|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 21, 2011 20:14:26 GMT 9.5
Stewart, What is the title of the paper that you have and who presented it?
|
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Oct 21, 2011 20:20:23 GMT 9.5
Tamrin
Your appear to have found your evidince for what you describe above was essentially the tests done and presented at the 2006 conference, with the claim that the tests had been repeated by skeptical scientists. I notice that the tests you noted above were 1998, so it will be interesting to see how the ciwf deal with this as one would assume that as their testsing was post 1998 (and obviously the skeptical scientists retesting) there should be more data.
I will confess to being quite intrigued now to see how the ciwf deal with this.
|
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Oct 21, 2011 20:25:09 GMT 9.5
Stewart, What is the title of the paper that you have and who presented it? You may not believe me here Tamrin, but it is true. We have recently had our house reroofed and I had to empty my attic into storage, and everything is not all back in its proper place yet. Hence at this moment in time I cant tell you. But I will be able to in due course, and indeed if the ciwf give you the brush off I intend to write to them (by proper mail to their directors) asking them to tie their response to you in with the conference papers. |
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 21, 2011 20:31:22 GMT 9.5
Tamrin
Your appear to have found your evidince for what you describe above was essentially the tests done and presented at the 2006 conference, with the claim that the tests had been repeated by skeptical scientists. I notice that the tests you noted above were 1998, so it will be interesting to see how the ciwf deal with this as one would assume that as their testsing was post 1998 (and obviously the skeptical scientists retesting) there should be more data.
I will confess to being quite intrigued now to see how the ciwf deal with this. Stewart, I was sincerely expecting new research and would be disappointed if this were not so. Are you now saying it may be the same as that earlier debunked? If so, I guess I shouldn't be surprised as it is a feature of pathological science that it simply will not go away despite being thoroughly debunked. The same breathless, eye-popping modern myths are repeated to new, credulous audiences ad nauseam. |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 21, 2011 20:33:28 GMT 9.5
...If so, at the time of filming each of the two parties were "blind" with regard to the other. That is not the nature of double blind |
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Oct 21, 2011 20:34:40 GMT 9.5
Stewart, I was sincerely expecting new research and would be disappointed if this were not so. Are you now saying it's the same as that earlier debunked? If so, I guess I shouldn't be surprised as it is a feature of pathological science that it simply will not go away despite being thoroughly debunked. The same breathless, eye-popping modern myths are repeated to new, credulous audiences ad nauseam. Tamrin I have told you simply what I heard at the conference. As I originally said I had no reason to doubt them and took their word for it, as did most of the 600 people in the conference hall.
Lets just see what they come up with, for as I said in my last post Tamrin, there is an 8 year gap between your quoted resrearch and theirs, and they may indeed have done a lot more testing, both by them and by other skeptical scientists. And since then another 5 years have passed. |
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 21, 2011 20:38:20 GMT 9.5
[quote author=tamrin board=mysteries thread=561 post=7867 time=1319193324 ]...If so, at the time of filming each of the two parties were "blind" with regard to the other.[/quote] It sufficed to demonstrate there was no case to warrant more rigorous testing. |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 21, 2011 20:45:41 GMT 9.5
It sufficed to demonstrate there was no case to warrant more rigorous testing. That is not at all obvious. The experimenters easily fill the space with their own thoughts and contaminate the experiment. Hence the need for a double blind experiment. Here is a classic on two-way animal-human telepathy www.amazon.com/Kinship-All-Life-Challenging-Experiences/dp/0060609125It demonstrates the oneness of all life - something you have often explained here. |
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 21, 2011 20:52:52 GMT 9.5
The experimenters may have been satisfied there was no reason to proceed further in that case: No one is stopping any true believers from pursuing it if they wish.
After clicking on your link, I'm not impressed. On the one hand you require double blind testing, yet I expect this nonsense you are now promoting, featuring "Strongheart" the actor dog and "Freddie" the fly, has only been superficially tested, if at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 22, 2011 5:13:05 GMT 9.5
Perhaps the oneness of all life does not extend to the mental plane.
|
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 22, 2011 7:40:09 GMT 9.5
... the oneness of all life - something you have often explained here. This statement demonstrates considerable confusion as to what I have posted here. In my Systems Theory approach I wrote of the minds of sub-systems transcending and apprehending the greater mind of which they were a part. In transcending to a higher plane they may possibly access memory; albeit, only being able to comprehend memories pertaining to the plane at which the One Life is, in our case, being expressed as a sub-system (all else is a sense of unity with an emotional apprehension of either ease or disease). There is NO direct connection between the minds of sub-systems on this plane (rather, it is a hierarchical connection). Even in a state of transcendence there is no going up to a higher mind and coming down to another mind on this plane (notions of ring-pass-nots and silver cords come to mind). The most we can directly experience between individual on this plane are emotions NOT specific, individual thoughts (as with our sharing in the mind of a mob or a congregation) and even this emotional sharing may depend on observational ques (consider the difficulties of those with autism who are poor at recognising such ques). |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 22, 2011 8:09:45 GMT 9.5
...The most we can directly experience between individual on this plane are emotions NOT specific, individual thoughts..... So the oneness of all exists directly on emotional levels but indirectly on mental levels. This is a curious exception to "as above so below". . Even in a state of transcendence there is no going up to a higher mind and coming down to another mind on this plane .. ... I won't bore you with my own experiences, but how do you know that there is no horizontal transference? I could argue that just as my physical out-breath becomes available for the in-breath of another being, so too my exhaling of mental substance is there available for the in-breath of another mind. The structuring and refinement of emotional and mental substances is one of the services performed by moral humans for the lower kingdoms - e.g. for animal pets |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2011 9:56:43 GMT 9.5
There is NO direct connection between the minds of sub-systems on this plane (rather, it is a hierarchical connection). Even in a state of transcendence there is no going up to a higher mind and coming down to another mind on this plane (notions of ring-pass-nots and silver cords come to mind). Is what you are saying, that a leaf on the vine is only connected to another leaf via the vine? If so, that would explain the almost universal illusion of separation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2011 10:00:25 GMT 9.5
I could argue that just as my physical out-breath becomes available for the in-breath of another being, so too my exhaling of mental substance is there available for the in-breath of another mind. You could argue that. It would mean confusing an inner, individual action (thought) with an outer, shared reality, but that has never stopped you before. |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 22, 2011 10:22:53 GMT 9.5
.... It would mean confusing an inner, individual action (thought) with an outer, shared reality.... In the oneness of all, is it possible that the inner worlds are shared just as much as the outer world? |
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Oct 22, 2011 17:03:05 GMT 9.5
Tamrin has informed me that , as I predicted, the organisation are claiming that they have never had such a conference and they wonder if the organisation is being mixed up with another.
It is possible Smithee that there could be two organisations with similar objectives, activities and similar names, or perhaps given their response to Tamrin a possible separation of ways at some stage, bearing in mind that they are an animal rights/welfare organisation. Or perhaps I am just going barmy.
Once I get the stuff resorted back in my attic I will do as I said I would and send a copy of the response from them to Tamrin (I assume that is ok Tamrin) by proper post, along with the conference papers and ask for their comments. Obviously I will let them know that it is being dscussed here as well in fairness to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Oct 23, 2011 2:24:36 GMT 9.5
Tamrin Got it. I innocently got the year wrong - the conference was held on 10 May 2003 and was entitled "Understanding Animals" so sorry for getting the conference wrong, but it was by the ciwf. It would most likely have been one of these speakers:- 12:00 The unexplained powers of companion animals Dr Rupert Sheldrake 16:30 Keynote speech: The Implications of Animal Sentience Revd Professor Andrew Linzey, Oxford University But without access to the conference papers at the moment I could only guess which one, but my memory suggests most probably the first. This was still 5 years after the 1998 research you used to debunk Tamrin, so things could well have (or perhaps not) moved on between your debunking tests and that given at the conference. As I am satisfied that I am not going Barmy on this now I will leave it back in your hands. Only just stumbled across Rupert Sheldrakes webiste for anyone who is interested in digging deeper into his work on dogs and telepathy. www.sheldrake.org/Research/telepathy/ |
|
|
|
Post by paul on Oct 23, 2011 6:14:05 GMT 9.5
Thanks for the Sheldrake site. I am sure Tamrin and Smithee will have a careful look.
I note however that Sheldrake might be confounding two phenomena. One is telepathy, that as he correctly notes is a normal rather than a paranormal activity. The other is to do with being stared at.
The distinction is easily made by the following experiment. When walking around town, pick someone well ahead of you in the crowd and look at some aspect of their clothing intently but with no particular thought (even thinking of something quite different) and often within 10 seconds the person will adjust the piece of clothing that you are staring at.
This is to do with the energy flow from the eye to the object. With practice this flow can be used to navigate hazards in complete darkness - even jogging on unmade paths on black nights.
A similar tendency but unrelated effect is noted by bird watchers (twitchers) where a shy bird will not move when being observed from a distance but will quickly fly off when binoculars or camera are used. This is a prana/chi effect - where the tubes used to construct the binoculars/camera draw energy from objects along the line of the axis.
|
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 23, 2011 18:55:47 GMT 9.5
...The most we can directly experience between individual on this plane are emotions NOT specific, individual thoughts... Not an exception. The axiom is specifically hierarchical, i.e., "As above, so below." Hermes did not say, "As is one on this plane, so is any other on this plane." Were that the case there would be no difference of opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Oct 23, 2011 19:01:20 GMT 9.5
Thanks for the Sheldrake site. I am sure Tamrin and Smithee will have a careful look. Sheldrake was already mentioned in my link to ESP in dogs ( Reply #36). |
|
