a presence of god? That would explain a lot

I am sorry,but I am a newbie when it comes to studying the brain

I do not know if you are familiar with a british illusionist called Darren Brown? He actually convinced an atheist that he was having a profound religious experience.Not sure how,but he is skillful with tricks of the mind

[Madness]

Perhaps, he's simply highlighted an area of the brain that works to integrate multiple aspects of sensation to selectively perceive physical presences in a certain sensory peripheral...

Yeah,I have been wondering about that.So you are saying that there is a part of your brain that can cause the illusion of perceiving a presence of god? That would explain a lot

Hrm. No . Proprioception is what some psychologists refer to as a sixth sense. It reflects your ability to sense the position of your body parts relative to one another. It's further theorized that something like what I posited above exists, which might sense individuals behind you or as "in your bubble," both of which are partially researched hypotheses. I think, Persinger is likely stimulating an area of the brain that activated during that sensation.

(EDIT: Also, it's good to remember that sensation and perception aren't all or nothing. People can and do train to heighten their perception and perceive in different ways - for instance, I spent time learning to lip read.)

As I wrote, it's a gradient. Some people sense God almighty, Richard Dawkins got a headache... and most variations in between.

I do not know if you are familiar with a british illusionist called Darren Brown? He actually convinced an atheist that he was having a profound religious experience.Not sure how,but he is skillful with tricks of the mind

No but I'll definitely check it out.

[Royce]

As I wrote, it's a gradient. Some people sense God almighty, Richard Dawkins got a headache... and most variations in between.

Lol,I appreciate Dawkins as he has a way of clearing the path of unnecessary distractions and bogus

[Madness]

Lol - oh the world in which we live.

The Wikipedia Battle for Rupert Sheldrake’s Biography

[Royce]

This is sad if it is true.The information battle never really ended it seems.Maybe this guy is a "para guerilla" 

[Royce]

I mean,it is pretty ridiculous that the so called second sources (who supposedly rejects his theory) is just one sentence stating:This is hogwash!

did you see the huge differences in his bio from june to september? Nicely edited I would say

Again,I have not studied his theories,and I am not qualified to dismiss or agree with him,but this affair smells dirty.People actually look things up on wikipedia and see the site as a highly reliable source of information.I do not think people bother to check out the sources to validate the claims of the various statements,so it then becomes a useful tool to discredit theories.

This is a bit Orwellian,and you have made me scrape the dust of my conspiracy glasses .I have not used them for quite a while.