To me, the human awareness is a valid
and indispensable tool for detecting certain aspects of creation.
There are many explorations of creation
where the human awareness is the only known tool that can do the
exploring. For example, the taste of an orange can only be fully
apprehended by the human awareness. Other attempts to capture the
taste of an orange fall very short. For example, a
numerically-expressed level of tartness in the taste of an orange can
only vaguely allude to the actual experience of tasting the orange.
Rule out the use of the human awareness as a primary tool the
scientist’s toolbox, and large chunks of creation will remain
hidden.
Once human awareness is seen and
accepted for what it is – an indispensable and mandatory tool in
the creation investigator's toolbox – then doors open.
For example, once the human awareness is accepted as a valid tool for scientific investigation, we can take seriously the consistent assertions by mediums that they know what telepathy feels like, and that they know what communicating with disincarnates feels like, and that they are two separate and distinct feelings. We can take seriously their confident assumptions and declarations that what they are communicating with are disincarnates, not incarnates via telepathy. (I am talking about mediums whose skills have been rigorously verified, such as the Windbridge Mediums, not charlatans and quacks.) The mediums' "measurements," gathered by adeptly using the tool of human awareness in a disciplined way, strongly suggest that the super-psi hypothesis doesn’t fit the facts of their experiences nearly as well as the survivalist hypothesis.
The super-psi hypothesis, per my understanding so far (I am a layman), is a dry cerebral construct lacking little if any objective repeatable corroboration. (In that respect, it iappears similar to string theory.) The survivalist hypothesis, on the other hand, has many objective repeatable corroborations. For example, deathbed visions are consistently corroborated by events in the physical world, such as cases where the death of a loved one coincides with a deathbed vision of the loved one “on the other side.” Also, as mentioned, mediums consistently report identical findings, which is that disincarnates are real and conscious and can communicate on the physical plane
For example, once the human awareness is accepted as a valid tool for scientific investigation, we can take seriously the consistent assertions by mediums that they know what telepathy feels like, and that they know what communicating with disincarnates feels like, and that they are two separate and distinct feelings. We can take seriously their confident assumptions and declarations that what they are communicating with are disincarnates, not incarnates via telepathy. (I am talking about mediums whose skills have been rigorously verified, such as the Windbridge Mediums, not charlatans and quacks.) The mediums' "measurements," gathered by adeptly using the tool of human awareness in a disciplined way, strongly suggest that the super-psi hypothesis doesn’t fit the facts of their experiences nearly as well as the survivalist hypothesis.
The super-psi hypothesis, per my understanding so far (I am a layman), is a dry cerebral construct lacking little if any objective repeatable corroboration. (In that respect, it iappears similar to string theory.) The survivalist hypothesis, on the other hand, has many objective repeatable corroborations. For example, deathbed visions are consistently corroborated by events in the physical world, such as cases where the death of a loved one coincides with a deathbed vision of the loved one “on the other side.” Also, as mentioned, mediums consistently report identical findings, which is that disincarnates are real and conscious and can communicate on the physical plane
In short, it seems to me that the
survivalist hypothesis is well-supported by multiple threads of
evidence, whereas the super-psi hypothesis is not.
No comments:
Post a Comment