I was trying to figure out how I'd start this topic out, and then it occurred to me that in choosing the corresponding photo(just above) that I could have chosen from literally hundreds of photos that didn't have anything to do with feet, and yet, I chose the one with feet. 'Shocker. Well, sure, I was "free" to choose any photo, but was I "free" to choose against my most desired and sought end result? In retrospect, I don't think so. I'm not convinced that I could have picked something else over the perfectly shaped and beautifully painted toes, above. But even if I had thought to myself, "Nah, I like that foot photo the best, but I don't want people to think I'm a weirdo", that would still be in accordance with choosing the most desired end result...i.e...not wanting people to think "X" about me. So, in this instance, choosing the likable foot photo for my post on free will took precedence over giving a rat's patooty if people think "X" about me.
What about if I wanted to fly to the grocery store instead of drive there? Can I just choose to sprout wings? No, of course not---I'm a human, after all; I'm not a bird. Or what if I wanted to become a tightrope walker or trapeze artist because, I don't know......maybe it would be a good way to come into contact with beautiful show-women. Could I wake up tomorrow and choose to forget about my fear of heights and just start prancing around on a high wire? I don't think so.
So, is my "will" truly free?
That is the question, and it demands an answer if we are to get to the bottom of the whole free will Vs determinism conundrum. The determinist believes that our past actions totally influence our future decisions. And really, how could they not? If a rape-victim finally gets the courage to leave her apartment 4 years after the fact, sure, she was free all along to leave, as in, she had the "freedom" and wherewithal to unlock her door, twist the handle, and walk outside. But she didn't do that. Is that not because her fear, directly based on her past, took precedence over leaving her house? Isn't it because feeling safe was her most desired end result? I believe so.
I think we have naturalistic free will, but I believe that this free will has limitations. Think about it. We have competing thoughts pretty much from the time we wake up until the time we go to sleep. In order to make truly free choices between competing thoughts, we'd need to be devoid of any and all recall of the past. Fact: That is impossible. Also, if we can contemplate possible future consequences for our choices, that, too, puts limits on freedom. Christianity and its "carrot and stick" (Heaven and Hell) dichotomy is a prime example. No one is choosing freely if they firmly believe they'll suffer dire consequences for making the wrong choice. E.g., the mugging-victim is perfectly free to not give the mugger his or her valuables. But since the mugger has a .44 magnum pressed against the victim's temple, that would be a bad choice, assuming the most desired end result is to go on living.
110 comments:
Yes - we have free will ... but, it's governed by the laws of physics and constrained by our own thoughts, beliefs, values and morals ... at any given moment we can change our values/morals etc. using whatever justification we choose for it - or even none at all - like your rape victim analogy, why not leave the house after only 3 years, 3 months, 3 minutes? or stay shut in for 30 years? The roadblocks are created within her mind and it's her perception of reality that is not fact based.
Your "will" to fly and to sprout wings is still there - the actual reality that it might happen is not the same as thinking, wishing and hoping for it to be so ... just because something is not possible based on the laws of nature does not prevent us from exercising our will to think it.
As children it was common place to use a simple cardboard box and envision it as all sorts of fantastic things that it was not - a castle, a fort, a race car, a spaceship - all things that pleased our mind - none of which were grounded in reality - but one cannot reasonable hide in their cardboard "fort" and expect to be protected from real bullets being shot at them ... there's also no hard and fast rule that says we are somehow required to value continued living over allowing the mugger to shoot us in the head and commit murder - now the mugger is faced with a decision whether the $20 in my wallet is worth a murder charge vs an armed robbery charge - i might find the trade off the ultimate "fuck you" for his invasion into my private world and i could be potentially be preventing others from being robbed by sacrificing my life to ensure the mugger turned murderer will effectively never get out of prison when caught.
I know i'm all over the map with my thoughts here - but i think the point is - we're free to think as we please without limitation - reality, however, can restrict the actual results.
When I was 21 years old I got close to being raped. I was walking from the gym to the bus stop (less than a minute away) when this big guy came out of the bushes, grabbed me from behind and tried to drag me into the bushes. I fought back, screaming. The guy for one moment paused his effort to drag me along and asked me if I could please be silent. No such luck. He ran off and the fitness trainer drove me home, including the month(s) after.
For a long time I was thinking what if this guy would have had a knife? Would I run the risk of being scarred permanently or even be mutilated? My answer was and still is yes. Anything but giving that man what he wants, power over me.
Since then I've got my car doors locked whenever driving. However I nowadays (as I'm about to do in a few minutes) I do not mind cycling home in the dark at midnight.
Yes I look around when cycling past bushes, but listening to the music and cycling fast makes me feel safe and I will never NEVER give in to such a **** (beep).
"Yes - we have free will ... but, it's governed by the laws of physics and constrained by our own thoughts, beliefs, values and morals ..."
In my mind, if beings that possess free agency are governed, then that are not "free", at least, not in a sense that is practical. Consider that if one drives a truck that has a governor on it, one is not free to drive as fast as they'd like.
"[...]like your rape victim analogy, why not leave the house after only 3 years, 3 months, 3 minutes?"
So, in other words, the down-time may differ from victim-to-victim. I agree. Perhaps rape-victim "X" leaves the house the day after her rape. Maybe rape victim "Y" leaves her house a mere 4 hours after her rape. But isn't true that a free being is a free being is a free being? Not necessarily, and this is directly because people's past experiences make up unique individuals at the present moment. A person who is deathly afraid of spiders is just as "free" to pull open a door and enter a room full of spiders as someone who is not fearful of spiders. However, they aren't both equally "free" in the psychological sense.
"The roadblocks are created within her mind and it's her perception of reality that is not fact based"
In this case, "perception", even if it's irrational or "not fact based", creates limits on personal freedom to act.
"Your 'will' to fly and to sprout wings is still there - the actual reality that it might happen is not the same as thinking, wishing and hoping for it to be so"
Right, but again, "thinking, wishing and hoping" amounts to desire, and possessing desire, alone, doesn't necessarily make the sought result possible. If a desire is not even humanly possible, then surely we aren't "free" in an ultimate sense. That was my point with the "wings" analogy.
When cycling home I got to realize I was so caught up with the story I forgot to make any reference to the subject it started out with.
What triggered me in the story was what would happen if someone would have put a .44 magnum to my temple. This got me back to thinking about what I was attacked by a guy holding a knife.
The assumption made is the desire to live is stronger than being (in your example) mugged. If I were being robbed, yeah sure. Let the other person have my purse.
However talking rape, is a totally different story. I know from experience I do not "freeze" as a number of victims might do. I also know my rage (!) AND my conviction not to EVER let anyone rob me of me free will, would make me risk my life. Would it be worth it, being mutilated and maybe even not survive? To the first one I can say YES to the second one, don't know for sure. It still wouldn't effect my actions.
So has the whole event changed me? Yes it did. Even writing about this has made me think about the difference of being attacked with a knife or being held at gunpoint. So freewill is partially out the door. However I have also made a conscious choice. Never to give in, not matter what.
And about the cardoors. There are several reasons I keep them shut, which is fine by me, just not always by my passengers. So this and also other circumstances have influenced me to change my free will here. Nowadays I still believe my reasons for keeping my doors shut (being robbed at a traffic light) are still valid, however I do rethink my mindsets (including about free will) every once in a while, to find out why I'm doing what I've started doing.
Sorry for all spelling errors. This event had influenced me to such a degree (influenced my free will) I let go of one of my main principles, making sure my spelling is as correct as possible, which usually happens when getting emotional (again influencing free will).
"However I have also made a conscious choice. Never to give in, [no] matter what."
Fair enough. So, we can conclude that, for you, never giving in takes precedence over staying alive, and though you might not survive even if you had given in, you'll take your chances.
Actually I wonder if we can even talk of a choice here. I’m still mad as hell (which I actually hadn’t expected after two decades) and I simply could not live with myself if I were to “just” give in. We’re talking about rape here though, with the risk of being left for dead anyway.
What surprises me most though is that I wonder if there’s any free will involved here. My survival instinct is all set to “fighting back”. I guess to me this IS the only way of “survival”, as in staying alive. So just maybe it’s after all about wanting to stay alive. Rather physically damaged then emotionally broken.
I think acting against "survival instinct" would require the strong will to not survive.
Continuing here as requested…
“In the colloquial sense, "prayer" is commonly thought of asking for "divine" intervention; a "miracle" is receiving it.” ~ Jeff
And in the non-colloquial sense?
“i found it kinda funny that our examples include amputees and paralysis and you chose to describe it as "chasing after a dream" :P” ~ Robert
It’s interesting how the mind works… :-)
“After all, biblegod's instructions were to not eat from the "Tree of Knowledge"” ~ Jeff
Are you aware if that’s what’s been said, there actually has been said to eat from the “Tree of Knowledge”? If one wants someone else to do something, the trick is to use the word “not”. This can be compared to a guy wanting to pick a girl in a bar and telling her he’s *not* one of these guys who like to pick up girls and take them home. He can be trusted since he will *not* seduce her by means of smooth talk and so on. So she can just sit back and have a drink, since she will *not* go home with him and will *not* be spending the night by his side. The conscious mind hears what he literally says, the subconscious mind receives the instructions he meant to give her, but did not want her to be consciously aware of. So by making her feel safe “at the surface”, he actually is busy accomplishing what he really wants her to do. Talk about free will being manipulated.
Please remember here Jeff that I’m still not used to the terms being used here on this blog, nor having to think thrice about everything I’m writing down, to make sure it’s correct when it comes to the specific meaning. So when you say “I "get" the point you are trying to make, but you could have found a better way to make it.” I may want to do so, but it might just be I’m not capable to do it (just yet?) conform the standards required by you.
In the "non-colloquial sense"? Well, I suppose "prayer" could mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. And again, if people can reassign meanings to words, then we shouldn't be shocked when there's confusion. If person X said, "Hey, I just got done praying!", but what they really mean is that they just got done meditating (or concentrating very intensely) on concept A, then person X can plan on being misunderstood and/or explaining themselves throughout life.
As for the rest, the rhetorical point that you seem to want to make, is that, many times, telling someone "not" to do something is a sure fire to get them to do it, and if so, then to an extent, I agree.
But the bottom line from the other thread(now relocated here), is that, in the Genesis parable, Adam and his accomplice needed, not only the freedom to "will", but the freedom to act in accordance with said "will". Again, biblegod's instructions weren't to not think about eating the apple; he instructed them to not eat the apple. For Adam & Co. to contemplate their options and weigh-out the respective outcomes, alone, would require them to think about eating it, even if they ultimately decided not to.
Ok, let’s rephrase my question. You said: “In the colloquial sense, "prayer" is commonly thought of asking for "divine" intervention; a "miracle" is receiving it.”
How would you describe prayer in the “formal”/official as in meant by the bible(?) sense? Just to make sure we are talking the same “language” here.
A friend on mine described prayer as “without any self-interest”, so basically not asking for anything. So you are right when you said that since both she and I have a different meaning when it comes to prayer, this is leading to confusion.
I guess her definition would also include not praying for a miracle. Coming back to what you said before: Are you telling me that daily prayer would have to do solely with asking for miracles?
"As for the rest, the rhetorical point that you seem to want to make, is that, many times, telling someone "not" to do something is a sure fire to get them to do it, and if so, then to an extent, I agree.”
And beyond that extent, what would you say?
“For Adam & Co. to contemplate their options and weigh-out the respective outcomes, alone, would require them to think about eating it…”
You talk about the tree of “knowledge”, in Dutch we speak about the tree of “wisdom”. What would you think Adam & Eve were like prior to eating the apple? Mindless beings without any thoughts?
And to just refer back to two of your previous remarks: “When I speak of "free will", I don't mean the "free will" that "God" gave us. I don't believe in "God". I simply mean the illusion completely free choice to accomplish whatever we can conceive of. < that is impossible. I don't believe we are "the masters of our own destiny". At least, not in the ultimate sense.”
Then what do you believe with regards to be or not be the master of your own destiny?
The second one being “For the record, I don't mind answering questions when it comes to my personal take on the issues, religious, or otherwise. That's a large part of why I have this blog.”
What would the other reasons for you to have this blog?
"For Adam & Co. to contemplate their options and weigh-out the respective outcomes, alone, would require them to think about eating it, even if they ultimately decided not to."
Heh - the original Cost/Benefit analysis - FAIL ;)
@ Lexje,
I'm sorry, and not to be crass, but I am not going to go down all those rabbit holes. You seem to want to know my opinion on every single facet of every subject raised. If I say, "I believe [X], to an extent", you then want to know what I believe beyond that extent. If I say, "[Y] means [A, B, and C], in the colloquial sense", you want to know what it means in some other sense. If I say, "I have this blog mostly because of [Z]", you want to know what other reasons I have it. For instance, say, hypothetically, that one of the other reasons I have this blog is so that I can indirectly let silent lurkers know my thoughts on issues that may even involve them, I can guess that you'll want to know who I mean.
As for "prayer", I reiterate---it can mean anything under the sun, depending on who's saying the "prayer". I merely made the observation that, in common, day-to-day language(AKA, in the colloquial sense), "prayer" usually, but not always, evokes the "Divine". Whether the person is "asking", or being "selfless", is really of no concern to me.
As for "knowledge" and "wisdom", I think that the same thing is being implied in both languages.
As for being the "masters of our own destiny", I've already said that I don't believe that we can be such "masters" in the ultimate sense. Meaning, I don't believe that we can achieve any goal we can "will", by simply conceiving of it.
You are right Jeff. I was aware I was doing so (again). Call it "professional deformation". I'm so focussed on what's not being told since this most of the time holds the most interesting information, I always want to go beyond what's being said. I'll do my best to keep it limited (at least on this blog and when it comes to you).
As for achieving that goal... We talked about physical limitations, we talked about the past being a factor, we spoke of God's failure when talking about assumptions versus commands, but for some reason your answer keeps "bugging" me as if something is missing in the story. To say it's more than just conceiving of it, doesn't cut it. It's just to easy to say it like this. And maybe I'm doing the same thing now as what you said before and if so I'm sorry, I just can't seem to let go of this one. I don't know, maybe I expected "more" when you suggested to start a thread about it.
And the knowledge and wisdom definitions, for me they are anything but the same. Wisdom adds to the knowledge part. Then again, one can know something, but still not "know" what to do with is, so I guess in that sense it's the same.
For some reason this whole quest of mine "dealing with leaving Christianity and hence knowing more about the Atheism and then some more matters being questioned as a result", seems to have taken a "backseat" lately when it comes to this blog, even when still trying to figure out how to deal with it in daily life. What's interesting though (or maybe it's sad since it tells something about the lack of interest in one another) is that people may notice I do not pray anymore or do not get into certain subjects anymore, since I simply do not know what to think about it anymore (like for instance talking about Angels which logically do not exist either - but then every fibre in my being wants to protest to this otherwise logical conclusion), but just leave it at this. I guess for most people it's not an important subject in their lives, otherwise I cannot explain this lack of interest (read recognizing the importance it has for me).
"We talked about physical limitations, we talked about the past being a factor, we spoke of God's failure when talking about assumptions versus commands, but for some reason your answer keeps 'bugging' me as if something is missing in the story."
When it comes to free agency in human beings, our physical limitations and our past experiences, yes, create limitations. The former creates the most obvious limits. At any rate, because of these two things, alone, I contend that we cannot, in the ultimate sense, be "the masters of our own destiny". And when I use the word "ultimate", I mean to realize/actualize anything that we can conceive with the human "will".
"To say it's more than just conceiving of it, doesn't cut it"
I have no idea which argument or contention of mine "doesn't cut it" for you. Maybe you can better explain what you find lacking, and why.
Nice… you asked a question which was not easily answered: “I have no idea which argument or contention of mine "doesn't cut it" for you. Maybe you can better explain what you find lacking, and why.”
I guess this has to do with how our perspective on things is. You for instance write this blog on Atheism, next talking about how the bible is making anything but sense when it comes to this subject on “Free will”. Then I get to read this, get to think about this and then – in my mind – apply it to daily life.
When you mention: “I'm merely saying that such freedom is of no practical value in light of such mantras as, "We are the masters of our own destiny", and the like”, you’re adding something to the mix. It’s no longer just about the bible.
I myself for instance work with mantras, or better yet affirmations. To say "We are the masters of our own destiny", would be a bit much, but I do get what one wants to say. We are far more capable of getting things accomplished then we give ourselves credit for. So it’s mantras like these which are meant to give people new insights. To simply dismiss this by saying: “I contend that we cannot, in the ultimate sense, be "the masters of our own destiny". And when I use the word "ultimate", I mean to realize/actualize anything that we can conceive with the human "will".”, does not do any justice to what a phrase like this is meant to explain.
I guess that’s what’s bugging me. It’s almost like an “all or nothing” statement. We cannot achieve all, so with it “free will” can be kissed goodbye and same with that “mantra”. But if we were to look at it less “rigid”, it tells us more things are possible, if we are “willing” to set our mind to it. This includes working on physical limitations and getting rid of limiting beliefs we picked up in our past. It can be done. I work with people who have physical limitations and lots and lots of limiting beliefs. I love it when I see people change, when they get to understand there is actually way more possible that they originally thought to be. Saying: “I have xxx disease, so I’m limited for the rest of my life, not being able to function properly and even being left out of society” can now be substituted with, let’s focus on my new goal, being “I’m going to get better, maybe not 100% cured, but enough to be able to function again in society, creating a better life for myself.”
“Free will” or the “lack” of it very often used as an excuse not to have do/change anything. By saying that we are “limited” from the get go (or during our journey in life), takes away any effort/good will to even try. This is probably what surprises me most about most people. They just simply give in to the “seemingly impossibilities”, instead of saying “what the hell, I don’t have anything to loose anyway, so let’s give it a try, even if this means I have to set myself a challenge”.
Continued...
I wrote at the beginning of this reply: “Then I get to read this, get to think about this and then – in my mind – apply it to daily life.” This means that whenever I read your blog I do not just think about what you’re saying and the implications it has on the justification of the bible and what people say about this, I also think about how this can be “used” in daily life.
When I originally wrote down : "If we are here anyway, why not make the best of it? One can choose to “drown in sorrow” and act accordingly or do something about it.", you answered: “I'm afraid free will isn't quite that simple. Maybe I'll post on that subject at some point. For now, someone choosing to "drown their sorrow" is to do something about that sorrow. They are numbing themselves to it. You probably meant, why not just choose not to drink and confront your sorrow head-on, and I agree, but it's not that simple. If someone has a past of sweeping pain under the carpet or numbing themselves to it, that past has a huge influence on future decisions. To make truly free choices, we'd need to be starting with a clean slate for each decision. That, of course, is impossible. Can a female rape victim ever totally trust a man as if she's never been raped? I think not. In that way, her free will is limited.”
So the result was you got to write on the female rape victim, but then – to me – it seemed to stop right there, by talking about the limitations and therefore the impossibilities?
It may be I’m being all black and white here when it comes to your explanations, but maybe above story explains things a little better.
"[.....] it’s mantras like these which are meant to give people new insights. To simply dismiss this by saying: 'I contend that we cannot, in the ultimate sense, be "the masters of our own destiny'. And when I use the word 'ultimate', I mean to realize/actualize anything that we can conceive with the human "will".', does not do any justice to what a phrase like this is meant to explain."
Taking the quote at its face-value is how/why I am skeptical of it. And BTW, I was very careful to point this out, specifying that I don't believe that it's possible in the ultimate sense, even illustrating what I meant by "ultimate". I fully 'get' that many people don't realize their full potential, as in, when you say things like this....
We are far more capable of getting things accomplished then we give ourselves credit for. So it’s mantras like these which are meant to give people new insights.
Again, I agree that we can accomplish all sorts of things. However, we have limits on the things we can accomplish, and again, this is because of our physical limitations, in conjunction with our pasts. It's a very simple, demonstrably true point, so I'm at a loss as to why there's so much resistance on this subject. I already conceded that people with physical ailments can refocus, set new goals, yadda, yadda, and accomplish things. However, depending on the type of ailment, they might not ever regain the full potential they once had.
You also say....I guess this has to do with how our perspective on things is."
Our perspectives may differ, yes, but when it comes to the natural laws of the universe, for instance, the "law of gravity", our perspectives aren't going to change the fact that if we both walk off the top of a skyscraper, we're both going to fall to our death.
So, even perspective has limitations.
After reading all you’ve written here, I guess I had certain expectations when you said before “I'm afraid free will isn't quite that simple. Maybe I'll post on that subject at some point.”
We got into the physical limitations, their pasts, the refocusing, the accomplishing of things (even though not always may realize what they once were capable off) and then got to agree that “many people don't realize their full potential”.
To me that last bit is a very intriguing subject: “Why would people not try and realize their full potential, when there are hardly any limitations for them? Why do most people seem to be reluctant to do anything with their possibilities?”
And then about you saying: “Our perspectives may differ, yes, but when it comes to the natural laws of the universe, … So, even perspective has limitations.”
The reason I said so was to illustrate that I may look at this subject differently and that’s why I felt there is/was something amiss.
I won’t argue with you about the (natural) laws of the universe. It’s hard enough to explain the things I consider to be “normal” whereas you don’t, like feeling a change in energy for instance. You must know by now I’d love to get into that subject with you, but I do not expect you’d ever let me.
I guess it will always be strange to be experiencing my daily reality consisting of being (way too) open to picking up on other people’s energy and you (most likely) saying this cannot be true. What’s (recognizable) reality and what’s (general, limited) perspective when experiencing things differently?
“Why would people not try and realize their full potential, when there are hardly any limitations for them? Why do most people seem to be reluctant to do anything with their possibilities?”
More often than not, the reason that people cannot realize their full potential is directly because of their past experiences, underscoring the point that I've been trying to make from the onset.
"I won’t argue with you about the (natural) laws of the universe."
Nor I, you, especially when you repeat the same non-sequitur arguments..e.g....
It’s hard enough to explain the things I consider to be 'normal' whereas you don’t, like feeling a change in energy for instance.[emphasis added]
I would never deny that you don't "feel" things, for instance, like a "change in energy". However, because we "feel" things isn't evidence of anything, other than we feel stuff. It does not follow that because we experience strong emotions and/or feelings, that there is something taking place outside of our heads(brains).
Correction. Last paragraph should have been.....
"I would never deny that you do feel things[etc., etc]. IOW, I believe that you feel things.
"I would never deny that you don't "feel" things ... "
Of course we feel thing (yes I know you acknowledge this) - I'd argue this "Change in energy" lexji speaks of is actually a primal instinct/intuition/sense that our over processed human intellect has long since rationalized as who knows what ... but like a deer can sense the approach of a wolf, we too can "sense" things - call it an energy, aura, magnetism or a shift in the Force - it's real and physical and it's a part of the world but we're too stuck on god and ghost stories to explore what it really is.
My 2 cents - feel free to disregard if I'm too far out in left field
Disregard it? Nah, everything you said is spot-on, IMO. The deer example? I get, and agree w/it. But again, this "sense" is simply an evolved survival instinct that the deer has acquired over time. There's nothing supernatural or "spiritual" at play.
@Robert: It’s a good description. I mostly refer to it as energy, but yes it’s feeling/working with the aura, working with magnetism (with one remark, I try to prevent myself from using my own energy, which would lead to the follow question, what energy would this be if not my own?) and I actually do explore it, but I do not know how to call/describe it.
@Jeff: To me it’s not supernatural either, I’m convinced everyone can do/feel so with some practice. Is it spiritual? Let’s say I for now consider the spiritual world as possibly being a very big part of my imagination. That’s strange to me to say the least, but well nothing wrong with a bit of logic.
So I do have a question. Do me a favour and think along with this one as well: When I recently entered the room of the late wife of a client I was aware of different energy as well. It was just in that room, which used to be the room where she had her practice and now all her stuff was being stored here. How to describe this? To me it’s not that different from becoming aware of other people’s energy, except she’s not alive anymore.
Now for something controversial: In less than an hour I’ll be going to a trance group, since I’ve recently become part of a Trance circle. Keeping in mind what we got to discuss the last few months, this again is going to be very interesting. The others will say we are experiencing contact with the spirit world. Therefore this (to me) is one of those wonderful dilemmas I’m now facing. What to think of what’s happening during such an evening like this?
@Robert, before I forget, it seems you’ve got a problem with my name. If Alicia would be easier for you, you might want to call me by that name. A number of English speaking people already do so…
Just got back from the “workshop” trance and honestly I’m not happy, Actually I’m a bit sad. It feels very insecure to be in a group of people, who are talking about the Spirit world, connecting to the Spirit world and feeling as if I’m on some sort of island. The good being though that even the teacher says, it’s okay to have doubts and it’s better for everyone’s development to go back questioning everything. So welcome to “doubt” once more…
"To me it’s not supernatural either, I’m convinced everyone can do/feel so with some practice."
In the case of a deer(used in the example), this "sense" comes naturally; it doesn't need to practiced.
When it comes to us, I'm just not convinced that humans need to "do/feel" that which you are evidently convinced that they are able, provided that they practice or work at it. Why work at such a thing?
"Is it spiritual?"
The word is meaningless to me since no one can define "spirit" in any meaningful terms. If a "spirit" is simply "energy"(like electricity), then a "spirit" isn't metaphysical, because energy, in part, makes up, and is part of, the physical universe. Moreover, when it comes to personal "energy" - for instance, our personalities - this "non-thing" is generated by, and dependent on, our physical brains.
"When I recently entered the room of the late wife of a client I was aware of different energy as well. It was just in that room, which used to be the room where she had her practice and now all her stuff was being stored here. How to describe this?"
I have a question, as well, which is, why were you hanging out in some deceased person's room with all of her personal belongings? And the word, "client". The deceased woman's widower is a "client", how? I don't want to jump to conclusions, but if I connect the dots, it sounds like you are acting a "spiritual medium" to this man, and possibly getting paid to do so.
Notwithstanding, your feelings when entering the room are easily explained. First and foremost, you know she's dead and you know those are her things. If other rooms don't emit the same "energy", perhaps that's because they don't contain her very personal belongings. My maternal grandfather died in '80, and behind his house was his personal carpenter's workshop. When I went in there for the first time after he died, I got goosebumps and felt his "presence", more so than the rest of the house. Does this really mean anything, though, other than he spent the most time in the workshop and had most of his very personal things in there? I contend, "no".
“When it comes to us, I'm just not convinced that humans need to "do/feel" that which you are evidently convinced that they are able, provided that they practice or work at it. Why work at such a thing?”
I can only tell why I did so. And the reasons are twofold. One was I was looking for a new study after having finished being a medical fitness instructor and a Sport Masseur and I wanted to do something along those lines. A colleague than suggested this study and somehow I got accepted.
Secondly this is the direct result of me always having been to feel these things. When I was younger, I would suddenly have a headache, backache, be tired when being in a crowd or around others having the same problems.
So going to a school, dealing with this stuff, actually helped me to “not feel” anymore. Resonating to other people’s vibes when it comes to health issues, just because I can take it away (that’s what I got to conclude), isn’t something to be happy about. So I am happy I now actually got the tools to stop feeling other people’s “problems”.
When I asked “"Is it spiritual?"”, you answered: “The word is meaningless to me since no one can define "spirit" in any meaningful terms.”
Sorry to say here but you triggered this question by saying: “There's nothing supernatural or "spiritual" at play.” I just answered to it. And I honestly do not know how I feel about this whole “Spirit world” at the moment. But I guess you read this in my later response.
And let’s say the “energy” is being generated by our brains, it still doesn’t require a brain (as in the person belonging to this brain) nearby to be able to feel the energy belonging to this person.
The deceased woman's widower is a "client", how?”
Well this client is a person who’s been coming to my practice for years now, because at first he needed some relaxing from the stress at home (his wife being mentally ill) and later on he had problems with his joints and therefore his muscles. This man came to me because I’m a masseuse and he keeps coming not only because I’m a masseuse, but also ‘cause I listen to him and coach him. That I occasionally give him energy is something that just has been added over the years.
I don't want to jump to conclusions, but if I connect the dots, it sounds like you are acting a "spiritual medium" to this man, and possibly getting paid to do so.
Sorry to disappoint you here, but no I do not. There’s no reason for it. Besides he doesn’t believe there’s a soul anymore which survives the body.
“Why were you hanging out in some deceased person's room with all of her personal belongings?”
Cause occasionally we meet outside my practice when he just wants to speak his mind, wondering about others or needing some (moral) support on how to deal with the whole process round his wife dying. This time we met at his home, ‘cause it was easier to start over there and then have lunch outside. He had told me a number of things about how he dealt with his late wife’s memories and I wanted to see how he dealt with this. So I asked about the pictures first and then I got a tour around the house and that’s why he got to show me this room.
Also we now talk occasionally about this whole process of transitioning out of Christianity. It turns out he came from a very religious family and broke with Christianity when still being in high school. (Please note that he’s 77 years of age).
“Does this really mean anything, though, other than he spent the most time in the workshop and had most of his very personal things in there? I contend, "no".”
So has spending most time over there and having his personal belongings over there, possibly left an imprint of energy behind? You felt something. What did you feel? A personal memory translated into a physical reaction?
"One was I was looking for a new study after having finished being a medical fitness instructor and a Sport Masseur and I wanted to do something along those lines."
Okay, fair enough.
"Secondly this is the direct result of me always having been to feel these things. When I was younger, I would suddenly have a headache, backache, be tired when being in a crowd or around others having the same problems."
It sounds as though you are suggesting that headaches (and other physical aches and pains) are contagious, and if so, that is unfounded, at best. There are bacterial and viral infections that are contagious and that have aches and pains as secondary symptoms. But headaches, alone, are not contagious. You might have a *psychosomatic disorder of some sort.
(*please don't ask me what it means if you don't know; search it out)
"And let’s say the 'energy' is being generated by our brains, it still doesn’t require a brain (as in the person belonging to this brain) nearby to be able to feel the energy belonging to this person."
Yes, it does require a brain, I'm afraid. Without a brain, you wouldn't "feel" (or pick up on) anything, including someone else's "energy".
"That I occasionally give him energy is something that just has been added over the years."
"Give him energy" is just vague enough that it wreaks of "woo"(aka, spiritual mumbo-jumbo). If you gave the man some vitamins and helped him workout or exercise and this gave him physical energy? That, I could buy.
"So has spending most time over there and having his personal belongings over there, possibly left an imprint of energy behind?"
No, not in the sense that you are suggesting. What was left behind are his things and strong memories of him and using said things, which are thoughts that reside in my brain.
"You felt something."
Yes. Again, not something external or "ghost"-like.
"What did you feel?
Emotions.
"A personal memory translated into a physical reaction?"
A personal memory is a "physical reaction".
“It sounds as though you are suggesting that headaches (and other physical aches and pains) are contagious, and if so, that is unfounded, at best.”
No, it’s nothing like that. The way I’ve been explained it is it has to do with resonating along with someone else wavelengths/vibrations. This means I pick it up, but as soon as I either recognize it and/or do something about it (either shield myself from it or take it away from the other person) it’s gone.
“There are bacterial and viral infections that are contagious and that have aches and pains as secondary symptoms. But headaches, alone, are not contagious.”
You are right, it’s not about contagious stuff. It’s about those things that can be fixed straight away, because tension gets taken away, like secondary symptoms. We are talking migraines here, irregular blood sugar levels, tense muscles etc., basically things that need regulating by the body.
“Without a brain, you wouldn't "feel" (or pick up on) anything, including someone else's "energy".”
Yes I need a brain to process what I’m feeling. No denying here. What I meant is I do not need the physical presence of someone else close to me to in order to pick things up.
“"Give him energy" is just vague enough that it wreaks of "woo"(aka, spiritual mumbo-jumbo).”
I’m aware how vague this sounds. If I were to describe it differently I would say I’d help his system relax and reload. It’s not about doing something physical here, other than putting my hand on someone’s body (head, neck, shoulder, you name it) and focus. (Actually I do not even have to touch someone, focusing is all it takes). It’s enough to have the system “reset” itself plus feel “rested” again, like having slept. Now when we sleep, we recharge, getting reenergized again. This just speeds up the process, so it doesn’t take hours or days, but minutes.
We were previously discussing mental trauma because of past experiences. When I get to talk someone and have him or her relive it, I can (help) change the outcome of this experience. By having the other person speak one’s mind and experiencing a different outcome, a certain reset takes place and next a new experience is getting installed. It doesn’t necessarily mean the old one is entirely gone, but the new experience, including emotions, has now taken precedence over the old one. By giving the brain a new program (experience), with different solutions, actions can change, since a person gets aware of his or her possibilities instead of limitations.
This process of energy, call it “resetting and reloading” is not that much different. It’s about influencing the physical body through the energetic field and/or the mind.
“What was left behind are his things and strong memories of him and using said things, which are thoughts that reside in my brain.”
Ok, sounds plausible. What you basically say is that the first (few) time(s) we get confronted with a situation reminding us of someone, our emotions get triggered and we experience a physical reaction to it.
Continued...
When saying "You felt something", you replied: “Yes. Again, not something external or "ghost"-like.”
I said so before and maybe I need to say it again, I’m actually rather down to earth. As soon as you read the word “energy” or something that might seem “spiritual mumbo-jumbo”, you switch to another state of mind, viewing me straight away as the person talking spirits and ghosts. It would be nice if you were to switch back to the previous setting, making it possible to look at it the way it’s meant to be, as in explaining things using logic. This also includes not “dismissing” things straight away as “spiritual mumbo-jumbo”, but asking for a better explanation.
I’m trying to understand all these experiences logically myself and that was actually the reason I mentioned it. I’m living in two worlds here (by lack of better words). One being the one of reason and logic. The other having to do with experiencing/feeling/interpreting the less obvious, mostly referred to me as being aware of “energy”. I’d like to make sense of both of them by using some form of logic, instead of just accepting “beliefs/ excuses / stories” as I’ve done till very recently. Could you please remember this when I bring things up like these?
" it seems you’ve got a problem with my name" - lexjE
I have a problem with a lot of things - but you knew who i was referring to so - not a major problem, no?
"I mostly refer to it as energy"
this works for me - whatever you want to call it is fine. I think there might be something "real" and physical regarding the phenomenon - i mostly ignorant of it on a lot of levels but whether it be a chemical, or magnetism or aural projection that all living beings has - i do think there is something there. Just like a compass points north yet we don't see the magnetic waves that make it do this - that has been identified - i think it possible that people and animals give off similar micro magnetic waves. And if animals give off pheromones it stands to reason that we give off chemical signals as well ... coupled with the magnetism, it can be extrapolated that we have the capability - however unidentified and/or misunderstood - it identify and interpret these signals/emanations of others.
I think it possible that although we've identified the individual senses of humans and animals - i think it possible that we have yet to fully identify all of them and understand how they work in concert and combination.
Like one might watch the dog whisperer and have that epiphany that the signals are and have always been there, we have just been misreading and interpreting them.
It's unfortunate that humans are so egotistical to think that they "have it right" for so long until they finally figure out they had it wrong for so long - you know ... like Indians were savages and Africans were "subhuman" and both were "uncivilized"
Until we discovered on many levels they were MORE civilized than us socially, just repressed technologically. And to go totally off point at least within this thread, but it's relevant to the overall theme of jeff's blog - the faithful have been so sure for so long that the answer to all were in supernatural spirituality and god that they cannot bear to accept that they might not have been wrong all along
no different that people thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth - it should be important to double check our assumptions before we build upon them otherwise the foundation is unsound and we're married to something that is rotten at the very heart.
@Robert
“I have a problem with a lot of things”
I don’t need to be careful here, do I?
“…but you knew who i was referring to so - not a major problem, no?”.
It’s okay. I’m just not that fond of being called Lex. It takes away the meaning behind this nickname and it’s just not me.
“…whatever you want to call it is fine. I think there might be something "real" and physical regarding the phenomenon - i mostly ignorant of it on a lot of levels but whether it be a chemical, or magnetism or aural projection that all living beings has - i do think there is something there.”.
There is much more than we give credit for if we are willing to pay attention to it.
“Like one might watch the dog whisperer and have that epiphany that the signals are and have always been there, we have just been misreading and interpreting them.”
Well actually I can tell you a lot more about animals. Besides being able to pick up on their energy as well, we can also communicate with them through our mind. It’s not easy, but it can be very interesting.
“the faithful have been so sure for so long that the answer to all were in supernatural spirituality and god that they cannot bear to accept that they might not have been wrong all along”
That’s actually one of the reasons I’m taking a step back from a number of things. I’m aware I was also thinking along those lines.
“…it should be important to double check our assumptions before we build upon them otherwise the foundation is unsound and we're married to something that is rotten at the very heart.”
If we look at our way of communication nowadays, compared to a few decades ago, this also has changed from using physical wires to being wireless. Our way of communicating may be far more subtle and/or powerful than we know, given the right techniques.
Previously, me: It sounds as though you are suggesting that headaches (and other physical aches and pains) are contagious, and if so, that is unfounded, at best.
You: ”No, it’s nothing like that. The way I’ve been explained[....]"
Explained to you by whom?
"[.....] it is it has to do with resonating along with someone else wavelengths/vibrations."
I was afraid of this..i.e..more "woo". It is for this reason that I think that it's safe for us, or at least, for me, to conclude that whoever explained this "wavelengths/vibrations" phenomenon to you was not a scientist or trained medical doctor. Yes, I "get" that things vibrate; and yes, there are such things as "wavelengths". But concluding from that that we can therefore take on someone else's headache(or make theirs go away) by merely being in their presence and thinking the right "thoughts", is, like I said before, unfounded, at best.
"Or This means I pick it up, but as soon as I either recognize it and/or do something about it (either shield myself from it or take it away from the other person) it’s gone."
When it comes to someone else's headache, say, a migraine, what do you mean, exactly, when you say that you "pick it up"? Speaking vaguely and mysteriously isn't helping your cause, here.
"Yes I need a brain to process what I’m feeling. No denying here. What I meant is I do not need the physical presence of someone else close to me to in order to pick things up"
You are now, no surprise to me, treading on the same ground that you did during our first exchanges on FB. What you describe is called "distant healing", and again, there is not one iota of objective evidence that human beings can diagnose and/or "heal" people, either right in the person's presence, or remotely from a distance. Now, this is not to say that thousands of people aren't convinced that it's possible. But then again, we can rhetorically ask, "Can thousands of flies be wrong when it comes to the taste of poop?"
IOW, just because many people believe that they've been healed by "spiritual healers", that doesn't mean that it is so. For starters, there are many ailments that simply run their course, and then go away, no assistance or medicine necessary..e.g..migraines.
Secondly, there's coincidence and the placebo effect, aka, the power of suggestion, to factor in. When someone's aches and pains go away, the last thing on a list of explanations is "magic". And until you explain what you mean in *scientific* terms, it may as well be "magic".
"It’s not about doing something physical here, other than putting my hand on someone’s body (head, neck, shoulder, you name it) and focus. (Actually I do not even have to touch someone, focusing is all it takes)."
If merely "focusing" on sick people was a founded, tested, confirmed method of healing, then why don't they require heart surgeons to take "focusing" classes, as opposed to, or in conjunction with, 8-10 years of medical training?
"(Actually I do not even have to touch someone, focusing is all it takes). It’s enough to have the system 'reset' itself plus feel 'rested' again, like having slept."
Let me see if I'm understanding you, here. You're saying that "focusing" on a person who is worn down is a substitute for 8 hours of restful sleep?
"This just speeds up the process, so it doesn’t take hours or days, but minutes."
Have you contacted any sleep clinics with this information? If what you are proposing true, you could make CPAP machines obsolete. People with sleep APNEA could benefit immensely from what you are describing.
contin....
"By giving the brain a new program (experience), with different solutions, actions can change, since a person gets aware of his or her possibilities instead of limitations."
In contrast to some of your latest assertions, this one actually seems reasonable and tame enough. However, you aren't actually changing the old experience; you are simply changing their perception of it.
"This process of energy, call it 'resetting and reloading' is not that much different."
Here, you've replaced one vague term..i.e.."process of energy" with some common, everyday words..i.e..."resetting" and "reloading". I understand "resetting" an alarm clock or "reloading" a gun. This computes, because both actions are demonstrable. On the other hand, what you say next is not necessarily demonstrable....
"It’s about influencing the physical body through the energetic field and/or the mind."
One can influence(to a degree) their *own* body with their *own* mind, yes. There is no evidence, however, that someone can influence someone else's body with their mind.
"What you basically say is that the first (few) time(s) we get confronted with a situation reminding us of someone, our emotions get triggered and we experience a physical reaction to it"
Correct, that's my position on the matter. Physical chemicals in our physical brains, reacting; doing their job. And it's worth noting that someone with an unhealthy brain, say, a stroke victim, might not be able to experience such emotions. This fact is very telling.
"I said so before and maybe I need to say it again, I’m actually rather down to earth."
You've shown me otherwise on occasion, and this is lately.
"As soon as you read the word 'energy' or something that might seem 'spiritual mumbo-jumbo', you switch to another state of mind, viewing me straight away as the person talking spirits and ghosts."
Again, I have zero problem reading or listening to scientists who use the word "energy". The issue I have - a pet-peeve, actually - is when non-scientific, lay people throw around the word "energy" and terms like "energy field", or in your case, "energy process". This is a way, usually being disingenuous, for people to sound like they are authorities on subjects that are unsupported. It's like a dowser telling me, "I will find the H2o's energy-field with my doodlebug branch!".
"It would be nice if you were to switch back to the previous setting, making it possible to look at it the way it’s meant to be, as in explaining things using logic."
I'd be happy to do that, but here's the rub: You haven't explained yourself using "logic". You've simply made some assertions.
"I’d like to make sense of both of them by using some form of logic, instead of just accepting 'beliefs/ excuses / stories' as I’ve done till very recently."
I commend you on wanting things to make sense. Kudos. So far, though, it doesn't make sense for me to believe that Lexje and a few of her friends can "heal" people using their minds, while medical students spend a tenth of their lives and countless thousands of dollars on getting trained to heal people with traditional medicine and tools. It seems grossly unfair, never mind logical for a moment.
"Could you please remember this when I bring things up like these?"
I'll remember that, if you remember my criteria for accepting claims. 'Deal?
"I'll remember that, if you remember my criteria for accepting claims. 'Deal?"
Your criteria for excepting claims? Being what specifically? And what claims are you now talking about? Just making sure I understand you correctly, before I say "yes" to something.
"Can thousands of flies be wrong when it comes to the taste of poop?"
~ That is just EPIC!
Carry on :D
A lot being bandied about regarding "energy", vibrations" etc.
I'll admit, i haven't hung on every word here - but i think there is a middle ground between the two positions. I get what jeff is saying that "energy" in it's defined sense might not be the best word to describe what lexJE is trying to communicate - but getting hung up on word definitions can be debilitating - it the intent of the use to describe something that might not have a proper descriptor or word to define - call it phleheboglobin for all it matters as long as it conveys that there might be an invisible emanation of information/energy/magnetism/chemical/gas that might have influence and/or effect on those that enter within that sphere of emanation from the other object - be it person, animal, thing - whatever.
Much like gravity is certainly widely accepted as a powerful and measurable force but is unseen (yet demonstrable) but before sir isaac newton, no one thought to question why the apple fell down and not out or around. To say the body stops at the skin might be no more true than saying the earth stops at the crust - but we know that it has an atmosphere and a magnetosphere - and all sorts of other far reaching effects like holding the moon and satellites in orbit (i know - gravity again)
I'm not prepared to offer as **woo** all lexJE's assertions that when we come within another being's sphere of influence (or for simplicity: energy) that there are not effects and counter effects of that non-physical (as is defined) interaction.
animals smell a predator at distance - if i recall the way smell works is on minute particles emanating from the "target" being received and processed and interpreted as predator, prey or love interest etc. but the point being that a smell can transmit invisibly a lot of information.
Conversely, whether lexje's assertions are a lay person's description of one or a combination of interactions between known and unknown forces of different objects/beings does not summarily invalidate them. especially when bats have had sophisticated radar that allows them to navigate and feed at a high rate of speed and we've only identified and made use of it in the last 80 or so years.
Now - the distance healing and reception of "waves/energy" from deceased objects/beings and form living things well outside of the physical sphere (think line of sight for argument but that is still arbitrary) is a bridge too far in my book and does fall under the **woo** category
@Robert
“I have a problem with a lot of things”
I don’t need to be careful here, do I?
“…but you knew who i was referring to so - not a major problem, no?”.
It’s okay. I’m just not that fond of being called Lex. It takes away the meaning behind this nickname and it’s just not me
No - you don't need to be careful at all - i'm a good humored big boy ;) but that said - I'm glad you recognize that it was never "robert" who had the problem here ;)
On the statement to do with resonating along with someone else wavelengths/vibrations… “Explained to you by whom?”
This was explained to us at school and yes I can understand you do not find this to be proper research. I wish there was some more proper research which could proof things scientifically. Maybe in some years, who knows…
“…But concluding from that that we can therefore take on someone else's headache(or make theirs go away) by merely being in their presence and thinking the right "thoughts", is, like I said before, unfounded, at best.”
I get that too, but what you stated before it about this being “contagious” is just as unfounded. Besides “contagious” has to do with bacteria and this has not. Psychosomatic isn’t correct either, cause if so it wouldn’t go away in an instant, so maybe you can come up with a better answer? All I can say is that I am experiencing this. I cannot explain how it works, just that it goes away once I get to “work” with it in a matter of minutes.
“When it comes to someone else's headache, say, a migraine, what do you mean, exactly, when you say that you "pick it up"? Speaking vaguely and mysteriously isn't helping your cause, here.”
It’s not meant to be vaguely and mysteriously, so I’m glad you ask.
Just had to go back for a moment to see the entire context being: “We are talking migraines here, irregular blood sugar levels, tense muscles etc., basically things that need regulating by the body.”
These examples were not meant as always being picked up by me, but it was meant as being regulated by me. The migraine is actually a very good example. I do not pick up the actual migraine fortunately, but I do experience occasionally experience some of the symptoms.
In the past I’ve learnt by working on the neck (massaging) that people can get very nauseous when already having headaches. How? By experiencing that I myself am getting nauseous all of a sudden when working on this area. Next I asked whether the person had experienced such symptoms and this got confirmed. So unexpected feelings are a good indication something is “wrong” with the other person.
Another method is simply putting my hands on for instance the shoulder of the person and get my mind to quieten down. Then I may feel tension coming up in my body, say for instance in my shoulders or in my lower back. Later when I ask about this, this then gets confirmed.
A completely different example is noticing a change for the positive. I can feel the tension dropping by feeling it dropping in my stomach. So at first I get all tense myself and next I can feel everything is relaxing. This can also be in other parts of my body, depending on where the person experiences this.
Continued…
But getting back to the migraine, I recently had two students for the massaging. One of them had taken pills for her migraine, but she had not told me till the lunch when things were getting worse again. I then suggested I could give her some energy, see if I could take it away. Also I knew that by massaging her neck (very gently) and part of her skull this would diminish the migraine. I’d done so before, so I wanted to give it a try. I first relaxed myself and by holding her she got to relax herself. After a while I started to massage her really gently, while explaining to the other student what to do and why. I showed her the symptoms and told her to be very gentle. Meanwhile I remained in this very relaxed, close to meditational state, just experiencing what happened inside my body and also what happened to the tense muscles in her neck. After a while I could feel I started to relax myself (even more) and some time later the fog lifted in my head, I was fully awake again an I knew things were right again. I was right. She got up from the table, feeling a lot better and 5 minutes later she was jumping to do something herself again. She next continued her part of the massage, fully alert. Afterwards she was very cheerful saying she felt wonderful. Normally she would have had to take a second pill and would be drained by the end of the day. It’s safe to say that the process she normally experienced (ending with not being able to be in the light) was interrupted (she didn’t get worse) and even reversed (she was full of energy, whereas this would normally be impossible).
She was so excited she even wrote a statement about this experience on FB and I also got to take a picture of the two ladies at the end of the day and they are looking radiant.
This may not be the scientific terms you were looking for, but it most certainly isn’t magic.
“If merely "focusing" on sick people was a founded, tested, confirmed method of healing, then why don't they require heart surgeons to take "focusing" classes, as opposed to, or in conjunction with, 8-10 years of medical training?”
I didn’t say this is working on heart surgery. There’s a difference in fixing something that’s broken or something that needs a little help/boost getting back to normal again.
Saying this I had a cat with a heart disease (HCM). She developed problems with her kidneys at first but this stopped after a while (without any medication since she refused this). In time all her symptoms of kidney failure diminished and disappeared, same with her problems breathing irregularly. This normally would not have been possible. With an enlarged heart, all organs will fail. They did not. I’m not saying here they healed, but they didn’t get any worse. Instead she started looking better each day and the symptoms being part of her bad condition disappeared. They (the vets) had expected her to live for half a year max, we got four years extra. She eventually died from a heart attack running up the stairs, pretending to be as energetic as a kitten, which she wasn’t.
This process has been witnessed by a number of vets who saw her quite regularly, checking her heart and lungs, drawing blood to check how the kidneys were functioning. They have studied for years and they have seen it.
“You're saying that "focusing" on a person who is worn down is a substitute for 8 hours of restful sleep?”
Well it’s a little more than just focusing, but just try the following yourself: Before you go to sleep tell yourself you’ll be very well rested the next day when getting up and you will remain full of energy till the end of the day. Then experience the difference the next day. To be most effective, try sleeping with less hours than usual. It’s amazing what results can be achieved by telling your subconscious what it needs to know.
And I’m not going to say it’s a substitute for 8 hours of restful sleep, but it definitely can make people feel very well rested.
Continued again…
“There is no evidence, however, that someone can influence someone else's body with their mind.”
I could give you a bunch of statements from my clients, but you would have to experience this yourself in order to understand what I’m talking about.
Let’s see if this example helps though. There’s one client of mine who started out with massages. Her shoulders always were very sore when I was massaging her, so one day I suggested I’d stop with the massaging, just using her energy. At first I would have her lie down on the massage table while having my hand rested on her shoulders, later on we’d sit opposite one another in our chairs. Even when asking she did not want the massages anymore. This method was way more relaxing, less painful and way more effective. Not my words, her words.
“This is a way, usually being disingenuous, for people to sound like they are authorities on subjects that are unsupported.”
I get what you’re saying here. All I can say here is I did study for 4 years and am still studying this process. Then there are the experiences from my clients, which I do not feed them, they experience this themselves. I most certainly do not consider myself an authority on this subject, but I do know I can make a difference when it comes to health issues. However I do know my limits and I’ll always refer someone to their own doctor first.
“I'd be happy to do that, but here's the rub: You haven't explained yourself using "logic". You've simply made some assertions.”
Fair enough. Let’s see if above explanations are still as “woosy” for you or if this is more along the lines you would want it to be.
“…while medical students spend a tenth of their lives and countless thousands of dollars on getting trained to heal people…”
Don’t be misunderstood here. I spend four years at school to become a licensed therapist, so people can get their money refunded, when coming to see me. And since then I’ve been going on with studying. In total I must have paid 15.000 – 20.000 euros at least (probably way more) to learn these skills and I’m still expected to study and thus pay to learn new info. If not, I won’t be able to keep my license. And let’s be honest. No health insurance will pay for something that’s not beneficial.
@Robert: “I'm glad you recognize that it was never "robert" who had the problem here ;)”
Yes I realized it the moment I wrote it down… Thanx for paying attention though.
"Now - the distance healing and reception of 'waves/energy' from deceased objects/beings and form living things well outside of the physical sphere (think line of sight for argument but that is still arbitrary) is a bridge too far in my book and does fall under the **woo** category" ~ R. Hall
Agreed, illustrating that everyone draws their line (between plausible and implausible[sometimes "woo"]) somewhere. I draw mine where a claim cannot be demonstrated or proven true using the scientific method. Moreover, while I'm happy to hear all hypotheses, in concept, these must align with logic and reason at the end of the day. The claim/concept that a mind can exist, intact, *independently* of the physical brain, does not align with logic and reason, and everything that science tells us about the "mind" underscores my position on this. If a "mind", or in "woo" terms, a "soul", which is supposedly a disembodied "mind", could exist independently of the human brain, then people with diseases that effect the brain, e.g..Alzheimer's and stroke, etc., would not be affected by those diseases, at least, not where one's personality is concerned. When grandpa has a stroke and cannot remember or recognize his wife of 50 years, this should be all the evidence we need to know that the "mind" that makes up our personalities is fully dependent on a healthy, physical brain. If grandpa's brain is malfunctioning, and subsequently, he is not "himself", I'm at a loss as to how anyone can believe that he'll be just fine and back to his normal "self" once he is dead and buried, and his brain, rotted.
Moving on....
"This was explained to us at school[....]" ~ Lexje
What type of "school", though? One can go to "Sunday school" to learn that snakes talk, or one can go to "reflexology school" to learn that, since the arch of the foot is shaped like the spine, that therefore, massaging the arch of the foot can help people w/back alignment problems. Of course, there is not one scrap of evidence that either lesson teaches "truth".
"Psychosomatic isn’t correct either, cause if so it wouldn’t go away in an instant, so maybe you can come up with a better answer?"
a) it's not my burden to provide answers that confirm your claims; it's up to you. b) even if it was my burden to provide such answers, in the case that I couldn't or didn't do that, that doesn't make your claim the "truth" by default. I suggest investigating what the "burden of proof" means.
Previously, me: “When it comes to someone else's headache, say, a migraine, what do you mean, exactly, when you say that you "pick it up"?
You respond... "Just had to go back for a moment to see the entire context being: 'We are talking migraines here, irregular blood sugar levels, tense muscles etc., basically things that need regulating by the body'."
But still, nothing that explains in any meaningful terms what you mean when you say "pick it up".
You continue....
"These examples were not meant as always being picked up by me, but it was meant as being regulated by me. The migraine is actually a very good example. I do not pick up the actual migraine fortunately, but I do experience occasionally experience some of the symptoms."[italics, mine]
Still nothing on "pick up"; just more use of the term.
"In the past I’ve learnt by working on the neck (massaging) that people can get very nauseous when already having headaches. How?"
Anyone who knows someone who frequently gets migraines has learned that these headaches are accompanied with nausea. No hands-on massage experience needed.
you: "By experiencing that I myself am getting nauseous all of a sudden when working on this area."
Nausea is triggered in the brain. If you were massaging someone's scalp, then it would make sense that you "pick up" on his or her nausea.
"Next I asked whether the person had experienced such symptoms and this got confirmed."
Many massage patients experience nausea, simply because the toxins "stuck" in the body are being loosened and move into the bloodstream, thus, producing the feelings of nausea. This could be a more obvious reason that you'd know that person "A" might be experiencing nausea.
"So unexpected feelings are a good indication something is 'wrong' with the other person."
But of course, the "feelings" aren't based on intuition, alone. You, a) know beforehand that the person has an ailment that produces nausea, and b) are touching the person in ways that can and do produce the very feelings that you are claiming to "intuit".
If you could lay your hands 10 people, all of whom had different ailments, and then tell us what each aliment was, that would be impressive, and I'd have to reconsider my position. As it stands? No.
"I didn’t say this is working on heart surgery. There’s a difference in fixing something that’s broken or something that needs a little help/boost getting back to normal again."
And conveniently, things that aren't "broken" can, and do, get better by themselves in many cases. Because of this fact, we can never test for whether that's precisely the case, or if they got all better by someone rubbing their neck or "giving them energy".
Just a quick answer to a part of your response I had to reply to:
If you could lay your hands 10 people, all of whom had different ailments, and then tell us what each aliment was, that would be impressive, and I'd have to reconsider my position. As it stands? No.
Well yes that is what I’m saying here. Now let me be specific here for a moment. I can only feel the area. So if someone has a bellyache, I can feel in my body where in the belly this pain is, but I cannot tell the reason behind the ache. I wouldn’t be able to do so when I would experience it myself, so no difference when it comes to others. There could be other methods to finding this out, but feel “no”. Also, I can not always tell whether it’s an old injury that needs fixing (not properly healed) or if it’s recent, but yes I can locate the area.
I do not always feel the pain in my body, but I do feel the areas where it needs fixing, whether it is because I feel it with my hands (scanning) or within my body (when putting my hands on someone’s body). And if I’m in bad luck I can/may feel so because I forgot to shield myself from feeling these things.
Despite that you still haven't elaborated in any meaningful way what you mean when you say, "pick up", e.g.."I do not pick up the actual migraine[etc.]", I'm pretty sure I know what you mean, and I still reject it. I know you're okay with repeating the same sorts of assertions, but at the end of the day, you haven't confirmed anything but in your own mind, and of course, for those who are already convinced.
“…then people with diseases that effect the brain, e.g..Alzheimer's and stroke, etc., would not be affected by those diseases, at least, not where one's personality is concerned. When grandpa has a stroke and cannot remember or recognize his wife of 50 years…”
Problem with your example is that the recollection can occasionally return. Sometimes this can last for a moment, sometimes for a longer period of time.
We’ve seen on numerous times that once the brain is able to restore its function (partly or completely) memories can return and with it also part of the personality. Or to look at it from a different perspective, when someone has had a concussion and as a result a blackout and next the short-term memory cannot function for a while, this person may not be scared of things, he or she would usually be scared off and thus act quite differently. Once this person can function again, the personality usually changes back to the way it was.
“I'm at a loss as to how anyone can believe that he'll be just fine and back to his normal "self" once he is dead and buried, and his brain, rotted.”
This has nothing to do with the previous examples. What you are saying is once someone is dead, the personality is gone with the body dying. What the others are saying it that the interrupted process no longer is interrupted by a malfunctioning brain and as a result signals are no longer distorted / interrupted.
You moving on....
“What type of "school", though?”
I had to learn a lot of basic medical stuff, both physically and mentally, including a number of illnesses. I have to know how the body systems work in order to be able to talk to a doctor. Besides this, we had to learn how to work with our own skills. Then there were also a number of other topics like philosophy, talking to clients, ethics, legal stuff etc.
“…one can go to "reflexology school"…”
Which are your ideas when it comes to eastern medicine, like Shiatsu and acupuncture? It seems like you are disregarding methods which have been used for over 5000 years and which are in detail described and can be proven. Reflexology is based on these theories, also working with trigger points and meridians.
“a) it's not my burden to provide answers that confirm your claims; it's up to you.”
You’re right, it’s not.
“b) …that doesn't make your claim the "truth" by default.”
Correct. I responded to your answer which to me didn’t make any sense.
“But still, nothing that explains in any meaningful terms what you mean when you say "pick it up".
What I normally experience is a pain or major discomfort in the part of the body which hurts. Let’s say someone comes to see me. Then I can either scan with my hands and experience a difference in energy (mostly I start to feel pins and needles), or I can put my hands on the person’s body and feel along with whatever they are feeling. This not only regards physical impulses, but also emotions, specifically having to do with being relaxed or stressed out.
“Anyone who knows someone who frequently gets migraines has learned that these headaches are accompanied with nausea.“
I understand what you are saying here, but there’s a difference between knowing about a theory and experiencing this inside my body and getting nauseous myself.
“You, a) know beforehand that the person has an ailment that produces nausea and b) are touching the person in ways that can and do produce the very feelings that you are claiming to "intuit".”
Yes my actions can trigger these physical reactions and my job is to prevent this from happening, which I do by monitoring the other person (either by observing or feeling along) or better yet by applying knowledge because of earlier experience.
Me moving on…
“And conveniently, things that aren't "broken" can, and do, get better by themselves in many cases. Because of this fact, we can never test for whether that's precisely the case, or if they got all better by someone rubbing their neck or "giving them energy".
There are some things which can be measured. For instance the tension of someone’s muscles disappearing in a matter of minutes (compare for instance massage versus energy. When I’m getting tired or when it’s too painful I usually just put my hands on the sore/tense spot, since this is way easier for me). Another example would be tendons being affected by inflammation. A number of people were able to throw away their braces after visiting me, because of the combination massage/energy. People being diabetic can also experience different symptoms. A number of doctors/nurses trained in diabetics acknowledge the positive influence of “energy” on the blood sugar levels. I regularly treat someone with diabetics and recently he was also a bit “under the weather”. Normally I would not treat a person, but he was okay with any symptoms getting worse. As expected, he got a hypo. Instead of slipping into a coma, part of his brain remained functioning. Normally he would get irrational (first symptoms of a hypo), but now he knew he had to get sugar. However only his left (or right side I don’t recall) was functioning. As a result he was able to walk (although it took him ages), but he could not get down the stairs and as a result fell down being black and blue. After a number of days his levels were “regular” again, as opposed to before. It is a temporary situation (it works for a number of weeks, a month max), but since he’s come to see me his hypos have diminished and he’s far more capable of recognizing them during an early stage.
To come back to symptoms and picking things up, I do not feel this inside my body. If anything it seems I “know”/feel where to put my hand, mostly the part of the brain where hormones are regulated (which indeed is very likely).
“I know you're okay with repeating the same sorts of assertions, but at the end of the day, you haven't confirmed anything but in your own mind, and of course, for those who are already convinced.”
Tell me how I can explain things in a way that does seem logical to you and I’ll see if I will be able to. It’s not that I do not want to do so. Some things can only be explained by telling you what I experience (like I’ve done just now). It’s not like I do not want to use logic or reason, so just say so when I do not make sense.
So when you suggested: “I'll remember that, if you remember my criteria for accepting claims. Deal?” And then later responding to Robert by saying: “… everyone draws their line (between plausible and implausible[sometimes "woo"]) somewhere. I draw mine where a claim cannot be demonstrated or proven true using the scientific method. Moreover, while I'm happy to hear all hypotheses, in concept, these must align with logic and reason at the end of the day.”
So I assume you want me to use logic and reason to support my findings. I’ll do my best to keep it as logical as possible.
Now for something completely different: I was at a (yes spiritual) fair this weekend, not be a spiritual medium (although there were of course people testing me and fortunately I did well when it came to character analysis), but for the coaching and hypnotherapy. Yesterday this guy came to my stand, asking me about my view on afterlife. I replied I didn’t know and that a month ago I would probably have said something totally different. When I asked “why” it turned out he was a Muslim, trying to get me to convert to the Islam. Reasons being that their bible was the only true one, it was all about love and then there was yes, going to heaven when believing and going to hell if not. No further comments.
I will attempt to encapsulate my response by focusing on just a few statements, starting with this one....
"Some things can only be explained by telling you what I experience (like I’ve done just now)." ~ Lexje
'Not good enough. What I mean, and what I've said over and over and over, is that personal "experiences" are, at best, anecdotal evidence, and this type of evidence proves nothing at all, except that people experience stuff, which leads them to believe stuff.
"It’s not like I do not want to use logic or reason, so just say so when I do not make sense."
Lately, you're not making sense a good bit of the time, and I'll use just one recent example:
You said...
"Problem with your example is that the recollection can occasionally return. Sometimes this can last for a moment, sometimes for a longer period of time."
Okay, it doesn't make sense that "recollection" would be affected in the first place. If, in concept, a "mind"(or personality) can exist, intact, independent of the physical brain, then trauma or disease to said brain should not adversely affect the "mind". But alas, it does. The fact that "recollection" can return for short or extended periods of time only underscores what I'm saying, since, we would expect a "glitch" in the firing of neurons to cause intermittent problems, just as we would expect an "check engine" light that illuminates intermittently to be the start of a problem.
Moreover, the disconnect, in part, is that in your examples, you use "energy" in *conjunction* with physical touch, and concede as much, here...
A number of people were able to throw away their braces after visiting me, because of the combination massage/energy.[bold added]
I am not talking about physical touch. I fully concede that "touching" people in the right places at the right times makes them feel better. No argument, there. Where I am skeptical is when people come along and assert that they can affect others with *only* their mind, or using other supposed non-material ways, like using "energy".
"Reflexology is based on these theories, also working with trigger points and meridians."
I know what the process is, and I reject it, as it is not accepted my the medical community. It is pseudo-medicine. Can the person can feel better after having a moderately painful foot massage? Yes, of course....I've given such massages myself and gotten good responses. However, I've never healed a crooked spine with reflexology, and neither has anyone else. There's a reason for that.
“…What I mean, and what I've said over and over and over, is that personal "experiences" are, at best, anecdotal evidence, and this type of evidence proves nothing at all, except that people experience stuff, which leads them to believe stuff. “
You wanted to know what I meant when I “pick things up”. I told you the only way I know how. What else can I do at this moment?
***
“If, in concept, a "mind"(or personality) can exist, intact, independent of the physical brain, then trauma or disease to said brain should not adversely affect the "mind". But alas, it does.”
Can we see the original being see as the same thing as how one acts? I guess the word “soul” (only used for the specific meaning here) refers to the original being, whereas words like mind and personality refer to both (original being and behaviour) and seem to imply that it’s one and the same. The behaviour however is a result of changes to the original personality, including how the brain functions, memories and experiences.
Now getting back to what you wrote previously: “If a "mind", or in "woo" terms, a "soul", which is supposedly a disembodied "mind", could exist independently of the human brain, then people with diseases that effect the brain, e.g..Alzheimer's and stroke, etc., would not be affected by those diseases, at least, not where one's personality is concerned.”
The personality in this context now refers to the behaviour, which we all know is changed when the brain is unable to function properly anymore. This does not mean the original personality is not “in there” anymore, which we notice as soon as the process is able to work properly (even for a moment).
Next you say: “The fact that "recollection" can return for short or extended periods of time only underscores what I'm saying…”
And now I’m lost. What’s being said here is that the original personality, with its memories can resurface, including the behaviour we once we used to. So the original personality is not affected at all. The behaviour however is.
***
“Moreover, the disconnect, in part, is that in your examples, you use "energy" in *conjunction* with physical touch, and concede as much, here... “
I was aware I spoke of both methods, when writing this. However I’ve also given examples of just working with energy (like the client who at first wanted massages and later on only wanted energetic treatments since this worked more efficient, effective and less painful).
And how about what you’ve simply seem to have dismissed earlier about me being able to experience all these different symptoms by saying: “Despite that you still haven't elaborated in any meaningful way what you mean when you say, "pick up"…”
Just curious if you’re now actually thinking /saying I’m making this all up? And I mean ALL of it, including being influenced unwantedly? Cause if so, life would be very easy all of a sudden – if - I could accept this logic and then suddenly be rid off all these feelings. Alas as much as I’d maybe like to, I cannot get away from it, so I better learn to deal with it.
***
“However, I've never healed a crooked spine with reflexology, and neither has anyone else. There's a reason for that.”
Yes the spine itself needs fixing and/or readjusting. These are two different systems, which can lead up to similar results, since they can and may influence one another but do not have to do so.
So have you now stopped giving foot massages since it’s not considered conventional medicine, even though you had good results? And… does this mean you “made” the positive results “up” in the past or were they just coincidental, having happened anyway without you massaging the foot?
I’ve been thinking about doing a little experiment. It just requires us to set a specific date and time. If you are up for it, I could connect to you at that moment, if you do not mind just doing hardly anything (so no watching tv, reading, going out and/or getting annoyed for possibly wasting your time). Then we (you) could experience something or nothing at all. It would take about 10-20 minutes of your time, that’s it.
However if you do not even “believe” the things you’ve experienced yourself like “foot reflexology” to be true, I’m not sure if it’s any use. Just a suggestion, let me know if you’re open to it.
"You wanted to know what I meant when I 'pick things up'. I told you the only way I know how. What else can I do at this moment?"
Yes, that's right....I wanted to know, and I asked you over and over and over, and so, it seems to me that if you'd choose to oblige me on this that you'd make it crystal clear at the time. For instance, you could say something like, "What I mean when I say 'pick up', is [.........]", or something equally concise. Instead, you've been vague by make more assertions and expecting me to connect the dots. This is becoming tedious, just as the subject did during FB exchanges.
"Can we see the original being see as the same thing as how one acts?"
Now another new term..e.g.."original being", adding layers to the subject, whereas, I'm attempting to strip away the layers to get to the bottom of things, as to look at the subject in its most basic essence
So, "original being". Okay, so, the mentality of person "X" as an infant? A toddler? What on earth do you mean by "original being"?
"The behaviour however is a result of changes to the original personality, including how the brain functions, memories and experiences."
There are innate behaviors, and then there behaviors that are a direct result of who we are(as opposed to *what* we are). Who we are?...that is our "personality", which is the closest description to "soul" I have seen offered yet, by those who hold to a mind/body "duality".
Previously, me: “If a "mind", or in "woo" terms, a "soul", which is supposedly a disembodied "mind", could exist independently of the human brain, then people with diseases that effect the brain, e.g..Alzheimer's and stroke, etc., would not be affected by those diseases, at least, not where one's personality is concerned.”
You respond: "The personality in this context now refers to the behaviour, which we all know is changed when the brain is unable to function properly anymore."
Oh, really? A complete lack of recollection of loved ones is a "behavior"???? I strongly disagree.
"This does not mean the original personality is not 'in there" anymore, which we notice as soon as the process is able to work properly (even for a moment)."
First it was "original being", and now it's "original personality". It should be no wonder why discussions like this become utterly convoluted. In any, we can ask the same obvious question: Since "original" implies time, what point on the timeline constitutes "original"?? Newly born? Toddler? Teenager? Middle-aged? Senior? Please supply your reasoning for which ever you pick.
contin......
"What’s being said here is that the original personality, with its memories can resurface, including the behaviour we once we used to. So the original personality is not affected at all. The behaviour however is"
Except that we are not solely our "behavior". For this reason, I reject your attempt at making the distinction, and as well, my point still stands: Our memories make up who we are. Therefore, since who we are is largely our respective personalities, then said personalities should not be affected by disease or trauma to our brains, *if* said personalities can exist independent of our brains(as proponents of dualism contend).
"Just curious if you’re now actually thinking /saying I’m making this all up?"
No, I'm not thinking/saying that. I'm thoroughly convinced that you're thoroughly convinced by your experiences. I'm merely saying that the fact that we have "experiences" proves nothing at all except that we have them.
"Alas as much as I’d maybe like to, I cannot get away from it, so I better learn to deal with it."
Getting away from it would first and foremost require you to entertain the idea that you could be wrong/self-deceived, and from what I've seen, that's not in the realm of possibility for you right now. What it took for me to "get away" from Xianity was to actually consider that I was wrong and self-deceived. From there, it was all down hill.
"So have you now stopped giving foot massages since it’s not considered conventional medicine[...]"
No.
"And… does this mean you 'made' the positive results 'up' in the past or were they just coincidental, having happened anyway without you massaging the foot?"
The "results" were that the recipient felt good afterwards. I never did it/do it to "heal" people or "give them energy".
"I’ve been thinking about doing a little experiment. It just requires us to set a specific date and time. If you are up for it, I could connect to you at that moment[...]"
"Connect to" me how, exactly?? Energy? And if I know the range of time to expect the "energy", I'll be expecting it, and thus, I'll be looking for the slightest clue that you're "connecting" with me. That makes for bias in the test.
"Then we (you) could experience something or nothing at all."
The only time we experience "nothing at all" is when we sleep. Every waking moment we are experiencing the world around us in some way. The type of "test" you offer reminds of the "cold reading" techniques that "spiritual mediums" perform, and many times(at least here in the U.S.), this is where people's dead relatives all meet up in a TV studio to communicate with those they left behind. And yes, I'm being facetious. It's a load of crap, perfect for the gullible and the vulnerable, which is why I loathe this type of quackery.
"What I mean when I say 'pick up', is when holding on to someone, or sitting next to the other I’m experiencing sudden feelings inside my body I didn’t have before I got to work with someone. These spots inside my body indicate a specific area to do with the person involved (like the right side of my head, lower back etc.). This can either be pain, pins and needles and/or muscles suddenly tightening up and later on all of these symptoms disappearing again.
When I’m scanning with my hands (literally putting my hands above someone’s body and then going from feet to head for instance), it can also consist of feeling pins and needles in my hands and even arms and/or warmth or cold.
Then there are these moments I can walk into a certain space (room, store etc.) and I can suddenly get very dizzy, be tired all of a sudden or for instance get a headache. The moment I step back / say certain affirmations in my mind to place a barrier between whatever it is I’m feeling and me, it usually disappears.
Is this concrete enough for you?
“Now another new term..e.g.."original being", adding layers to the subject, whereas, I'm attempting to strip away the layers to get to the bottom of things, as to look at the subject in its most basic essence”.
What I wanted to say (and obviously did a lousy job in doing so) is that certain malfunctions to the brain can change (temporarily) how someone acts, but this can be changed back if the brain is functioning properly again. To me this seems that how the person “in essence” is, is not different, but gets influenced by the functioning of the brain.
I do want to add something to this. When people grow up they change. They learn to behave as is wished for by their surroundings and certain experiences (Basically what you discussed when talking free will, never being fully free will.). When people age, especially in their last (final) 10 or so years, they tend to change back to the way (also referred to as “taking of their mask”) they were when they were younger (young children, probably before the age of 7, cause they cannot understand/interpret things till they are about 7 years old, that’s when rationality sets in. Actually I’m inclined to say even younger).
“There are innate behaviors, and then there behaviors that are a direct result of who we are(as opposed to *what* we are). Who we are?...that is our "personality", which is the closest description to "soul" I have seen offered yet, by those who hold to a mind/body "duality".”
Would you mind explaining what “what we are” to you means? And in which category would you put “innate” behaviours? I’m just trying to understand you completely here.
“A complete lack of recollection of loved ones is a "behavior"????”
I was referring to the behaviour as a result of the complete lack of recollection. So no, a complete lack of recollection does not equal behaviour.
“Except that we are not solely our "behavior". “
That’s right.
“Therefore, since who we are is largely our respective personalities, then said personalities should not be affected by disease or trauma to our brains, *if* said personalities can exist independent of our brains(as proponents of dualism contend).”
To understand you fully (which I don’t), I need to know what you mean by “respective personality”. Please explain.
“I'm merely saying that the fact that we have "experiences" proves nothing at all except that we have them.”
OK. Fair enough.
Continued…
“Getting away from it would first and foremost require you to entertain the idea that you could be wrong/self-deceived, and from what I've seen, that's not in the realm of possibility for you right now.”
To me there’s a big difference between having become aware that anything to do with God, spirit teams, angels etc. may all be the result of my imagination, how much I regret the latter two being true. But I do consider having deceived myself here. When I was at the fair this weekend a number of people were telling me about my guides and about the angels and at such a moment I’m very aware this can all be made up and all of us are convincing one another this is true simply by talking about this.
When you refer to what I’ve experienced (actually feeling, not making up here) being wrong and self-deceived, I can only say that this is not my imagination. It’s reality. I feel it. It’s not something I could possibly make up. That would be the same as telling someone who is in pain that they are not in pain while having broken bones, or someone who is really tired that they are fully awake. This is separate from other people having confirmed what I’ve experienced as being correct.
The "results" were that the recipient felt good afterwards. I never did it/do it to "heal" people or "give them energy".
Why does this make any difference? The end result is the same, someone feels better afterwards.
“And if I know the range of time to expect the "energy", I'll be expecting it, and thus, I'll be looking for the slightest clue that you're "connecting" with me. That makes for bias in the test.”
Ok, no need to try.
"Connect to" me how, exactly?? Energy?
Still want this answer?
“The only time we experience "nothing at all" is when we sleep.”
I wish that was true. There are still these moments between being awake and still being asleep (that first minute you’re still paralyzed as not to act on impulse and thus doing unwanted things while being asleep). They can be a major influence. The things I’ve experienced up till now can still give me the chills.
“The type of "test" you offer reminds of the "cold reading" techniques that "spiritual mediums" perform”.
Well it was not meant as a cold reading method, since my initial intent is not to “read” you (as in telling you about things you are involved with/worrying about/ what you’re like).
"Is this concrete enough for you?"
NO. At least, it's not "concrete enough" where evidence that convinces me(or the scientific community) is concerned. On the other hand, if you are asking me if I finally understand what you are asserting when you use the term "pick up", then yes, I now understand, since you have finally been concise in your description.
Let me see if I understand correctly: You can not only diagnose people's ailments by sitting next to them and/or by "scanning" them with your hands, you can also "adopt"(for lack of a better word) their ailments as well, and then shut those ailments off my mentally creating a "barrier" between you and them.
Assuming that's a fair assessment, if you can find me a peer-reviewed article in any medical journal that supports the above-described medical techniques, that would be a good start. If you cannot?..then I must categorize it as pseudo-science.
"What I wanted to say (and obviously did a lousy job in doing so) is that certain malfunctions to the brain can change (temporarily) how someone acts, but this can be changed back if the brain is functioning properly again."
We ALREADY agree that normal brain function can return, either for a while, or permanently, and again, this underscores my point, a point that is evidently lost on you, and I honestly don't know how to make myself any clearer on this matter. I'll try once more, and then I'm dropping it, and probably bowing out of this discussion.
If a person's MIND can exist and function INDEPENDENTLY of the physical BRAIN(aka...a mind/body duality), then damage..e.g..trauma or disease, to said BRAIN would not/should not affect the MIND in *ANY* way, whether it be behaviors or recollection; whether it be for ten minutes, or ten flippin' years.
"To understand you fully (which I don’t), I need to know what you mean by 'respective personality'."
You're not who I am, right? I'm not who you are, right? Right. We are our respective personalities, meaning, mine is mine; yours is yours. That simple.
"[....] I can only say that this is not my imagination. It’s reality. I feel it."
Here, again, you show that you are *not* listening. Our FEELINGS, simply because we have them, do not *always* point to reality. 'Get it? A child who firmly believes that they can have a conversation with a stuffed giraffe would also tell you that it's NOT their imagination. Does that mean it's reality?!?!? The same with a Muslim who firmly believes that he will receive some virgins in an afterlife. We both might know that he imagining this reward, but he doesn't know he is imagining it. He believes it, and like you, he is convinced because of the feelings that are produced.
"The end result is the same, someone feels better afterwards"
If someone "feels better" after a massage, that is a far cry from someone who claims that their heartburn was cured by a massage.
"Still want this answer?"
Only if you can show that's your answer is true in some demonstrable way. Otherwise, no.
"The things I’ve experienced up till now can still give me the chills."
As can the experiences of those abducted by space travelers give them the chills. IOW........so what.
"Anakin...you're breaking my heart! You're going down a path I cannot follow!" ~ Padme to Anakin Skywalker — Star Wars Episode III
Experiences - are each distinctly our own and very real to the point within our scope of knowledge and reality - if you see a ghost, i believe you did - but that is not proof that ghosts exist.
I'm not sure this discussion is getting anyone anywhere - especially within the original context of free will or the existence of deities - just sayin - carry on
“You can not only diagnose people's ailments…”
We’re not allowed to, so I’d never call it like that. When people have ailments, they are first send to the doctor and next they come to see me.
“…then shut those ailments off my mentally creating a "barrier" between you and them.”
Just to make sure I do not have to “suffer” their ailments, yes. This is not what I do to help others get rid off it.
“If you cannot?..then I must categorize it as pseudo-science.”
Since you even consider techniques like reflexology and shiatsu pseudo-science, it automatically places this kind of “methods” under pseudo-science.
Just to be honest here, I’m not that fond of words like “healing” or “energetic therapy”. I’ve used it by lack of better description. Unfortunately the name on my license is even worse. Healing implies a lot, which I do not consider to be happening. Yes, things are improving (way) more rapidly and the “systems” of the person gets more balanced, tension disappears, I get people to relax their body and their mind, it’s no rocket science here. The advantage of working like this (which I have not explained here except for using the word “focus”) is that improvements are way quicker and more relaxed when using this method. That’s why I like it so much.
“We ALREADY agree that normal brain function can return … this underscores my point, a point that is evidently lost on you… If a person's MIND can exist and function INDEPENDENTLY of the physical BRAIN…”
Ok, it took me a while to understand what you mean, but I do get it now. You are making the assumption that if a mind (soul) can exist outside of the body, this should also function without the use of a brain when a body is still present. The mind needs the brain (and the rest of the body) to be able to express itself through speech, touch etc.
Now let’s see if I understand it correctly, therefore getting in touch with others who are not in (normal) communication distance, should not be possible. That’s what you’re saying here? And this is what I do not agree upon. It is possible to be aware of/reach/ influence others without using the “normal” communication channels, like me picking up on things.
“Here, again, you show that you are *not* listening. Our FEELINGS, simply because we have them, do not *always* point to reality. “
I am listening. I get what you are saying. I just do not agree. If this were to be true I would have to have *knowledge upfront* about someone’s “ailments”, otherwise why would I pick up on it? I’m talking about *not* knowing about it and being *confronted* with it, especially when I’m not working in my profession as a therapist and as a result do not have any knowledge about anyone. To me this is way different than comparing this to someone’s imagination.
The reason I can now doubt things like reincarnation and talking to the “deceased” has to do with me wondering what my imagination is and what’s not. I won’t say it’s not possible either, but I am aware I could as easily have made it all up, even knowing that a number of things I said, did turn out to be true. But like you said, this could be partly because of the method.
“Only if you can show that's your answer is true in some demonstrable way. Otherwise, no.”
I can tell you what I do, but I cannot demonstrate it to you, since you already said you’ll be prejudiced, knowing something might happen.
"The things I’ve experienced up till now can still give me the chills."
You said something about not being able to experience anything when we’re asleep. I do not agree, hence the remark.
"Anakin...you're breaking my heart! You're going down a path I cannot follow!" ~ Padme to Anakin Skywalker — Star Wars Episode III”
Cute :-)
“Experiences - are each distinctly our own and very real to the point within our scope of knowledge and reality - if you see a ghost, i believe you did - but that is not proof that ghosts exist.”
Let’s be specific here. I do not see ghosts. A number of relatives on my mum’s side may have done so (including my mom), but I do not. Being aware of the energy of the deceased (which I occasionally do experience) is something I consider to be different, besides this not being visual.
“I'm not sure this discussion is getting anyone anywhere - especially within the original context of free will or the existence of deities” –
The discussion may be off topic, however I do appreciate Jeff trying to understand me here. As I do appreciate your comments telling you can partly agree with me and partly with Jeff. Even if Jeff and I do not agree on what’s real or not it helps me to be – willingly – “forced” (encouraged doesn’t sound appropriate here) to be as logical about it as can be.
Since I’m now looking at all things from a new perspective (adopting most things can be the result of my imagination and/or considered to be true, because of upbringing), it helps to get things like this in perspective as well.
@Jeff: I assume you know by now I do appreciate you giving me the chance to get things in perspective here, even if this means I may drive you (almost?) up the walls every now and then (and that’s another assumption being made here).
"if you see a ghost, i believe you did - but that is not proof that ghosts exist." ~ R. Hall
Add one word, and this works for me, too, i.e.....
"if you see a ghost, i believe you believe you did - but that is not proof that ghosts exist."
"Add one word, and this works for me, too, i.e....."
I stand clarified - that was my intent
If you see a ghost, I believe that YOU believe you did.
We're in agreement
"Let’s be specific here. I do not see ghosts."
The "ghost" reference was metaphorical - any experience can be plugged in and the statement remains true if you are relaying an experience that the listener was not witness to.
I see ghosts/dogs/unicorns/cats/fairies/lions/elves - etc etc.
some are easier to accept than others based on personal experience and knowledge. everyone will readily accept that you saw a dog - but not a unicorn ... and although everone readily accepts lions exist - if you say you saw a lion on main street, it'll be a tough sell since there aren't too many cosmopolitan lions about
“Experiences - are each distinctly our own and very real to the point within our scope of knowledge and reality … any experience can be plugged in and the statement remains true if you are relaying an experience that the listener was not witness to.”
That’s exactly why I do not want it to be considered to be something supernatural. This would imply that people wouldn’t be able to develop such a skill. And all people (if they would like to) can do so. It’s no different than learning a skill like foot reflexology.
It would be interesting though, seeing a unicorn in real life… What colour?
"That’s exactly why I do not want it to be considered to be something supernatural. This would imply that people wouldn’t be able to develop such a skill. And all people (if they would like to) can do so. It’s no different than learning a skill like foot reflexology."
This is begging the question(fallacy). On this blog, you can post your opinion(to a limit), but you don't have the luxury of affirming your premise in your argument...e.g.."It's no different than learning a skill like foot reflexology".
To date, "reflexology", whether you call it a "skill", or not, is unproven in doing what reflexology claims to do, and until/unless it is proven, it remains alternative medicine at best; pseudo-science, at worst(or even worse, still, slang for cow excrement).
"It would be interesting though, seeing a unicorn in real life… What colour?"
Whatever color one chooses. 'Sky's the limit where our imaginations are concerned.
Previously, me: You can not only diagnose people's ailments…
"We’re not allowed to[...]"
Good. And you're not allowed to for a good reason.
"[...]so I’d never call it like that."
It doesn't matter what you call it---it's unproven. This is not to say that people don't feel good after a foot massage.
"When people have ailments, they are first send to the doctor and next they come to see me."
Yes, and for a good reason, they're sent to a doctor first.
"Just to make sure I do not have to 'suffer' their ailments, yes. This is not what I do to help others get rid off it."
Spouting more unproven assertions.
If you "get rid" of an ailment, there are numerous other explanations that would be far more reasonable than you using "mind over matter". For instance, some ailments go away on their own, or the power of suggestion(AKA placebo effect), to name a few. Lexje's special powers is last on the list, IOW.
"Since you even consider techniques like reflexology and shiatsu pseudo-science, it automatically places this kind of 'methods' under pseudo-science."
Yes, but it's not just me and my "unique" criteria; it's the whole scientific community's criteria. This is why I've asked you over and over again to provide a scientific journal or peer-reviewed article that supports what you are advocating.
"[....]but I do get it now. You are making the assumption that if a mind (soul) can exist outside of the body, this should also function without the use of a brain when a body is still present."
I'm assuming no such thing. It's a reasonable conclusion based on definitions/descriptions provided by proponents of a mind/body duality...e.g.."our souls are non-physical!", and the like.
"It is possible to be aware of/reach/ influence others without using the 'normal' communication channels, like me picking up on things."
Prove it. Asserting it isn't proof, mind you. And in case you haven't noticed, your persistence is starting to grate on my nerves a bit. I see Facebook, the Sequel.
"I get what you are saying. I just do not agree. If this were to be true I would have to have *knowledge upfront* about someone’s 'ailments', otherwise why would I pick up on it?"
:sigh: Does a palm reader need "knowledge upfront" about the person whose palm he or she reads to be able to score a "hit"? No. Just lots of practice, some luck....oh, and a very gullible subject.
"You said something about not being able to experience anything when we’re asleep. I do not agree, hence the remark."
Here's what I said: The only time we experience "nothing at all" is when we sleep.
Not even the same.
For some reason I suddenly feel very sad. To me it feels like one big misunderstanding after another. You saying “And in case you haven't noticed, your persistence is starting to grate on my nerves a bit. I see Facebook, the Sequel.” only confirms this.
I seem to be doing everything wrong here, even when I do not understand what it is.
When you say: “you don't have the luxury of affirming your premise in your argument...e.g.."It's no different than learning a skill like foot reflexology". ”
I understand I must have used an unproven statement. That’s the reflexology? I’m sorry I do not understand what I exactly did wrong here. It may all seem logical to you, it certainly is not to me.
When you say that what I previously said "You said something about not being able to experience anything when we’re asleep" is “not even the same” compared to ”The only time we experience "nothing at all" is when we sleep.”, it’s one big question mark on my side.
I got to understand a lot of things since I got to be on your blog, especially when it has come to things *not* making sense. When coming to possible sheer imagination I got to consider this.
When you say science (and therefore you) would consider this “energetic therapy” pseudo-science at best, I get that too. I can even understand it if you do not see the use of what it is I’m doing or do not understand it at all and therefore this is all just a bunch of “make-believe”. So if you would just leave it at “it's unproven”, I could very well live with this.
Right now however it feels like I’m being accused of making all these false statements, like for instance when you’re saying I’m “Spouting more unproven assertions”.
You know I’ll never be able to provide a scientific journal of some sort, no matter how many times you ask me. I mean I could show you all my results (besides this being forbidden) and have you talk to all my clients, but it still won’t be the scientific journal you are looking for.
It’s when you write things down like: “Lexje's special powers is last on the list, IOW.” (when knowing I do not feel like I have special powers, since it’s something everyone can do, which I also said over and over and over again) and then next say something like: “Just lots of practice, some luck....oh, and a very gullible subject.” that really makes me very sad. It makes me feel you do not consider it optional that “normal” (as in not gullible) people, could not feel better after whatever it is I’m doing (except for the massaging or coaching/counseling part that is).
Combine this with you denying that I could possibly be feeling these things (maybe you haven’t said so in so many words, but that is what it comes down to) and therefore am making this up, it just doesn’t feel right. Even a sentence like “I believe that you believe that…” isn’t appropriate here anymore.
So I now say ::SIGH:: here for a moment. And please don’t say you’re “shocked” again after reading this. It’s just an honest statement about how I feel right now. So ::SIGH:: once again, I believe with a little smile this time though.
"“I believe that you believe that…” isn’t appropriate here anymore. " -lexje
Actually - it was the sentence "I believe that you saw/experienced XYZ ..." that was the improper construct
The version you reference was actually the accepted correction. I hope that helps ;)
Look - I get that you're frustrated and that makes you sad - because at the end of the day, the "healing" you provide is based on faith - just like god - there is no empirical evidence that it works as you say it does - yet you feel it does, and the people who you help believe it does - and there IS a certain level of nobility in knowing you helped someone feel better.
But at the same time - if i loan jeff $5 today and he wins the lottery 2 weeks from now - did I directly help him win the lottery?
I might say that if i didn't give him the money today, that two weeks from now he would not have had the added financial cushion to form the realistic thought to consider purchasing his ticket and therefore "Yes" I did help him win the lottery and therefore, as any good friend would, he should share his winnings with me ... but jeff would counter that the $5 he borrowed was for a specific purpose on that day and had no bearing on his decision to buy a lottery ticket many days later and i am only entitled to the original $5 i loaned him
THis could go back and forth for days weeks and months as to whether my agreeing to extend the $5 effectively changed the future decision making chronology going forward to ultimately arrive at a lottery win
And here in lies the problem - you believe you do something - just as i believe i helped jeff win the lottery - it's an unshakable belief - and jeff feels otherwise just as adamantly - and no matter how you represent the "facts" as you believe them - it won't change jeff's method of processing the same facts - or if he even accepts the facts that you present as actual facts
SO it's not a question of you doing something "wrong" - because if you believe you really do what you do - you are not wrong ... to YOU. but that is YOUR experience - and jeff is not saying you did not experience what you experienced - however, jeff is requiring you to provide the evidence to prove WHY your experienced it - and it must be presented in a format that jeff accepts.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ... what is it? Tell me how am i to believe it is a dog? or the multicolored unicorn - and say "well, mrs smith believes it to be a dog" is no more "proof" than you saying it's a dog.
Now you lament that you'll never be able to provide the scientific documentation to prove your method - why is that? Ask yourself - they didn't just wake up one day and say "wouldn't it be cool if we could heal with the laying of hands or reflexology?" (which, just for accuracy, jeff said was alternative medicing at best - pseudo-science at worst) - and so we can safely say these techniques have been around a looong time - so why hasn't the scientific method been applied to show it potential? and if it was, where are the results?
Or maybe the results show that it doesn't work as claimed - and therefore the documentation is not referenced because it doesn't support the hypothesis - that doesn't mean it can't be true - it just says that it hasn't been proven yet
No more than the existence of god can be proven or disproved, nor can your assertion that your laying of hands be proven or disproved - but the body of provable evidence provides us with clues as to where the truth lies ...
it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck ... so what is it?
“The version you reference was actually the accepted correction. I hope that helps ;)”
Sorry no. Not today. Though I appreciate the effort here :-).
“the "healing" you provide is based on faith”
Actually it’s not. I’ve got a lot of very analytical and sceptical people that to do not believe it works, but yet it does. That’s the only reason why they are convinced. And believe me, I’ve seen and treated a lot of people over the years already.
“…there IS a certain level of nobility in knowing you helped someone feel better.”
Is this suppose to make ME feel better?
“But at the same time - did I directly help him win the lottery?”
I know I made a difference. And to me that’s good enough.
There are a number of methods I use. The common nominator is I’m taking people into a “dreamlike-state” when either counselling (a slight form of hypnotherapy resulting in them connecting to their subconscious mind) or doing so by visualizing myself and relaxing myself (the energetic therapy). Yet the one seems to be accepted and the other is not.
The techniques for hypnotherapy and the energetic therapy are basically the same. It’s about influencing people’s mind, specifically the subconscious mind, whether it be by using certain words, a certain intonation, a certain gesture or simply relax myself and with it get the other to relax.
When there is no reference by speech or sight (when people are silent and we both have our eyes shut), it’s very helpful to actually feel inside my own system, whether someone is relaxing or not. It’s the only way I can check whether or not it’s working.
But hey, it’s been said over and over again, it’s just my imagination and that I just happen to be right is sheer luck.
“…you believe you do something - just as i believe i helped jeff win the lottery - it's an unshakable belief…”
Yes it is, but it is not to be compared to believing in God. Cause I know that can be sheer imagination.
“…however, jeff is requiring you to provide the evidence to prove WHY your experienced it - and it must be presented in a format that jeff accepts.”
I understand this. I do not have a problem with it, it was the way it was presented though…
“Now you lament that you'll never be able to provide the scientific documentation to prove your method - why is that?”
Well, I was actually thinking, maybe it’s about time something would be documented about it.
In those 4 years I studied, we also were taught Parapsychology. But – to me - they did nothing more than finding out whether persons could get the colour of certain cards right. The only spectacular results they ever spoke about had to do with us (people in general) knowing seconds ahead that we are about to experience is a good or a bad thing and our physical system actually reacts to this. But I’m so used to people questioning it all the time, I may have given up on it. Normally the results speak for themselves and as long as my clients keep coming back and refer others to me, it’s good enough. Well that was until I – for some reason – decided it was a good (?) idea to discuss this, to see if I could make some sense of it, which could be helpful explaining this to others.
So I actually do document this myself and I always ask others to give me feedback and if possible put something on my website. However when applying for other jobs, some of them are “ashamed” to admit they had to with a therapist who talks about “energetic therapy” and so they take their results away from for instance “linked in”. That’s when I suddenly have to deal with this “woo” status I actually want to get rid off.
“No more than the existence of god can be proven or disproved, nor can your assertion that your laying of hands be proven or disproved - but the body of provable evidence provides us with clues as to where the truth lies ...”
God doesn’t talk back. When one has experienced improvement and they feel a lot better afterwards, that’s already far more concrete than God’s answers ever will be.
Let me add - that while it may net be a provable or quantifiable value or fact - that does not dismiss a thing's value. THere's IS a reason for the longevity of statements like "Mind over matter"
Positive thinking, prayer, meditation etc, has long been a "known" - but the reality is more often - if you are looking for a "thing" with a specific frame of mind - you're likely to find that thing within that frame of mind.
if someone is hanging from a ledge, they are more likely to find safety if they are focused on a solution and not focused on the resulting failure to find a solution.
if you're preoccupied with what it will feel like when you fall and hit the ground - you're not going to have the time to accurately process your situation and surroundings to find a suitable hand or foot hold to secure yourself and begin to pull yourself to safety - that's why they say "don't look down"
I think it very possible that our minds can unwittingly produce positive and negative results based on our thought and the intensity of our thoughts - i think there's too much that is just unknown about how our minds and bodies work and interact with the other various parts within us - who can say with certainty that a certain intensity level of thought doesn't produce an undetected hormone or an over the threshold level that has a positive or negative effect on the injured part of us.
Also - i semi agree that if the body can use and create and transmute substances it ingests for its original form to something useful - like liquids, meat or vegetables converted to energy to power muscles and thoughts - and while we know through science what mostly happens, i think science will say they might not know fully every possible result.
now I think that like gravity and magnets - there are invisible forces that can interact with the things around them - i think this could be possible with one human or animal in close proximity of another - what that interaction/effect is, i do not know and cannot summarily dismiss.
The earth is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth etc. who knows what we "know" will be discovered to be different than it was always known to be - but we do have to follow an objective and accepted path to these discoveries - and that starts with the scientific method and fact and evidence
"Is this suppose to make ME feel better?" ~ lexje
Quite frankly, it makes no difference to me ... it's a statement of typed words ... they don't "make" you do anything - you choose how those words affect you, but they are just words
how we "feel" about anything is always a choice that we control
Kudos and thx to Robert(I know him as "Bobby") for attempting to bridge the very evident gap in understanding. How much good it will do?...that remains to be seen, but nonetheless, a few points can be underscored, and maybe, just maybe, we can break through between the two of us:
"To me it feels like one big misunderstanding after another." ~ Lexje
No, I understand you fine; I just disagree with your conclusions, which, as I understand it, are based largely on these three things:
- feelings
- experiences
- clients
"I understand I must have used an unproven statement. That’s the reflexology?"
Correct, *"reflexology" is NOT proven as scientific medicine, which is why it falls under "alternative medicine".
*NOTE: This is NOT to say that reflexology doesn't make people FEEL good. It can, and does, make people feel good---but those who administer it claim that it does much, much more that just make people FEEL good.
"When you say that what I previously said 'You said something about not being able to experience anything when we’re asleep' is 'not even the same' compared to 'The only time we experience "nothing at all" is when we sleep.', it’s one big question mark on my side."
If you do not understand the difference between the two statements, then maybe all discussion is pointless.
"I can even understand it if you do not see the use of what it is I’m doing[....]"
Time and time again you show me that you are lacking in the listening dept. I've never said that what you do isn't "useful"(to certain people). Mind you, having one's horoscope read to them is "useful" to some people, generally, people who need to be reassured of their future, otherwise, they have anxiety. Having one's palm read is "useful" for the same reason. Are you getting it, yet? It's this: Things can be "useful", but have no basis in reality.
"Well that was until I – for some reason – decided it was a good (?) idea to discuss this, to see if I could make some sense of it ..." ~ lexje
It's never a bad thing to get feedback ... however, a pilot might not consider a plumber the best source for flying tips
contin.....
[....] therefore this is all just a bunch of 'make-believe'. So if you would just leave it at 'it's unproven', I could very well live with this."
If you believe it, it's not "make-believe" to you. I've not accused you of making it all up; I'm simply contending that you are deceived, mostly by yourself, but also by like-minded people in the same field. There is confirmation bias at play.
"Right now however it feels like I’m being accused of making all these false statements, like for instance when you’re saying I’m 'Spouting more unproven assertions'."
No sane person knowingly believes "false statements". However, many people believe unproven statements..e.g.."reflexology can cure your hemmorhoids!"(and yes, I once stumbled upon a Youtube video that claimed that while browsing the Asian feet videos one night)
"You know I’ll never be able to provide a scientific journal of some sort, no matter how many times you ask me."
Right, and there's a reason for that.
[.....] when knowing I do not feel like I have special powers, since it’s something everyone can do[....]"
No, I'm sorry, everyone most certainly cannot flail their hands around a person with a serious medical condition, chant some affirmations, and medically diagnose and/or heal them. If you held the "key" to such a practice and got repeatable, demonstrable results, your name would be a household name in the medical community; your face would be plastered on the covers of medical journals around the globe. You could even win a Nobel Prize.
"Even a sentence like 'I believe that you believe that…' isn’t appropriate here anymore"
I don't recall anyone saying that said sentence was inappropriate. I believe that you believe everything that you believe. Again, harboring beliefs that you know are false would just plain be stupid. I'm not accusing you of being stupid; I'm accusing you of being self-deceived.
"... You said something about not being able to experience anything when we’re asleep' is 'not even the same' compared to 'The only time we experience "nothing at all" is when we sleep.' ..." ~ all y'all bandied this about
I kept getting sidetracked on addressing this/these statements. I can't begin to so understand the difference of the two together or individually because to say "nothing at all" happens when we sleep is fundamentally false on every level.
The only thing that can be accepted is that what does happen is considered of nominal value as to be labelled as "nothing" - but beginning with "breathing" and the act of sleep itself - that IS something that is happening and if it's happening, we're experiencing - dreams can be considered a bunch of random synapses firing or whatever but i think (without proof of course) that the stimuli of our movements and actions including the feel and texture of our bedding is experienced and interpreted and processed by our brains - our brain never full shuts off - otherwise our life support functions would stop when we slept.
just sayin - carry on
"I can't begin to so understand the difference of the two together or individually because to say 'nothing at all' happens when we sleep is fundamentally false on every level."
Context is important here. But first...
Individually, one statement, which is her rendering of my statement, is...
- "not being able to experience anything when we’re asleep"
I didn't say, and never would say, such a thing. We dream when we sleep, so, there you go.....we can experience "something" when we sleep.
The other statement(mine), was...
- "The only time we experience 'nothing at all' is when we sleep."
Notice, this doesn't suggest that we experience "nothing at all" for the *duration* of sleep.
Next, while breathing and other metabolic processes are taking place while in REM sleep, the brainstem drives these processes.
So, we aren't aware of/conscious of these processes, even though they continue while awareness/consciousness shuts down temporarily. At these precise moments during sleep, we are experiencing nothing at all.
"At these precise moments during sleep, we are experiencing nothing at all." - Jeff
I going to differ with your opinion - perhaps we may not perceive the "something" that we experience while sleeping, or we may not recognize the unconscious mean with which we register the somethings that occur when we're sleeping - i think our brains and senses do experience everything - otherwise the alarm clock would not wake us up. just because what is experienced during sleep is of little value or it's mundane or inconsequential doesn't mean it wasn't received and processed
(deleted and reposted to fix a meaning changing typo)
If we are being specific here, this is what was being said:
Refering to “connecting” to you Jeff I said:
"Then we (you) could experience something or nothing at all."
Next Jeff you replied:
“The only time we experience "nothing at all" is when we sleep. Every waking moment we are experiencing the world around us in some way. The type of "test" you offer reminds of the "cold reading" techniques that "spiritual mediums" perform, and many times(at least here in the U.S.), this is where people's dead relatives all meet up in a TV studio to communicate with those they left behind. And yes, I'm being facetious. It's a load of crap, perfect for the gullible and the vulnerable, which is why I loathe this type of quackery.”
That’s when I repeated your statement Jeff:
“The only time we experience "nothing at all" is when we sleep.”
Adding:
“I wish that was true. There are still these moments between being awake and still being asleep (that first minute you’re still paralyzed as not to act on impulse and thus doing unwanted things while being asleep). They can be a major influence. The things I’ve experienced up till now can still give me the chills.”
Jeff, you next replied:
“As can the experiences of those abducted by space travelers give them the chills. IOW........so what.”
Next I replied:
"The things I’ve experienced up till now can still give me the chills."
You said something about not being able to experience anything when we’re asleep. I do not agree, hence the remark.
That’s when you Jeff responded:
Here's what I said: The only time we experience "nothing at all" is when we sleep.
Not even the same.
Which I replied to:
“When you say that what I previously said "You said something about not being able to experience anything when we’re asleep" is “not even the same” compared to ”The only time we experience "nothing at all" is when we sleep.”, it’s one big question mark on my side.”
Jeff you then stated:
“If you do not understand the difference between the two statements, then maybe all discussion is pointless.”
And next Robert, you come with your findings:
"... ~ all y'all bandied this about
I kept getting sidetracked on addressing this/these statements. I can't begin to so understand the difference of the two together or individually because to say "nothing at all" happens when we sleep is fundamentally false on every level.
The only thing that can be accepted is that what does happen is considered of nominal value as to be labelled as "nothing" - but beginning with "breathing" and the act of sleep itself - that IS something that is happening and if it's happening, we're experiencing - dreams can be considered a bunch of random synapses firing or whatever but i think (without proof of course) that the stimuli of our movements and actions including the feel and texture of our bedding is experienced and interpreted and processed by our brains - our brain never full shuts off - otherwise our life support functions would stop when we slept.
Then you Jeff you answer Robert:
"I can't begin to so understand the difference of the two together or individually because to say 'nothing at all' happens when we sleep is fundamentally false on every level."
Context is important here. But first...
Individually, one statement, which is her rendering of my statement, is...
- "not being able to experience anything when we’re asleep"
Since context is important here, let's use the whole context please... Cause I never meant to say we do not experience anything at all when asleep. That's why I started with the remark about the "chills".
What I repeated afterwards is something along the lines I thought you had said, but you obviously disagreed upon.
"I going to differ with your opinion"
That's fine, but I will make a few attempts to get us on the same page, nonetheless....
"perhaps we may not perceive the 'something' that we experience while sleeping[...]"
Experiencing without perceiving? That doesn't compute for me. If that were possible, then perhaps a rock, while it can't perceive being picked up and thrown, it can.... experience it?
"[....] or we may not recognize the unconscious mean with which we register the somethings that occur when we're sleeping"
If we experienced 'round the clock the things that "occur", including our own thoughts, self-awareness, etc., we'd die. Excluding the brainstem, we need our brains to shut down for 8 hours(give or take) a day. Our health depends on it. This is a fact of science, despite that scientists don't fully know the "why".
"i think our brains and senses do experience everything - otherwise the alarm clock would not wake us up."
What about sounds that don't wake us up? Hundreds, if not thousands of those, right? If we aren't perceiving those sounds(aware of them via the senses), then how can we "experience" them?
Lastly, to "experience" is a temporal process, whether consciously, or even subconsciously. Yet, we have no recollection of the passing of time during sleep. This fact, especially, makes it hard for me to accept that we "experience" 'round the clock.
Going on…
So when you Jeff say:
“So, we aren't aware of/conscious of these processes, even though they continue while awareness/consciousness shuts down temporarily.”
I disagree. Cause we may not be consciously aware of what’s happening, but unconsciously a lot is happening, we just cannot recall it when waking up again.
There’s a reason why people cannot get into their deep sleep when having a lot on their mind. If they have not processed all this information which has happened during the day, this needs to be processed first. Then next one can get into a deep sleep.
So when you Robert say:
“…just because what is experienced during sleep is of little value or it's mundane or inconsequential doesn't mean it wasn't received and processed”,
This more or less confirms what I mean to say. The processing of information takes place during the different stages of our sleeping process and all of this affects how we feel and act during the day. Deprive someone of his or her deep sleep for a longer period of time and they start to hallucinate.
Since you added already a new post Jeff I want to repeat a little something here:
“If we experienced 'round the clock the things that "occur", including our own thoughts, self-awareness, etc., we'd die. Excluding the brainstem, we need our brains to shut down for 8 hours(give or take) a day. Our health depends on it. This is a fact of science, despite that scientists don't fully know the "why".”
Question here is what shutting down means. Because of my hyper “tendencies” I’ve had the privilege to experience different medication. One of these shut my brain down. No dreams, it was a complete shut down. I woke up very tired, not rested at all.
They now have given me something that makes me sleep very deeply but for very short periods at a time. I do not need 8 hours of sleep anymore at the same time. I do have to add to this that every hour of meditation is far more effective that 1 hour of sleep. But if I sleep 6 hours a night, it’s a lot, except for when my body is fighting a virus of some sort.
The whole purpose of sleeping is twofold: Giving our body the time to recover – and – Giving our mind the possibility to process what’s been going on during the day.
RE: "Then we (you) could experience something or nothing at all."
My original response to this was merely me calling you out on your continued vagueness in replying. I fully know what you meant---you meant, the "test" would either indicate a positive(because I'd experience "X", via Lexje's transcendental "mind" techniques[or however-the-hell she does it]), or it would indicate a negative(because I would not experience "X" via said techniques).
Now, notice that "X" was never delineated, so it's still undetermined, and therefore, it's a ginormous question mark. Welp, I'm growing tired of the big question marks, so, I attempted to make a rhetorical point in my response..i.e..."the only time you can experience 'nothing at all'[etc., etc]".
It won't be the first time I've made a rhetorical point; it won't be the last. Capisce? lol!
You seem to be in good spirits. Well that’s a good thing, so I am. There’s nothing like going to the beach (cycling) when it’s (almost) freezing to clear my head.
“It won't be the first time I've made a rhetorical point; it won't be the last.”
Be warned, I’m lousy at recognizing rhetorical remarks. If you don’t mind repeating yourself, please do so… :-)
“I'm growing tired of the big question marks”
Then ASK… You may not be aware but I’m never certain when I can or cannot give a full explanation to you. I’ve been wanting to do so numerous times, but not knowing if it would be appreciated I’d rather leave it, unless you would ask me to. So if you want to know what X is just let me know. I recently got taught to use a new format by some guy called Jeff (you might know him), starting with, “by X, I mean…”, so this should be working better in the future.
“Kudos and thx to Robert(I know him as "Bobby") for attempting to bridge the very evident gap in understanding.”
I agree, so thanx Robert (or can I say Bobby here?)!
“…and maybe, just maybe, we can break through between the two of us…”
I’m willing to give it a try if you are and apparently you are!
“…I just disagree with your conclusions…”
That’s okay. The world would be a boring place if everyone would constantly agree with one another.
“…which, as I understand it, are based largely on these three things:
- feelings
- experiences
- clients.”
Yep. Nothing to add here.
“…but those who administer it claim that it does much, much more that just make people FEEL good.”
Reading this I was wondering about something. We as licensed therapists (which also applies to reflexology-therapist having studied at a certain required level) are recognized as “beneficial” by the health insurance companies, so when people come to us, they can get their money back for the consults. What’s this like over there in America?
“Time and time again you show me that you are lacking in the listening dept.”
Last night I wasn’t in the best of spirits. Hence I was overreacting (exaggerating) on a number of levels, this being one of them.
Besides I do not always understand you straight away. I’m still getting used to your choice of words (which still require a dictionary almost every response you give me) and it takes me sometimes 2-3x times before I finally get what you’re saying (if I understand what you’re saying). That’s why I’m always happy when you use an extra word or an example. That’s the downside to being slightly dyslectic, sorry…
“I've never said that what you do isn't "useful"(to certain people).”
You didn’t. I was just so fed up with it all, my emotions got the better of me. This was the result.
“I've not accused you of making it all up…”
It was more a feeling then you actually saying so. Like I said, I wasn’t in the best of spirits and then I can get a bit overdramatic.
“I'm simply contending that you are deceived, mostly by yourself, but also by like-minded people in the same field.”
It sounds so flattering when you say it like this…
“There is confirmation bias at play.”
I guess there could be.
“However, many people believe unproven statements..e.g.."reflexology…”
I’m aware that things can get promised which will never happen. I try to be careful not to promise things I can not keep.
What I still do not get though, is why you are practicing foot-reflexology if you’re not convinced of the benefits. I mean you do say it makes others feel good, but still… Or has this to do with your foot-fetish?
And then some more…
“…everyone most certainly cannot flail their hands around a person…”
Flail? Who says I even move my hands? I don’t recall having told you what I’m doing.
“…chant some affirmations..”
Chant? Well you’ve created a nice image of me. No I do not. I keep silent and to myself.
“…medically diagnose…”
We talked about this, I cannot do so. What I do is I feel the sore / tense / ill spots, not make any diagnosis. And please do not say again… “and for good reason”… I know this by now…
“...heal them...”
I know I have introduced the term myself, even though I’m not fond of it, but let’s stick to the possible here… (why am I even getting into this? I wonder how serious you are when saying things like these)
“If you held the "key" to such a practice…”
One with flailing and chanting? Hmmm….
“… and got repeatable, demonstrable results…”
These I have. And since I do get my new clients from word to mouth, something must be going as planned..
Just a suggestion: If you ever happen to come over here again (maybe while touring), how about coming over and experience things first hand? You could get the best of both (including the massage) and I promise you, you’ll feel great by the time you come off the table.
Over to Robert…
“I think it very possible that our minds can unwittingly produce positive and negative results based on our thought and the intensity of our thoughts - i think there's too much that is just unknown about how our minds and bodies work and interact with the other various parts within us…”
We can absolutely influence our own “state of mind” and with it results.
“now I think that like gravity and magnets - there are invisible forces that can interact with the things around them - i think this could be possible with one human or animal in close proximity of another - what that interaction/effect is, i do not know and cannot summarily dismiss.”
Not just close by. Distance is relative. I’ve been abroad several times when my mother needed some mental support. When I focussed on her, she could feel it straight away.
When working with the mind, it does not have to work any harder because someone would be further away. What does influence the result is whatever the receiver is doing. I once was working with a friend, before I realized she was actually – watching – tv. I was under the impression this was put on for her kid. The result was that I felt extremely cold inside and even after taking a hot shower, it took me hours to warm up again. That was one bad experience…
“how we "feel" about anything is always a choice that we control”
Very true and today it just felt better to be grumpy a little while longer.
“It's never a bad thing to get feedback ... however, a pilot might not consider a plumber the best source for flying tips”
Well don’t be mistaken here. There’s a lot I’ve picked up along the way and I do get a lot of insights, specifically because Jeff questions the things I say. And this is after all what I am looking for. I wanted things to make sense.
"Not just close by. Distance is relative. ... " ~lexje
WEll I was being specific to some type of physical interaction that might be difficult to detect or not easy to see right off ... like air, that is a gas is generally unseen and would appear as "nothing" yet it is paramount to our existence and it has mass and real physical properties - magnetism and gravity are also known and measurable
Like anything that has mass - i believe creates gravity - the earth and moon and sun all create gravity - the sun holds the planets, the earth holds the moon the moon creates the tides etc
So extrapolating down i don't think it a stretch that the human body couldn't generate a magnetism or gravity that could effect nearby objects or people/animals - additionally there could be chemical/gas exchange/interactions when in near proximity.
But when you start talking distance - especially transcontinental distance - now the only known (or at least suspected ) physical interaction is spooky particle physics/quantum entanglement
from there you have to start leaning towards Psychokinesis and other similar concepts ... and that's a couple stops too far for me to go on this train (or for simplicity - woo) - but as jeff says - if you believe it and your subjects believe it - who are we to deny that something doesn't happen
Of course i'd lean more towards the subject calming his/her own mind with a comfort that you are devoting your time and energy to them and that sets them at peace - not that there is ever any sharing of "energy" or information or substance - just two people collaborating to relax into a calm and peaceful state at the same time
But what do i know - i'm just a window washer who has a knack with dogs ;)
Just a window washer... Well well Robert, that doesn't suit you :-)
While reading what you wrote down I am aware how proposterous this actually sounds. This indeed no longer would apply to what Anton Mesmer was talking about as in magnetism.
This to me is just as normal as going to church was. But honestly we did do testing when still in school and I sometimes still do. However I am willing to take into consideration that just maybe someone would be expecting this. I still can't explain why I'd feel inside my body what's happening, since that's the same as just putting my hands on someone. I'm beginning to see what Jeff meant by being self-deceiving.
I could and can think about a couple of dozen examples why this could and can be true, but ouch... I feel this "doubt" creeping around the corner again.
Wow the both of you (especially Jeff) are doing a mighty fine job here...
Just going on for a minute here - just for my own peace of mind. Two thoughts are coming to mind.
1) If I do not focus or use intent it doesn't work. The other person on the receiving end doesn't know this but does experience nothing's happening. How to explain this (is this burden of proof? I sincerely hope not).
2) How come I see images in my mind's eye and experience emotions - unless of course this could have to do with this fantastic imagination of ours.
My core fundamentals are being shaken up here. I guess there's no harm in there, unless this would effect the work I am doing (as was suggested at home yesterday).
So I'll just take it one step at a time. Question myself and the situation every time I get to work using what then would be telepathic skills. And then still saying this is not supernatural... ::SIGH::
It's amazing what happens when applying logic. Congrats to the both of you!!!
Does this blog also provide safety-nets in case of falling :-(?
Deep, the chasm is; provided, are not nets
AS kind of an aside. I KNOW there is no Santa Claus and I KNOW there is no Rainbow Bridge
Yet I choose to BELIEVE in these concepts with all the pieces of my heart
;)
"You seem to be in good spirits."
Over all, yes. But, admittedly, it sticks in my craw when proponents of "alternative medicine" seek to get their philosophies and practices - and in most cases, these are metaphysically-based - on equal grounds with scientifically-based medicine. In the words of Tim Minchin....
"Do you know what they call alternative medicine that's proven to work? 'Medicine'."
"You may not be aware but I’m never certain when I can or cannot give a full explanation to you."
A "full explanation" is useless to me until/unless it can be backed by science and its methods e.g..testing and falsifying. And here's why: A Mormon can give me a "full explanation" of why the Book of Mormon is true, and in fact, they go door-to-door in my neighborhood doing just that. However, just because a Mormon "Elder" can give me one such explanation doesn't prove that the angel Moroni buried some magical golden tablets in the side of a hill for Joseph Smith to later find and dig up.
Me: and maybe, just maybe, we can break through between the two of us…
You: "I’m willing to give it a try if you are and apparently you are!"
I meant, Bobby and I... trying to break through to you.
"The world would be a boring place if everyone would constantly agree with one another."
Actually, I don't think it would be boring at all if everybody agreed on what bad beliefs are and that holding bad beliefs isn't good. Unanimous agreement on that wouldn't preclude using our imaginations for art, entertainment, and so-forth.
Me: I understand you fine; I just disagree with your conclusions, which, as I understand it, are based largely on these three things:
- feelings
- experiences
- clients.
You: "Yep. Nothing to add here."
Right, because there is nothing to add. That is an exhaustive list of your "evidence", and mind you, the Mormon in my above example has two of the three things, and we can add "followers" in lieu of "clients".
"We as licensed therapists (which also applies to reflexology-therapist having studied at a certain required level) are recognized as 'beneficial' by the health insurance companies, so when people come to us, they can get their money back for the consults. What’s this like over there in America?"
Here, insurance companies are tighter with what they're willing to pay out. Here, people will try practically anything to just "feel good". Of course, "feeling good" is a very broad after-treatment description. The guy who went in for a reflexology treatment probably left feeling really good, but he probably still has gastrointestinal problems.
Me: I've not accused you of making it all up…
You:" "It was more a feeling then you actually saying so."
Case-in-point: "feelings" are not necessarily reliable for determining truth.
contin.....
"What I still do not get though, is why you are practicing foot-reflexology if you’re not convinced of the benefits."
I have given an occasional foot massage in my time. At no time did I ever tell my subject that I was "practicing foot-reflexology".
"Who says I even move my hands? I don’t recall having told you what I’m doing."
You remarked that you used your hands in some way, and if memory serves, you said that you didn't even need to touch your subject. I'm just trying to envision the whole process, and honestly, it sounds like something off of Star-Trek.
"We talked about this, I cannot do so[medically diagnose]. What I do is I feel the sore / tense / ill spots, not make any diagnosis."
I did not necessarily mean that you give a diagnosis. Even if you thought that you had diagnosed them but kept silent about it---and if, as you claim, you do this by "picking up" whatever's ailing your subject---then you are essentially diagnosing them. Either way, I remain skeptical.
Me: If you held the "key" to such a practice…”
You: "One with flailing and chanting? Hmmm…."
'Doesn't matter what goes on during one of these sessions; what matters is what is being claimed to happen during one of these sessions.
Me: … and got repeatable, demonstrable results…
"These I have."
Perhaps I've missed something, but having a roster of clients who report feeling better after having seen you doesn't "demonstrate" anything except that Lexje can make people feel good. Note that heroin, a chat with Cleo, and staring at fishbowl can make people feel good, too.
"And since I do get my new clients from word to mouth, something must be going as planned.."
Again, a palm reader might get many clients via referrals, too. From that, should we conclude that she really knows that each of her clients will live a long, prosperous life with lots of romance? I don't think so.
"I meant, Bobby and I... trying to break through to you."
Have you read on?
Relevance, please?
You are your usually charming self Jeff...
Just maybe I may have changed some insights... Did you read on actually?
"While reading what you wrote down I am aware how proposterous this actually sounds. This indeed no longer would apply to what Anton Mesmer was talking about as in magnetism.
This to me is just as normal as going to church was. But honestly we did do testing when still in school and I sometimes still do. However I am willing to take into consideration that just maybe someone could be expecting this. I still can't explain why I'd feel inside my body what's happening, since that's the same as just putting my hands on someone. I'm beginning to see what Jeff (you) meant by being self-deceiving.
I could and can think about a couple of dozen examples why this could and can be true, but ouch... I feel this "doubt" creeping around the corner again."
Relevant enough for you?
Previously, me: "I meant, Bobby and I... trying to break through to you."
@ Lexje,
It initially appeared that you misunderstood that I meant that both Bobby and I(i.e.."we") might be able to break through to you. **That you might've changed your position since that misunderstanding has nothing to do with the misunderstanding, itself, hence, why I asked how your recent question..i.e.."Have you read on?" is relevant to that misunderstanding.
This is how/why, by responding point-by-point, it keeps thoughts in order and misunderstandings to a minimum. Taking what I say in one point and jumping ahead and applying it to something else is only going to create more confusion. Can you please refrain from it? Thx.
"You are your usually charming self Jeff..."
Okay, let me be blunt, or more blunt than usual----I don't have this blog to charm my readership. So, I really don't care if you find me charming, or not. At this point in my life? I'm more interested in having as many good beliefs as possible(and as few bad beliefs as possible) than I am interested in if people find me charming, or not. Yes, I take a very direct approach when it comes to religious philosophy and epistemology. And yes, I know that I come across pissed and/or intense and/or sarcastic at times, and this is probably becau...no, wait...scratch that...it's definitely because there's some residual resentment there that's fueled by the fact that I wasted 2/3rds of my life believing a lie, and even when I had doubts, I was taught by the people who spoon-fed me those lies to "just have more faith!" in an attempt to quell those doubts. Well, it worked; I was a sucker, and I'd be a liar if I said that some of the residual anger wasn't/isn't directed inward.
So, I have this blog, in part, as a form of self-therapy. All of the above is why I am so adamantly opposed to religion and pseudo-science. Notwithstanding, I can assure my readership that I am not now the dogmatic, fundamental flip-side of the religious coin(as many people think), because, a) I changed my mind once, b) I'll do it again for the right type of evidence, c) I don't worship anything, and d) I don't care what people become if they should stop being Christian.
"Just maybe I may have changed some insights... Did you read on actually?"
Yes, I did. See here**, above.
I let Bobbie rephrase it for me, so it might make more sense: "the possibility of what? that your perception that it's you using energy to remedy what ails your clients might not actually be something you "give" and that it's only a perception of the client that there is some type of non-physical exchange?"
I guess I *reluctantly* agree. Which means something along those lines that I may possibly understand your quote on me being self-deceiving.
And it's okay the way you are, otherwise I would have been gone a long time ago.
Okay.
Me: "You seem to be in good spirits."
You: “But, admittedly, it sticks in my craw when proponents of "alternative medicine" seek to get their philosophies and practices - and in most cases, these are metaphysically-based - on equal grounds with scientifically-based medicine.”
It's not my intention to take away your “good spirits”. I regret it if I do so.
“I meant, Bobby and I... trying to break through to you.”
Well thank you. It almost sounds like I need to be de-brainwashed. Maybe in some sense that’s actually true. It’s about getting rid of certain beliefs I’ve grown up with/accustomed to.
You: “I've not accused you of making it all up…”
Me:" "It was more a feeling then you actually saying so."
You: “Case-in-point: "feelings" are not necessarily reliable for determining truth.”
I was talking about my own feelings as in emotions here. I was pretty much done with it all and then I exaggerate things. Note this is not meant as an excuse on my side. This is one of the reasons I do hold off on answering straight away.
Me: "What I still do not get though, is why you are practicing foot-reflexology if you’re not convinced of the benefits."
You: “I have given an occasional foot massage in my time. At no time did I ever tell my subject that I was "practicing foot-reflexology".
I still do not understand why you would do so.
Then again, I’m beginning to understand that even if not being convinced if/how some method works, it can still be applied if there’s some improvement involved. Just jumping ahead in time (yes doing it again) => This would mean that even if I am not sure what it is I’m doing, it does not necessarily mean I should quit doing so, as long as there’s some sort of improvement as long as I do not claim/pretend to know it all. Would that be a correct enough assumption?
“I'm just trying to envision the whole process, and honestly, it sounds like something off of Star-Trek.”
Earlier you said:
“A "full explanation" is useless to me until/unless it can be backed by science and its methods e.g..testing and falsifying.”
I do not know what to make of this. Do you want to envision it properly or not?
“…and if, as you claim, you do this by "picking up" whatever's ailing your subject---then you are essentially diagnosing them. Either way, I remain skeptical.”
I’m actually rather careful. I’m aware I have very limited knowledge. So besides not being allowed to, I know enough about “regular medicine” not to want to guess anything. That’s why I send people straight back to the doctor’s.
“It initially appeared that you misunderstood that I meant that both Bobby and I(i.e.."we") might be able to break through to you.”
True.
“Taking what I say in one point and jumping ahead and applying it to something else is only going to create more confusion. Can you please refrain from it? Thx.”
I’ll do my best. It’s how it works in my mind, but I get that it can lead to more confusion, so I’ll be more careful not to do it.
“I don't have this blog to charm my readership.”
Fortunately you do not. It’s you being straightforward and honest what I like best about you and with it your blog. It’s not always easy, but I do think (mostly) it works very well. It’s just that occasionally I need to blow off some steam as a result of this, as you may have noticed.
Me: “I guess I *reluctantly* agree. Which means something along those lines that I may possibly understand your quote on me being self-deceiving.”
You: “Okay.”
To me this is quite a lot… And you are VERY quiet.
Me: I have given an occasional foot massage in my time. At no time did I ever tell my subject that I was "practicing foot-reflexology".
You: "I still do not understand why you would do so."
Idk.....to make someone feel good, perhaps? If anyone can relate to a good massage making someone feel good, I would think it would be you. And yet, you seem to be struggling to understand this.
Me: A "full explanation" is useless to me until/unless it can be backed by science and its methods e.g..testing and falsifying.
You: "I do not know what to make of this."
Yes, I know, and unfortunately, your inability to grasp this one point is pretty much the biggest hurdle, here.
"Do you want to envision it properly or not?"
No, I don't want to "envision" what you are asserting, because, even if I envisioned it to your approval(e.g.."properly"), that still wouldn't prove or substantiate what you (claim to) do. For instance, I could surely properly envision a palm reader holding the hand of a patron and attempting to tell said patron his or her future. But what have I really accomplished in doing that? Nothing.
You: I have given an occasional foot massage in my time. At no time did I ever tell my subject that I was "practicing foot-reflexology".
Me: "I still do not understand why you would do so."
You: “Idk.....to make someone feel good, perhaps? If anyone can relate to a good massage making someone feel good, I would think it would be you. And yet, you seem to be struggling to understand this.”
I’m struggling ‘cause to me it’s illogical you would use a method you do not believe to be working, as in calling it unproven. However you do say here it makes someone feel good.
And that I do understand.
You: "A "full explanation" is useless to me until/unless it can be backed by science and its methods e.g..testing and falsifying."
Me: "I do not know what to make of this."
You: “Yes, I know, and unfortunately, your inability to grasp this one point is pretty much the biggest hurdle, here.”
Let me be more specific: I do not know what to make of *both* your statements which seem to contradict one another. I however *do* understand that since it cannot be backed by science you’re not interested. However when you next start writing about imagining what it is I could be doing without having the slightest clue, this seems to contradict your previous statement.
It seems we are having a miscommunication here, since the context has been taken away, now both statements are separated. As you asked me, I ask you to keep the context in mind.
Me: "Do you want to envision it properly or not?"
You: “No, I don't want to "envision" what you are asserting...”
If so, then please don’t come up with all these wonderful possible scenarios you (must somehow) know seem totally ridiculous to me. What’s the use?
I mean I appreciate a good example, you know I do. I do however not appreciate you just making things up, just because you don’t know and you are just assuming something here and hence making it into something totally absurd.
"I’m struggling ‘cause to me it’s illogical you would use a method you do not believe to be working, as in calling it unproven
I contend that you are struggling for a different reason, and that reason is that you assume that "foot-massage" and "reflexology foot-massage" are mutually inclusive, when in fact, they are not. The latter type of massage speaks of "pressure points" and "meridians" and so on and so forth, and it claims that each region of the sole of the foot corresponds to other parts of the body..e.g..base of the big toe corresponds to the neck, yadda, yadda. The former type of massage can be given without the slightest thought of any of that. When I administer a foot massage, I honestly couldn't care less if someone's liver feels better after the massage, simply because I don't go into it thinking that I'm going to stimulate body parts, although, I guess if my subject's clitoris feels better afterwards, I'll go ahead 'n take the credit for that.
"I do not know what to make of *both* your statements which seem to contradict one another. I however *do* understand that since it cannot be backed by science you’re not interested. However when you next start writing about imagining what it is I could be doing without having the slightest clue, this seems to contradict your previous statement."
There is nothing contradictory about claiming ignorance(AKA, "I don't know") until a scientific explanation is offered. I don't know how you "pick up" on stuff, so, until you can offer a scientifically-based explanation, I plead ignorance, and at the same time, I am skeptical that what you claim is going down is actually going down that way. No contradiction.
"I mean I appreciate a good example, you know I do. I do however not appreciate you just making things up, just because you don’t know and you are just assuming something here and hence making it into something totally absurd."
Based on these two things..i.e..nothing, and "energy", I've literally got nothing to go on, so naturally, I might envision some scenarios. Faulting me for that is, idk, unrealistic? Nonetheless, you've had ample time to offer "how" you do it, as in, what it actually taking place, not simply describing going through the motions(if any).
PS: Would you be a Dove and hit the space bar between quotes and your responses? 'Much appreciated.
You: “I contend that you are struggling for a different reason, and that reason is that you assume that "foot-massage" and "reflexology foot-massage" are mutually inclusive, when in fact, they are not.“
Just going back here in time and quoting you here: “I know what the process is, and I reject it, as it is not accepted my the medical community. It is pseudo-medicine. Can the person can feel better after having a moderately painful foot massage? Yes, of course....I've given such massages myself and gotten good responses. However, I've never healed a crooked spine with reflexology, and neither has anyone else. There's a reason for that.”
I may see now how I could have misunderstood what you meant here. I honestly read you did know the process since you studied it and had applied it. That’s why it didn’t make sense to me. I mean why would you study something and then reject it?
Me:"I do not know what to make of *both* your statements which seem to contradict one another. I however *do* understand that since it cannot be backed by science you’re not interested. However when you next start writing about imagining what it is I could be doing without having the slightest clue, this seems to contradict your previous statement."
OK. I can’t get seem to get across what it is I mean. It’s you saying in one sentence, don’t bother giving an explanation and in the next making assumptions about the process since I haven’t told you anything you can relate to. To me both are combined and thus contradictive.
You: “Nonetheless, you've had ample time to offer "how" you do it, as in, what it actually taking place, not simply describing going through the motions(if any).”
Well if you put it like this – what’s taking place, than I’d say the following:
What’s taking place is a process to clean up the auric field, including the chakra’s on different levels, the pyshical, emotional, mental and spiritual level. This can either be done manually (scanning with your hand above the body and cleaning it up along the way) or by becoming a channel.
If one functions as a channel this would mean energy would flow through the system of the “healer”/therapist and be given to the client where it’s needed. The healer is not involved, but can interfere with one’s conscious mind. So this requires a deep state that only involves the subconscious mind, involving the same active brainwaves as when we’re sleeping. However only few people can reach the really deep (trance) states.
Does this give you some sort of insight?
"I mean why would you study something and then reject it?"
Hmmm. Okay, to find out if it's true? You know, like I studied Xianity and later rejected it? Like that.
"It’s you saying in one sentence, don’t bother giving an explanation[......]"
That's not the whole story, though. **Don't bother giving an explanation that's not backed by science and modern, scientific medicine, is the whole of it.
[.....]and in the next making assumptions about the process since I haven’t told you anything you can relate to."
Visualizing the scenario based on the bits 'n pieces you've offered. That's not necessarily assuming anything.
"What’s taking place is a process to clean up the auric field, including the chakra’s on different levels, the pyshical, emotional, mental and spiritual level. This can either be done manually (scanning with your hand above the body and cleaning it up along the way) or by becoming a channel."
See here**, above.
"If one functions as a channel this would mean energy would flow through the system of the 'healer'/therapist and be given to the client where it’s needed. The healer is not involved, but can interfere with one’s conscious mind. So this requires a deep state that only involves the subconscious mind, involving the same active brainwaves as when we’re sleeping. However only few people can reach the really deep (trance) states.
Does this give you some sort of insight?"
It gives me some insight into the realm of the metaphysical. Does it prove there is a metaphysical realm? No.
Me: "I mean why would you study something and then reject it?"
You: “Hmmm. Okay, to find out if it's true? You know, like I studied Xianity and later rejected it? Like that.”
Makes sense when you say it like this.
Though not having chosen for this situation consciously and though it’s giving me doubts non-stop, I believe it’s okay (even though not easy) to still be with people who do believe in the Spirit World and teach me how to work with it. This way I can get to find out for myself whether and when it’s purely my (and others) imagination(s) and when it may be not.
You: “It gives me some insight into the realm of the metaphysical. Does it prove there is a metaphysical realm? No.”
You honestly did not think I would consider this to be sufficient evidence for you to even consider this? *smile*
This was just to give you some more insight in how I’ve been taught how this happens and hopefully you can now “envision” somewhat better what it is I’m talking about.
"Makes sense when you say it like this."
Right, 'seems like the right and obvious first step when we want to know if something's true or not..i.e..study/examine it for ourselves.
"I believe it’s okay (even though not easy) to still be with people who do believe in the Spirit World and teach me how to work with it. This way I can get to find out for myself whether and when it’s purely my (and others) imagination(s) and when it may be not."
'Curious as to what you'll test/measure against in determining between real and your imagination.
"This was just to give you some more insight in how I’ve been taught how this happens and hopefully you can now 'envision' somewhat better what it is I’m talking about."
I can envision what you intend to convey, better. But in essence, you've simply put forth bunch of spiritual/paranormal jargon..e.g..."chakras", "auric field", etc., none of which, to my knowledge, has any objective confirmation in the medical community.
You: ”'Curious as to what you'll test/measure against in determining between real and your imagination.”
Well, that’s an excellent question. I don’t know just yet. Any suggestions?
We’ve been trained to be able to pick up on the slightest differences in feelings, inner sight, changes in appearance, etc. Problem is this can be seen as imagination over and over again. However when several people come up separately with the same conclusion, this could suggest something.
Let’s be honest this is not about hard evidence. Yet it doesn’t mean it isn’t real or at least could be real.
For instance something that may seem insignificant to you, but does tell me something is that when people are lying on my table, that solely when I work with energy and occasionally when working with an injured spot, there’s a noise coming from the person’s stomach. It’s not the same as being hungry, but it’s there. And it happens to everyone, but only if I’m working with energy.
To me this is also a good indicator something is happening whenever I’m in this meditational state. While I’ve closed my eyes, I’m still aware of what’s happening around me, unless I’m going really deep.
When I'm going really deep and my mind starts to clear up again, that’s when I get to realize I’ve missed 10-15 minutes in time and quite often I’m thinking: “I was going down the stairs, stood in front of the door (visualizing) and then… I was back again wide awake in my practice.”
It’s a strange experience time and again and it’s not to be compared with sleep since I feel very energized, but still very “out of it”, whereas when I wake up, I may be a little tired, but I am alert.
So actually *I’m at a loss* at what would be a valid indicator to make a distinct difference between imagination and reality. ::SIGH::
Like I said, I’m open to suggestions if you might have some.
You: “I can envision what you intend to convey, better.“
Well that’s was my intent, nothing more.
"Well, that’s an excellent question. I don’t know just yet. Any suggestions?"
Start by learning, a) what constitutes good evidence(and was doesn't), and b) how to spot fallacious reasoning/arguments, which will hopefully help you avoid using them yourself.
"Let’s be honest this is not about hard evidence."
By "hard evidence", I suppose you mean empirical evidence, which is evidence that yields info' that is gathered by experimentation/ observation. If so, then there's no reason that what you claim shouldn't have hard evidence.
"Yet it doesn’t mean it isn’t real or at least could be real."
If your position all along has been "it could be real", I'd have never taken issue and the subsequent extra time to discuss it. A infinite list of things that have yet to be confirmed could be real. This is precisely where evidence comes into play and why it's so important. To date, science and its experimentation and observation methods have been the most reliable in telling us what is real, and what isn't. I've given you some insight, so I'm leaving you on your own with it.
Back to the subject at hand...
*Can we choose our very next thoughts? Note, to do so would require that you think said thought before you think it. This, of course, is impossible. If this is impossible, "free will" is impossible, too, since our thoughts lead to our actions.
*Note, this question was inspired by a recent video I watched by Sam Harris. A good listen if you've an extra 1.5 hours.
"Note, this question was inspired by a recent video I watched by Sam Harris. A good listen if you've an extra 1.5 hours."
This one: Sam Harris on "Free Will"? (http://youtu.be/pCofmZlC72g)
No, not that link in particular, but it very well could be the same speech, but a different uploader.
Today I was reading an article on someone who had left the Scientology Church. The reason was actually heartbreaking (well at least to me). She told how children were taking away from their parents once they were six years old. To be more specific she said that children were seen as “old” spirits in tiny bodies having to do hard labor and not being in need of their parents at all. It all came down to “blind faith” and next I was wondering about the difference with other religions. It’s all about “blind faith”, taking the word of someone who declares himself the “prophet” of “God”. And all these religions somewhere somehow loose people who are questioning improper behavior or just let it just call it as it is “screwed up, sick and immoral actions” which are completely the opposite of what any faith or religion should stand for. Sad.
For some reason this story got to me somewhat more, since the children could not be children at all and experienced no love what so ever. How screwed up will this make a child and later an adult and next an entire community? Fortunately some things seem to be present, call it maternal instinct, which at one moment brings people back to reasoning and questioning. This all empowering drive to defend children is fortunately what gives people the power to change, if not for themselves, at least for their children. Possibly “free will” can be clouded by brainwashing from an early age, but get “unclouded” and reactivated, once children are involved. Somehow that’s a comforting thought. It gives people the courage who are being abused by their spouse or “indoctrinated” by an entire community to choose for a safe and secure future for their own family and be willing to risk their live to do so, just to give their offspring that better future.
It makes me wonder how big ego actually is. I mean, people are willing to take abuse and not think for themselves, until there are children involved and their protection mechanism suddenly kicks in. Why wouldn’t it set in for themselves but takes it innocent little children to finally find the courage to change things? Just some thoughts…
“*Can we choose our very next thoughts? Note, to do so would require that you think said thought before you think it. This, of course, is impossible. If this is impossible, "free will" is impossible, too, since our thoughts lead to our actions. *Note, this question was inspired by a recent video I watched by Sam Harris. A good listen if you've an extra 1.5 hours.”
Somewhere between the inauguration of our king today and its festivities I’ve been watching the video on Free Will. It took me a while to absorb it all, especially around the thirty minute (27 and beyond) part, but I managed. He’s saying a lot in a short amount of time.
So basically he says we are influenced by many more things than we our aware of. Our thoughts are produced as a result of our unconscious mind, which can hardly* be influenced. However going on, even though we can not choose our thoughts, we can choose to act upon those thoughts or not. We still know what’s right or wrong, so we don’t have to give in to these thoughts which are popping up. Like he said, we can work on changing our behaviour.
*What I haven’t heard in his lecture is that we can influence our unconscious thoughts, by accessing our unconscious mind. It’s not used regularly, but it’s been done and a number of people have changed their actions because of becoming aware of what these prior causes in the past were and now can choose not to be influenced (that much) by this anymore.
Next Sam Harris talks about learning from events and others, which also is a choice. So we may not be able to influence our thoughts, but we are able to influence the follow-up on these thoughts and as such also change the input for these thoughts.
Post a Comment