Pre-Medical Students and Anti-Autism

Post Reply New Topic

The way I do things is to double-check upon the claims of the « Skeptics » and look at said claims for myself. For example, when a claim is made that there is nothing to something called the GCP, I go and look into the GCP for myself, for purposes of determining if said claim is true or not, and it seems that there are quite a number of scientists who « have stopped paying attention to the skeptics » due to double-nonsense behaviours as defined & described by Marcello Truzzi in his description of what he had coined as the Pseudo-Skeptic. Additionally, mistakes (plenty of them) are found amongst many of these skeptics, such as the fact that « Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence » getting quoted as having been originated & coined by Carl Sagan when it was actually Marcello Truzzi who coined that phrase with the original wording : « Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. »

When I come across claims, I always put said claims to question, and what the GCP really consists of deserves some attention, something in which others should look into for themselves, but on the other hand, I have noticed a trend of materialists to completely ignore a thorough-examination of the source-material for themselves, and as a result, you could say that it's something equivalent of a Double-Slit Phenomenon, such that they are observing from the wall, rather than observing from the Source itself, and so they will only see the Particle-Results, and assume that the results can only come out as Particles, whilst those who do the actual research into « Woo » phenomena end up finding Wave-Results instead of merely Particle-Results. Rather than going over any long-winded references to the GCP I will instead pull up a reference to the Double-Slit Experiment which is presented in a manner that should be relatively Easy-to-Understand...

...this is why it is a waste of time for the Woo-Crowd to bother trying to have a meaningful discussion with the Anti-Woo crowd since reality itself completely « Renders » differently for the two. Psycho-Tronic Mind-Control is O-P !

Seeing as I did brush up on it before I said it hadn't found anything, you will have found the same thing as me.

For the uninitiated: the Global Consciousness Project claims that random number generators will be influenced by strong bouts of emotion, for example, during 9/11. So far, they have been unable to show this. They wait until after an event, then look before, during, and after the event, and find "an anomaly", though it's not clear what constitutes an anomaly so selection bias and pattern recognition come into play. http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/library/Sep1101.pdf

Well, that's not true - the phrase was being used by David Hume in the 16th century. Sagan did say it, so attributing it to him is correct.

Aspergers/Autism Network

Morality is completely subjective, but not necessarily confined to the individual. What a person deems morally right or wrong is their morality, whether or not you personally disagree with it.

Claims of moral superiority are usually claims of adherence to societal ethics, which are also subject to scrutiny. There is no moral absolute save that which is universally agreed upon.

I need to quote some things from that paper...

From the type of « science » that I do, I cannot afford to make « assumptions » without doing things like personal-inspections of the EGG in question, and the « conclusion » I have to « assume » about the paper, due to its content, is that it has a blindness to its own bias & assumptions. From earlier in the paper...

The GCP has actually been running for over a decade now. Furthermore, when one publishes an article, sometimes they change their assumptions or conclusions after a decade or some other random interval has passed since having first written said article, and so there is no guarantee that the findings of the authors/publishers would necessarily be the same today as it was back then, and not to mention the fact that certain authors clearly fall into certain default-camps (i.e.: compare papers or books published by Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake, Gary Schwartz, Frederick F.H. Myers, Chris Carter, then contrast it with authors like Richard Dawkins, Chris French [who happens to be a friend of Sheldrake's despite having very different world-views], Joe Nickell, James Randi, Daniell Dennett, and those who bother to take the time to double-check & compare both will default to one side or another, and regard it as a waste of time to bother with the other camp's information).

History also always seems to have this habit of being a repeat-cycle. I am only going to quote those two things for now just to demonstrate some of the issues that I always seem to run into when I double-check the information of claims that I come across, and historically, I have always found that too much is left to question for me to accept claim as conclusive.
(This actually goes for both the « believer » side and the « disbeliever » side for some reason)

I would put the case that the fact that we can agree upon so much - beating a stranger as they walk down the street is wrong, calling them an ambulance is right - suggests that morality is absolute, we're just doomed to grasp at it its shadows through a cultural prism, with general societal agreement on the broad strokes but much less on the details (brb trying to mix me some metaphor). Even societies with none of our ethical heritage to call upon could agree that murder was wrong, just maybe not who could be killed. Today, Westerners can agree that it's wrong to unreasonably discriminate - but maybe we disagree on what's reasonable, and many Indians have little issue with unreasonable discrimination in forms we don't even think about.

Likewise, incidentally, works of art.

That does it time to get revenge on those NTs, time to taint the worlds water supply with a drug that makes all aspies and auties super hyperactive and stim like crazy and annoy the living crap out of those NTs! Muahahaha!!

A more modest way to say all of the above is that brain damage or partial anaesthesia, at a minimum, either stops the brains's use of consciousness or consciousness's use of that part of the brain.

To talk about proof brings us to this next point;


It's a two-prong issue as far as I can tell. I don't think there's any deliberate conspiracy to surpress the validity of things like NDE's, information gathered at a distance such as remote viewing during NDE's and states akin to or past deep anasthesia as well as people having experiences that they'd consider out of body or etheric/astral travel (using barbaric terminologies mainly dating back to when the concepts came front and center in the west - the 19th century). What I do think is happening 1) a lot of people are really focused on being able to pay the bills - they get thrown out of their profession for rocking the boat, for right or wrong 2) there's still a very big political battle that's been framed along the lines of fundamentalist Christianity vs. scientific method - all movement of consciousness past the body seems to get lumped into either the bronze aged book club category or some hopeless apologia of people trying to twist themselves in pretzel knots out of fear of death - that anything generally more sophisticated than a fundamentalist Christian is someone just fabricating guesses to fit their needs. The problem is that a) the bronze aged book club is completely wrong even about their own books, b) scientific method is a measure of material causes and the strapping metaphysical assumptions that are getting tacked onto it seem heavily built on a lot of knowledge of science and little or no examination of what people tend to call the 'woo' or unexplained as it relates to the mind.

Studying with a couple different Rosicrucian orders at this point I'm getting to see clearly that there's a method to go forward, to essentially with practice trigger the kinds of dissociation gateways that would have lead to visions like that of Jacob Boehme, John of the Cross, etc. where a person can take their filters down or build certain kind of mental/neurological competencies and skills that enable a person to move past their filters, look into their subconscious, and see what's there. Books like Israel Regardie's Golden Dawn get into methodologies that the GD was employing in the first half of the 20th century to achieve such ends, you get to see rather quickly that what people call theurgical or high/ceremonial magic is very much like a form of tai chi or chi qong that goes into a much more psychological focus. You attempt to open up the inner workings of your brain the way you open up the hood of a car to see the components, what's driving what, etc. etc. and rather than reaching in from an MRI you're reaching in as the subjective opening and evaluating the subjective. With respect to the Golden Dawn material there's been at least a dozen modern authors in the last few decades who've been working through the rituals, examining and evaluating what works and what doesn't, examining which initiation rituals created by Wescott and Mathers we're good vs. sloppy and needing revamp or actual meaning added. The thing that comes through in their writings is that they understand the process, an existing roadmap, that they're able to test, scrutinize, evaluate based on quality, and make independent endeavors toward enhancing a system that no longer has a central authority - just a lot of dedicated enthusiasts which, like in a martial arts system, are separating working components from the chaff.

I was at a BOTA event recently and I did also have a chance to talk to some people in other related orders who've been at it for 30 years. Out of body experiences, ability to use sound and color to promote health of your internal organs as well as work with various energies of your body, even the ability to even influence other people by thought - it's there. The thing that kills all glamour in this though, the real dealbreaker for most people - even after all of that hard work and gaining such things 1) you can't use it to selfish ends - it will blow up on you, even worse if you attempt to overpower another person's free agency to your own ends 2) there's a lot of unhappy circumstances that the Universe puts you through for it's own reasons - that the purpose of the game of life is not efficiency, it's not removal of all suffering or test, and where it mandates that a person goes through something that's pretty much where these powers stop, which is exactly where a person would be most naturally inclined to want to use them the most, and they're forced to be as powerless as anyone else in the face of those circumstances - compounded with their knowledge of what they can do and that they're abilities in those circumstances come to naught.

To the immediate above it's a very convenient place to say it's debunked, that they're making that last part up for their lack of proof, and that assumption seems to come from the direction that if such abilities could come to a person they'd be immediately practical, openly used, they'd come without any strange strings attached - that's what scientific method generally demands in the way of testability and that's another thing they don't get, which understandably leaves people feeling like a wide-eyed believer is insulting their intelligence with their delusions and fantasies. The only problem - people do draw exacting information down that they couldn't have known, they have visions of shape and type with similar kinds of information woven in.

My own mystic experiences really opened the door to where I was force to at least admit that kundalini events and having non-physical agencies of consciousness peer in on you and being able to see them back was not only possible but that it does happen.

Getting back to center on this - I believe at this point an angry Zeus sky-daddy is pretty much debunked. However the currents of consciousness, thought in the universe, agencies beyond the physical - it extends like an odd sort of see-through flora and fauna up through the different strata of the universe, doesn't behave the way we'd expect it to, nor the way we'd demand it to if it were there for our convenience or our subjugation (rather we're It's subjects), consequently I don't think there's a choice for a person whose experienced these things, seen the correlations and agreements among people who've made it their effort to explore such regions, not to come to the conclusion that we're looking at a whole biome or really many, many biomes of nature that extend beyond atoms as we're familiar with them and the best we can do is go to those places and be good empiricists - be good naturalists. The experiences are coming through our senses, they present meaningful data, that data can surprise us as often as it might walk on familiar ground and present a motif that can be compared to others. The requirements obviously - a person has to be willing to put in the patience to study such things and, really the more daunting thing for a lot of people who'd automatically assume this stuff doesn't exist, they'd need to put in at least half a decade if not more of study to even be able to go to such places to do such work. Almost anyone who'd start out with a condescending attitude toward this stuff, who was suggested that they could only find their own evidence by spending years of mental and emotional training, would tell the person offering that route to evidence to go $%^& themselves.







If you'd consider that it happened across the locations on separate computers a meaningless coincidence - sure.


I'd strongly disagree that it's the only thing. I just got a reminder from someone this weekend that kirlian photography continues to map things past the range of visible sight. If people want to debate things about humidity, electromagnitism, etc. - I'd actually think that's the common ground. Add to that that there isn't just one Pam Reynolds story, they're dozens if not over a hundred similarly daunting cases to explain away, there's the remote viewing crowd, there's - as I mentioned before - the ceremonial magic and theurgic community, the yogic community, you add to this that GCP was just extrapolating what PEAR was already showing on repeat for the length of of it's operation at Princeton.

When all of that is BS and tritely explained away I can't help but come to the conclusion that the problem with the evidence isn't the evidence itself but rather the demands being placed on it.




To the first part of that - if a fetus is not a person then logically if one wants to pre-natally screen for disability and abort accordingly they aren't killing a person. So this reaches the conclusion that soft-eugenics is okay; to say it's not okay would be doing something tantamount to telling women that it would be immoral or even illegal to have an abortion of the fetus had signs of disability but it's part of their body and thus acceptable to kill if it would have been an otherwise healthy and normal child at birth.

As far as morality and relative vs. absolute - I'd tend to believe that the quality of our morality or the choices we'd see as moral are only as good as our assemblage of facts and how we deal with them. It's garbage-in garbage-out. If you want proof of garbage-in garbage-out just look at what rigorous schools of jurisprudence in fundamentalist religions come up with; they're usually the kinds of absurdities that Voltaire suggested lead to atrocities.

As for trying to find a universal or absolute morality - you can look to nature and physics but, unfortunately, that doesn't help much in an argument against eugenics. You can look at the laws in their more negative aspects as challenges for humanity to overcome in it's increasing evolution toward increasing good and increasing justice but that also takes arguments that find firm foundation - something a lot stronger than a touchy/feely/emotional basis, that kind of thing tends to get blown away the moment emotional discomfort in the other direction overrules it and populism rides the wind. The practical is usually the expedient and the practical without heart tends to behave in a manner that's fascist in it's coarseness.

I think that's what the OP is dealing with though - a bunch of classmates who've had their notion of humanity cooked out of them by enough anatomical models, enough repeat that we're monkeys born to eat, poop, shag, and die, and we become something like a hybrid between animals to be examined and cars to be worked on. When that happens the mentality that comes from it will be a rather cold and practical version of reductive materialism, which is miles from Sagan's wonder with the grandeur of the universe.

As for my reason why I wouldn't condone eugenics as a mystic or esotericist - from what I can determine of the universe it's not our show, not our circus even if we feel like we've persuaded ourselves that we run it, and accordingly eugenics reeks of the kind of story where the consequences go way over our heads and we find out what kinds of causes we set in motion against ourselves only when the damage has already been done.

They're spouting arguments for eugenics, which is one of those things we really don't have an adequate answer for, as you can see ethical and logical points on both sides. It's understandable that they have them, as they're obviously interested in the causality that's modern medicine. The moderate stance tends to be a decent compromise, see: brain death = turn the switch off; very bad birth defects = abort.

Personally, I think you should play with the cards you're dealt (nothing wrong with disability or other undesirable/maladaptive behaviors), and live with the consequences of your actions (no abortion in most cases, for example).

I'd argue that it's an emergent property of the evolutionary development of a social mammal. We're influenced in our thinking by ethical standards that have been refined over thousands of years. And beating up strangers as they walk down the street is still something which happens today, even if the majority frown upon it. Likewise there are those who would callously neglect to call an ambulance for someone in need.

If morality were absolute, one could not act immorally. We all have exceptions to the standards we aspire to. I believe it is immoral to take a life, but I am fully aware that I may do so should someone threaten or take the life of a loved one. By this standard, I am also willing to accept the death of someone who posed a legitimate danger to someone else's loved ones.

However the problem remains, on what basis is something considered immoral and what is moral.

This is what happens when you have a society that is desensitized toward death. Someone should point out to these pro-eugenics people that somebody can easily find a rationale for putting them to death too.What people define as a useless life can be a very relative thing and can be applied to anyone you want.