Skarekrow's evidence of the spirit

Grayman said:
Thread title "Skarekrow's evidence of the spirit"



Notice that the title says 'evidence' and not belief.

Just in case you are misunderstanding the intent of this thread it is just to review all this data that you claimed is evidence. It isn't to debate the existence of spirits but to determine how much evidence there is and what here constitutes as evidence.
Click to expand...

Then I’m okay with that, what I’m not okay with is people trying to put words into my mouth or inferring things that I didn’t say - just to be clear.


Grayman said:
That's not what it actually says.In context, it states Skarekrow has taken ownership of the claim that it is evidence. It does not indicate authorship and one would normaly read it that way.
Click to expand...
I have taken ownership of the list? Just ask for the source and I will provide it to you (though it is very simple to search the title on Google).
http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

Grayman said:
Although the spirit is not physical in itself, we are attempting to find evidence of its interactions with the physical realm. Human consciousness affecting the outcome on a random number generator without any physical or electrical interference could possibly be evidence of a spirit being able to since if a spirit exists it would be tied to consciousness.
Click to expand...

Just pick any of the studies on the list…I mean, find one that looks interesting to you and read it.
The thing is, anyone can come up with a myriad of ways to discount almost any study if they have that set in their mind.

I know strange shit can happen because I have seen it myself.
Yes, that is subjective. There were witnesses to a couple incidents and it wasn’t mass hysteria or a hallucination unless we shared it.

For example here is a paper that I just posted in my thread recently -
http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27025&page=184&p=860041&viewfull=1#post860041

It’s a meta-analysis on precognition and has plenty of reproduction of results.
Take from it what you will, or don’t.

If there is a spirit then it wouldn’t be a surprise that something given such attributes that it is given by some - the ability to be separate from the body, to effect things via PSI processes, etc., etc. that we would find it difficult to measure such things…and such things receive far greater scrutiny from skeptics than any papers written from a materialist point of view…to even study some of these things can mean career suicide, it’s a sad taboo that shouldn’t exist in the search for bits of truth.
I know there are critiques of the Global Consciousness Project too…it all really just boils down to what feels true and right to you based upon your life experiences and the things you have studied and learned.
I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything.
 
Last edited:
sprinkles said:
Maybe so but making a thread with a user's name on it seems slightly adversarial.
Click to expand...

I know right? Especially considering the original post was in response to Grayman to illustrate that there are serious scientific studies out there.
A lot of them.
Whatev...
 
sprinkles said:
Maybe so but making a thread with a user's name on it seems slightly adversarial.
Click to expand...

I apologize. That was not my intent. I value his post and was impressed by it. I thought others would feel the same. It wasn't a (look at this guy he believes in ghosts...hahaha)

I value evidence more than I do opinion and skarekrow often goes to great strides to supply that evidence. I respect him for that. I might be skeptical and critical of thought but that does not mean I place myself in opposition to skarekrow or wish to debate him. I had hoped to discuss this in tandem with skarekrow and others to review the evidence together open to both opposing ideas and supporting ideas with the only goal to be open to the possibilities. This I'd not a debate meant to win and defeat an opponent in argument. Instead winning is done through discovery and learning and all who are willing to be open to constructive criticism and supply such criticism with equal merit will gain in such a discussion.
 
Grayman said:
I apologize. That was not my intent. I value his post and was impressed by it. I thought others would feel the same. It wasn't a (look at this guy he believes in ghosts...hahaha)

I value evidence more than I do opinion and skarekrow often goes to great strides to supply that evidence. I respect him for that. I might be skeptical and critical of thought but that does not mean I place myself in opposition to skarekrow or wish to debate him. I had hoped to discuss this in tandem with skarekrow and others to review the evidence together open to both opposing ideas and supporting ideas with the only goal to be open to the possibilities. This I'd not a debate meant to win and defeat an opponent in argument. Instead winning is done through discovery and learning and all who are willing to be open to constructive criticism and supply such criticism with equal merit will gain in such a discussion.
Click to expand...

I figured as much, but I was just saying what it could look like is all. Because his name on it, it's like he has to come in here and debate not only you but everyone else in here, and if he doesn't it looks like you're being unanswered. Also if things go poorly or if things get debunked, it has his name on it.
 
Grayman said:
Thread title "Skarekrow's evidence of the spirit"



Notice that the title says 'evidence' and not belief.

Just in case you are misunderstanding the intent of this thread it is just to review all this data that you claimed is evidence. It isn't to debate the existence of spirits but to determine how much evidence there is and what here constitutes as evidence.
Click to expand...

Grayman said:
I apologize. That was not my intent. I value his post and was impressed by it. I thought others would feel the same. It wasn't a (look at this guy he believes in ghosts...hahaha)

I value evidence more than I do opinion and skarekrow often goes to great strides to supply that evidence. I respect him for that. I might be skeptical and critical of thought but that does not mean I place myself in opposition to skarekrow or wish to debate him. I had hoped to discuss this in tandem with skarekrow and others to review the evidence together open to both opposing ideas and supporting ideas with the only goal to be open to the possibilities. This I'd not a debate meant to win and defeat an opponent in argument. Instead winning is done through discovery and learning and all who are willing to be open to constructive criticism and supply such criticism with equal merit will gain in such a discussion.
Click to expand...


Thank you for clarifying that.
I appreciate it.

Often my position on certain things gets randomly attacked and you have to admit creating a thread with my name looks like you are “calling me out” in a sense.
I’m glad the misunderstanding is cleared up.

I hope you had a chance to read that meta-analysis…I rather enjoyed it.
 
Last edited:
Lol, excuse me for being blunt, but I hope you guys are done squabbling about the "you are insulting to me" junk. I am very interested in this threads content in so far as the evidence [MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] linked. PSI research is very interesting as it tests the bounds of physical research. I am familiar with some of the research on telepathy (putting two people separate and using statistical methods to see if they can answer correctly reliably. I remember there was one paper (I can look it up later) where a guy found a statistically significant result, but it was never replicated. It is now believed that the result was because of a statistical chance result. On average, one in 20 significance results are an artifact of pure chance. Replicability is very necessary for this type of research for that reason. I am also a bit familiar with at least one study on the mind-matter connection. Something about a type of matter that responds to mental influences. Unfortunately, the paper I read was so full of jargon, and at a level of materials physics that I was completely lost. I do have an in principle problem with that direction as we don't fully understand the relation between "mind" and brain, and the parts and whole relation enough to make sure we aren't making logical paradoxes in some naïve view of the identity of a thing and its parts. Many media reports of science articles don't have a clue about that issues, and misrepresent the date because of that problem. Even the philosophy in this issue is hotly debated, let alone any physical research.

I can expand on any of these points if anyone wants, and I will be checking some of these articles as I get time. Unfortunately, I have procrastinated enough in writing this much of this post :m136:
I need to get back to my research project now :(
 
dogman6126 said:
Lol, excuse me for being blunt, but I hope you guys are done squabbling about the "you are insulting to me" junk. I am very interested in this threads content in so far as the evidence @Skarekrow linked. PSI research is very interesting as it tests the bounds of physical research. I am familiar with some of the research on telepathy (putting two people separate and using statistical methods to see if they can answer correctly reliably. I remember there was one paper (I can look it up later) where a guy found a statistically significant result, but it was never replicated. It is now believed that the result was because of a statistical chance result. On average, one in 20 significance results are an artifact of pure chance. Replicability is very necessary for this type of research for that reason. I am also a bit familiar with at least one study on the mind-matter connection. Something about a type of matter that responds to mental influences. Unfortunately, the paper I read was so full of jargon, and at a level of materials physics that I was completely lost. I do have an in principle problem with that direction as we don't fully understand the relation between "mind" and brain, and the parts and whole relation enough to make sure we aren't making logical paradoxes in some naïve view of the identity of a thing and its parts. Many media reports of science articles don't have a clue about that issues, and misrepresent the date because of that problem. Even the philosophy in this issue is hotly debated, let alone any physical research.

I can expand on any of these points if anyone wants, and I will be checking some of these articles as I get time. Unfortunately, I have procrastinated enough in writing this much of this post :m136:
I need to get back to my research project now :(
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think we are done with our misunderstanding.

There is replication though for many things such as the above posted link to the meta-analysis of precognitive studies.
Our own military and many militaries around the world have had or maintain PSI programs mainly focused on remote viewing.
But I also recently published an article on my thread some months back (I’ll look for it) taking about harnessing people’s intuitive reaction almost into the realm of precognition (without actually saying it since it was a release by the Navy).

Found it!
http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27025&page=132&p=816490&viewfull=1#post816490
It’s an interesting prospect anyhow.

I would like to read those studies you mention if you find time later, thanks.
 
I can't wait for science to evolve to a state where we can answer matters of the soul and spirits. It seems mostly interested in matters of the present and not the eternal.
 
ezra said:
I can't wait for science to evolve to a state where we can answer matters of the soul and spirits. It seems mostly interested in matters of the present and not the eternal.
Click to expand...

Well, when we look at theoretical and quantum physics the world of “materialist science” goes out the window…it doesn’t stand up.

Some interesting quotes to think about by some very intelligent people:

“The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
― Albert Einstein

“So Einstein was wrong when he said, "God does not play dice." Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen.”
― Stephen Hawking

“‎In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy.”
― Richard Morris

“A universe of classical particles is devoid of knowledge because the universe can only be itself and not a representation of something else. If the universe was only composed of classical particles, then there would only be physical properties but no meanings. The idea that we can have information about an object without becoming that object is central to all knowledge.”
― Ashish Dalela, Quantum Meaning: A Semantic Interpretation of Quantum Theory

“Quantum physics findings show that consciousness itself created order - or indeed in some way created the world - this suggested much more capacity in the human being than was currently understood. It also suggested some revolutionary notions about humans in relation to their world and the relation between all living things. What they were asking was how far our bodies extended. Did they end with what we always thought of as our own isolated persona, or ‘extend out’ so that the demarcation between us and our world was less clear-cut? Did living consciousness possess some quantum field like properties, enabling it to extend its influence out into the world? If so, was it possible to do more than simply observe? How strong was our influence? It was only a small step in logic to conclude that in our act of participation as an observer in the quantum world, we might also be an influencer, a creator. Did we not only stop the butterfly at a certain point in its flight, but also influence the path it will take - nudging it in a particular direction?
This explains action at a distance, what scientists call non locality. The theory that two subatomic particles once in close proximity seemingly communicate over any distance after they are separated.”
― Lynne McTaggart, The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe

“At the atomic level, matter does not even exist with certainty; it only exists as a tendency to exist.”
― Bruce H. Lipton, The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter and Miracles

“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
― Werner Heisenberg

“Choice, is what presents us with a multitude of paths, because choice creates a flow of electrons through the brain in a manner that inexorably leads to quantum superposition, and the many-worlds that are the inevitable result.”
― Kevin Michel, Moving Through Parallel Worlds To Achieve Your Dreams

“The world of the everyday suddenly seemed nothing but an inverted magic act, lulling its audience into believing in the usual, familiar conceptions of space and time, while the astonishing truth of quantum reality lay carefully guarded by nature's sleights of hand.”
― Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos

“The quantum death of Philip Seymour Hoffman. 24 hours before he was “officially” declared dead it was announced on the internet that he had already died. Many people were shocked to hear of his “official” death, especially those who had believed he was already dead. Philip Seymour Hoffman was both dead and alive in the minds of millions simultaneously. A rare death for a rare actor.”
― Dean Cavanagh

“Therefore, all the scientific data suggests that what we perceive has an effect on matter as we view it. We are co-creating this universe as participators. So if we are looking at the smallest sub-atomic particles and/or the edge of the universe we bring about the act of creation just by observing hence we will never find the smallest subatomic particles or the edge of the universe as we are co-creating reality. Hence the dilemma, if there is an edge of the universe, what is beyond the edge or if we have found the smallest sub-atomic particle what is it further made up of. I can sum up my research by stating that the very act of observation creates reality.”
― Gabriel Iqbal, Heart Intelligence
 
ezra said:
I can't wait for science to evolve to a state where we can answer matters of the soul and spirits. It seems mostly interested in matters of the present and not the eternal.
Click to expand...

You cannot measure eternity to prove something is eternal by scientific standards. You can prove something ends or begins by pointing out where that is but eternity has no end or beginning.
::):
But yes I agree that it would be nice to have accepted scientific 'proof' of the metta and dualistic realities.

Anyways I have lots of reading...
 
Grayman said:
You cannot measure eternity to prove something is eternal by scientific standards. You can prove something ends or begins by pointing out where that is but eternity has no end or beginning.
::):
Click to expand...

FT5GF93I70AWRQO.MEDIUM.gif
 
I wear a size nine shoe. Evidence.
Faith is the substance of things HOPED FOR, the EVIDENCE of things NOT SEEN.

Not having read the entire thread, I must say that clutter is not much different from confusion. I'll not read any of the tales of the scripts, as I am spirit-filled and have no need of causing unrest. Be cautious what you allow others to place in your minds.
 
just me said:
I wear a size nine shoe. Evidence.
Faith is the substance of things HOPED FOR, the EVIDENCE of things NOT SEEN.

Not having read the entire thread, I must say that clutter is not much different from confusion. I'll not read any of the tales of the scripts, as I am spirit-filled and have no need of causing unrest. Be cautious what you allow others to place in your minds.
Click to expand...

Oh for Jebus sake man!!
Do you even know the premise of this thread or are you just assuming it’s BS because someone else attached my name to it?
This thread is actually TRYING TO SHOW EXISTENCE of a soul or spirit.
Now you’re in opposition to that too?
WTF is wrong with you that you absolutely MUST throw out your oppositional snarky/vague comments every time?

You’re filled with something alright, not sure if it’s spirit exactly.
 
Last edited:
Grayman said:
Although the spirit is not physical in itself, we are attempting to find evidence of its interactions with the physical realm. Human consciousness affecting the outcome on a random number generator without any physical or electrical interference could possibly be evidence of a spirit being able to since if a spirit exists it would be tied to consciousness.
Click to expand...
Every measuring system must have a common property with what it is measuring: thermometers must be thermally conductive; anemometers must be able to catch the wind; seismometers must be easily disturbed by movement; etc.
If "spirit" is intrinsically that which is not physical, what is left is conscious knowledge and will - so the evidence of spirit is in the reception/transmission of conscious knowledge and assent/rejection of that knowledge.

dogan6126 said:
Lol, excuse me for being blunt, but I hope you guys are done squabbling about the "you are insulting to me" junk. I am very interested in this threads content in so far as the evidence @Skarekrow linked. PSI research is very interesting as it tests the bounds of physical research. I am familiar with some of the research on telepathy (putting two people separate and using statistical methods to see if they can answer correctly reliably. I remember there was one paper (I can look it up later) where a guy found a statistically significant result, but it was never replicated. It is now believed that the result was because of a statistical chance result. On average, one in 20 significance results are an artifact of pure chance. Replicability is very necessary for this type of research for that reason. I am also a bit familiar with at least one study on the mind-matter connection. Something about a type of matter that responds to mental influences. Unfortunately, the paper I read was so full of jargon, and at a level of materials physics that I was completely lost. I do have an in principle problem with that direction as we don't fully understand the relation between "mind" and brain, and the parts and whole relation enough to make sure we aren't making logical paradoxes in some naïve view of the identity of a thing and its parts. Many media reports of science articles don't have a clue about that issues, and misrepresent the date because of that problem. Even the philosophy in this issue is hotly debated, let alone any physical research.

I can expand on any of these points if anyone wants, and I will be checking some of these articles as I get time. Unfortunately, I have procrastinated enough in writing this much of this post :m136:
I need to get back to my research project now :(
Click to expand...
Evidence for a non-physical power requires searching for a non-physical effect.

ezra said:
I can't wait for science to evolve to a state where we can answer matters of the soul and spirits. It seems mostly interested in matters of the present and not the eternal.
Click to expand...
There is a science which deals with those things: philosophy - in the specialty METAPHYSICS.
Grayman said:
You cannot measure eternity to prove something is eternal by scientific standards. You can prove something ends or begins by pointing out where that is but eternity has no end or beginning.
::):
But yes I agree that it would be nice to have accepted scientific 'proof' of the metta and dualistic realities.

Anyways I have lots of reading...
Click to expand...
Limiting the term "science" to the physical sciences is a very recent bias. The kind of material you are after has a Western tradition of written scholarship going back thousands of years to the Greeks and beyond.
 
just me said:
How does one prove love?
Click to expand...

Which kind of love?

Also, science doesn't prove anything. Scientific proof is a concept promoted by the media.
Science provides evidence and sometimes it provides substantial evidence that will be regarded as an acceptable truth and it seems that sometimes that it might be deemed true for all practical purposes. The greatest difference here is that proof is often considered as the finality of truth but science only offers a possible truth until more evidence might alter or change what that truth is.
 
Last edited:
Flavus Aquila said:
Every measuring system must have a common property with what it is measuring: thermometers must be thermally conductive; anemometers must be able to catch the wind; seismometers must be easily disturbed by movement; etc.
If "spirit" is intrinsically that which is not physical, what is left is conscious knowledge and will - so the evidence of spirit is in the reception/transmission of conscious knowledge and assent/rejection of that knowledge.


Evidence for a non-physical power requires searching for a non-physical effect.


There is a science which deals with those things: philosophy - in the specialty METAPHYSICS.

Limiting the term "science" to the physical sciences is a very recent bias. The kind of material you are after has a Western tradition of written scholarship going back thousands of years to the Greeks and beyond.
Click to expand...

Except that there are some effects that are going on that cannot be yet explained.
That doesn’t mean that it’s in the realm of metaphysics or that we might not one day find the source of the anomaly.
There are physical effects that happen, and for someone who hasn’t seen it themselves I can understand the hesitation, I even hesitate having seen several things with my own eyes and others saw the same.
Many of the studies on precognition for example have been replicated many times all around the world…not all were successful, but many more were - showing that something is going on and it looks like the body reacts to stimuli even before it is revealed to them…an average of 5-7 seconds actually, but some people it went further back. Perhaps, they will find a reason for this to be explained away, but as of right now, it’s anomalous activity.
I think if someone truly showed some serious PSI abilities some black suited dudes would probably snatch them up like Drew Barrymore in “Firestarter” hahaha.
Here is a manifesto that I agree with on most areas, not all, but I think science limits itself when it take a purely “materialist” view of life.
http://www.opensciences.org/files/pdfs/Manifesto-for-a-Post-Materialist-Science.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top