With nearly three-quarters of Americans believing in the paranormal, up from half in 1990, there is no shortage of psychics to quench their thirst. TV networks see the potential and thus an explosion in paranormal shows is underway. Psychics are now touring the country and commanding the attention of millions of followers, while reaping millions of their dollars.
Initially, when I read this story, I was not inclined to do a writeup on it. But having read over it a few times, one point stuck out from Patricia Baker, a sociologist and psychotherapist in Boston who is working on a book about people's changing attitudes toward authority.
"And it definitely seems that people are turning to them (psychics) more for their problems, particularly when terrorism, war and scandals have caused people to question our political and religious leaders."
This got me thinking about religion, politics, and psychics more. Throughout history, people have been manipulated by fear and poverty to follow certain people, beliefs, religions, etc. Recent examples of this would include Hitler's rise to power, and even the current state in the US. The US Government is using fear of Muslim extremists to promote their agenda and further their interests at the expense of our nation. Conversely, many arab nations are using fear of the US to create their own new generation of mindless followers. The list goes on and on.
But with the recent political and religious scandals in the US (i.e. priests in the Catholic church, domestic spying, impeachments, etc), are American's left with psychics as their only hope? Yes, I know this is a bit of a stretch, but look how many people turned to Hitler, Castro, and Chavez for answers. Look how many people turn to religion after tragedies for consolation. Many people need that crutch to get them through the tough times and provide hope.
Are psychics the next crutch or am I just crazy? What do you think?
Thanks to John C for pointing this story out to me.
June 12th, 2006 at 7:02 am
well written man
June 12th, 2006 at 7:21 am
Teh Enemy is the glue that holds a society together. Thank terrorists for that.
Psychics are cool, but making them a church would result in yet another religion and it’s freaks.
June 12th, 2006 at 9:25 am
My question is why must people look externally for answers? Why not answer the tough questions themselves and discuss it with those they know and trust as opposed to taking answers on authority?
It’s funny how the supply of ‘psychics’ ebbs and flows in proportion to the economic demand. If there are people with genuine psychic abilities in the world (and that is a big ‘if’ for me), then my guess is that they are rare. The supply of psychics would, logical, be proportional to the number of people in a society and not to the amount of demand for them. It would seem that a large number of con artists are taking advantage of the current revival in America’s interest in the paranormal.
This interest in the paranormal happened before. Remember the ‘Mysteries of the Unknown’ series published by Time-Life back in the late ’80s? Let’s not forget the classic TV show ‘Unsolved Mysteries’ hosted by Robert Stack that, in addition to helping FBI investigations, dealt with paranormal phenomenon a lot. It started airing in 1987. Thus we shouldn’t view the recent interest in the paranormal as a new trend, but as a resurgence.
June 12th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Let’s face it, one of the reasons psychic abilities are perceived as such a “threat” by the mainstream is that if psychic phenomena is real, then it poses the biggest threat to the Judeo-Christian worldview and values that our leaders so cynically use to manipulate the public and hold on to power. Now it appears the public, myself included, are so disillusioned with our so-called leaders that finding psychic phenomena to be real is quite an earthshattering event in one’s life. Now, I and everyone else who has confirmed psychic phenomena know there is more to this life than the silliness we get from our government and religion. Amazing to see this change in American society.
Skeptics be damned, but ironically skeptics are also skeptical of religion, so we have a strange three-way thing going on here, government/church authority that controls our society (literally), psychic phenomena that challenges these controls and beliefs and the skeptics who are on the outside and critical of both of these competing supernatural elements.
June 12th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
sidfaiwu, Interest in paranormal has never been higher, and that is significant, because the skeptics used to point to how mariginalized psychic phenomena and the paranormal were to dismiss it out of hand. Oh it’s just a handfull of kooks. Well, that is not the case anymore, it’s more like 3/4 of the American population which is a very significant number.
My own discovery of paranormal came about over the past 5 years. Honestly, up until about 2001 I didn’t think much of psychic phenomena at all. I thought it was 1-900 nonsense. I did have some friends who had told ghost stories that sounded convincing, but as far as psychic phenomena it was just a joke to me. Then I had some free time on my hands and decided to take a look at psychic phenomena first hand. I walked out of those sessions with a completely different opinion of psychic phenomena and a changed worldview, changed for the better.
June 12th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Hello John C,
You have made a very interesting point about the relationship between established religion, paranormalists (is that what they should be called?), and skeptics. As a member of the third camp in that list, I would, and have, invited members of the first two camps to provide supporting evidence or convincing logical arguments in support of their worldviews.
In particular, I need evidence and/or logical reasons for each claim made. For example, I’ve asked the religious community to provide evidence to support their claim that God exists. I’ve been convinced by their claims that some type of god exists, but have utterly failed to convince me that the Bible, Koran, etc. accurately describe this god. In fact, in reading those texts, they have inconsistent definitions for what the definition of God is!
I would like to invite the paranormal community to try a similar form of convincing me. In particular, I’d like you (collectively speaking) to provide evidence and/or logical arguments supporting the existence of psychic abilities. The first step is to precisely define ‘psychic ability’ to make sure we have a clear understanding of what we will be arguing over. Is it the ability to predict future events? If so, what level of detail needs to be accurate in order to determine weather a prediction was correct or incorrect? Is psychic ability a type of ESP (the ability to sense things that our basic six senses, taste, touch, smell, sight, hearing, and balance, do not)? If so, what is being sensed? Is it testable? Are there other definitions? Are these definitions derived from the same ability, or do they all exist as separate abilities (can someone predict the future, but cannot sense spirits or whatnot)? Definitions are paramount when testing and arguing claims. Perhaps, like the religious community the paranormal community will convince me that psychic abilities exist, but its true nature is very different from what they thought it was.
Secondly, anecdotal evidence is not strong evidence, so leave your personal stories at home. Or better yet, share them with the rest of us outside the context of your story being evidence. I find such stories interesting and challenging. They are, however, very subjective and thus do not qualify as objective evidence.
Just a few thoughts! I’m looking forward to responses.
June 12th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
sidfaiwu,
“I’ve been convinced by their claims that some type of god exists”
I have no idea what that means?!? Do you believe in God or not? Please clarify. What have they proven to you regarding the existance of God?
I will adress the paranomrmal evidence when I have a better understanding where you are coming from. Sometimes I just have a hard time following skeptic’s arguments and logic because they seem to lose continuity, and a statement like the one you made above is a good example. I take it from your statement that you have been convinced by religious folks that God exists. Please clarify. Who convinced you that God exists, how did it happen, and what exactly is your position on this matter? Thanks.
June 12th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
As sid said above, why must people look for some sort of “external hope”? To me, anything that springs up to provide an external source of false hope, be it religion, the paranormal, psychics, whatever, just fits intot he long history of mankind turning to shysters and con men who can make a convincing argument to people desparate for hope. To someone who needs to find hope, they will find it in something (whether it exists or not).
June 12th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
People interested in the in the paranormal are not necessarily interested in finding “external hope” or some alternative or larger explanation of life. However, if one’s life experiences and studies reveal that there is indeed something very real about the paranormal and psychic phenomena, human cureosity and just the desire to determine what is real and what is not real drive many to investigate the paranormal. It is facinating. I was not necessarily looking for “external hope” and I’m not even sure if I found it, as my belief in the paranormal will likely lead me nowhere in the long run (like an afterlife). It just makes me feel like we’re all connected in ways that most of us do no perceive for lack of ability to perceive and that is something that makes me feel more at one with the universe.
June 12th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
John C,
Your confusion puzzles me and your insistence that I provide the circumstances of my belief puzzles me even more (unless it is some sort of bait), but I will do my best to explain. I do believe in a deity, but not an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God. It was certainly not the religious people of today that convinced me. My belief is based on two logical arguments that have been put forth over the centuries. The first is the cosmological argument (reference http://philosophyofreligion.info/cosmological.html), in particular the Leibnitzian version of this argument. In simple terms, it uses the shear existence of the universe as evidence that god exists. The problem is, that if this particular argument is true, then God cannot be omnipotent since God cannot create any possible universe. There are some necessary truths that even God cannot get around.
Many people confuse the intelligent design argument (formally known as the Teleological Argument, reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument, or the argument from design) with the Cosmological Argument. It is easily disproved by the existence of spontaneously organizing systems.
The other argument is Descartes’ Ontological Argument (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/#1) version A in this particular reference. The fact that inane matter can contain information is sufficient to disprove version B of his argument. However, version A, though seemingly silly at first glance, is surprising difficult to disprove. I am still less convinced by this argument than the Cosmological Argument because it contains a bit bootstrapping that comes dangerously close to circular arguing.
I have scrutinized these two arguments for years and yet have never come across a rebuke that is 100% satisfactory. Note also that these arguments only prove the existence of God and do not prove anything about God. All the attributes attributed to God by the religions of the world are self-contradictory and thus, not convincing.
I hope this helps clear up my statement. I’m looking forward to your arguments.
June 12th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
sidfaiwu: My question is why must people look externally for answers? Why not answer the tough questions themselves [..]
Decision making is tiresome. People like it easy.
You can’t prove god. It is what you believe it to be. If you don’t believe it exists, it doesn’t.
June 12th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
sidfaiwu,
I’m not looking for an arguement. I just wanted to clarify where you are coming from, because you said, “I’ve been convinced by their claims that some type of god exists”. I assumed by “their claims” you meant the religious people you’ve encountered in life. Now you say, “I do believe in a deity, but not an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God. It was certainly not the religious people of today that convinced me.” It seems as if you are contradicting yourself just in these two passages. Who were you referrring to when you said, “I’ve been convinced by their claims that some type of god exists”. Who are “THEIR” (the religious folks you were referring to earlier in the same pararaph?
I’m not trying to split hairs, I’m just trying to understand your logic and basis for belief, because I often have trouble following skeptics logical arguements, and unfortunately the shifting from THEIR CLAIMS to “It was certainly not the religious people of today that convinced me.” does not provide me any clarity into your way of thinking. Which of the two sceniarios that you stated is the one that led you to conclude there is in fact a diety, #1 or #2? How would define this being you called a diety? Just curious, because that’s about as generic as you can get when talking about a higher power. What purpose do you believe the diety you belive in serves? Thanks!
June 12th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Sorry about the typos. Kind of tired at this point. From reading your statements on this thread sidfaiwu, I would conclude that even you are not sure what you actually believe regarding the question regarding the existence God or higher power (diety). How long ago did you form your opinions on this matter, because it seems like you are not very strong in your beliefs and not even sure how you came to the conclusions you have come to.
June 12th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Reading over the Cosmological Argument (http://philosophyofreligion.info/cosmological.html), I find it quite illogical and rather easy to at least diminish in strength.
“The cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the world or universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. The existence of the universe, the argument claims, stands in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation of its existence is that it was created by God.”
This is essentially saying that since mankind has a mental capacity to comprehend the complexity and beauty and the mere existence of the universe it begs for an explanation concerning a creator of this grandness and that explanation leads one to conclude there must be a designer, otherwise known as God. I don’t buy that logic at all. If we’re all just a big mistake of promordial soup that was able to develop due to favorable conditions for life on this planet, and we were able to develop a certain amount of intelligence, it does not logically mean God exists and designed it all, just because we can concieve it in our minds. Perhaps our lives are actually as meaningless as an ant who feels as though he/she is part of a great ant community that must have been created by something greater, when in fact their grand ant community is just a pile of dirt and thier existence is fleeting. Perhaps we’ve just grown so intelligent that it is we who stand in need of explanation of our universe and existence. We need to justify or rationalize our existence and the most convient way of doing so is to say, ahh it must be a higher power that designed it all, a God. Perhaps our existence is actually as fleeting as the ants existence and in a few thousand years mankind will be wiped from the face of the earth and there will be nobody left to contemplate our existence or if the universe was designed by God. What I’m getting at is that the Cosmological Argument might be more based on man’s need for an explanation than the universe demanding an explantion for its existence, which some have concluded proves the existence of God.
Please shed light on how the Cosmological Argument led you to believe in a diety?
June 13th, 2006 at 11:49 am
I love analogies. What do you think of this analogy, John?
“Humans evolving from a primordial soup is like putting transistors in a box and shaking it in hopes of getting a computer.”
The Cosmological Argument proves that God is the cause of existence of the Universe. So… Big Bang is God?
June 13th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
@John C #12,
I used the generic ‘their’ because the details weren’t important to my challenge. I only went into more detail because I’d much rather discuss the Cosmological Argument than paranormal phenomenon. ‘They’ (to use the non-possessive form of ‘their’) are the religious philosophers of the past, especially those of the European Empiricist era who where, for the most part, religious people. There is no contradiction here. The second explanation is simply a more detailed version of the first.
Also, as far as a definition for the (admittedly vague term) deity, the deity is the creator of the universe. I also use the term ‘God’ out of convenience, though the word ‘God’ brings to mind many more attributes to the deity than is defensible. This God need not serve any purpose other than being the creator.
I hope this clears my statement up a bit. I’ll reply to your other posts as time permits. I’m most interested in discussing the merits of the Cosmological Argument. It’ll be much more interesting than clarifying initially sloppy wording.
June 13th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
CannibalSmith,
Nice analogy. :-)
All, I’m not trying to knock those who have thought very hard about the philosophical questions of life, such as the existence of God, and have concluded that God of some sort exists based on logic put forthe by such ideas as the Cosmological Argument. I am just saying that there are many ways to look at and disect such a question and the reality of the universe we live in. It is quite possible that we are a lot less significant than we actually believe we are and therefore all our pontificating about God must exist because the Universe is so complex, etc. is just human beings trying to rationalize their existence.
I am certainly more oriented towards the philosophical arguements for God’s existence than the stridently religious ones. At least the philosophical arguements can stand within a reasonable logical system of conclusions and assumptions that can be debated and logically worked through for validity. However, the stridently religious arguements rely almost exclusively on texts written thousands of years ago and “faith”, which is essentially suspending all reason and logic and just accepting as fact what was written a long time ago and passed down through the ages, as well as just accepting what is not provable (faith).
June 13th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
sidfaiwu,
I’m still not following you? Who is the “their” that you were referring to, how could it be a generic as if referring to no one and everyone?
In this context “their” refers to the religious community you mentioed in the previous sentance. You said you were convinced by “their claims”? Now you are a saying you were generically referring to the Cosmological Argument when you said “their”. Please just retract your statement below, because it does not follow your line of reasoning that the Cosmological Argument is what convinced you of the existence of a creator/diety.
“I need evidence and/or logical reasons for each claim made. For example, I’ve asked the religious community to provide evidence to support their claim that God exists. I’ve been convinced by their claims that some type of god exists, but have utterly failed to convince me that the Bible, Koran, etc. accurately describe this god.”
June 13th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Parsing my initial words is starting to annoy me so I’ll try to explain them one final time. My initial statement that you quote was vague and the words were not carefully chosen because exactness was not important to what I was saying in that post. The only point of including the piece you quote was to show that I am flexible in my beliefs and will not deny any strong evidence and/or arguments (of which, you have yet to provide any) you may have for the existence of psychic abilities. This is how skeptics approach any claim, with an open mind. If the evidence/arguments for a claim stand up to critique, then a skeptic accepts it as truth until the time when better evidence/arguments to the contrary surface.
If you need persons to apply to the ‘they’, Gottfried Leibniz (who was a member of the day’s religious community) was not the first to state the Cosmological Argument (Plato did as well, so, probably, did many before him), he was, however the one who generalized the argument to satisfy some of the strong critiques of the argument. So Gottfried Leibniz is one of the ‘they’. The other, I do not remember by name, but they were the prolific critics and supporters (also typically members of the day’s religious community) who wrote extensively on the Leibnizian version of the Cosmological Argument. Leibniz and his supporters successfully defended the argument to all critiques, including any I could think of. I thus, accepted it as truth until I am proven otherwise.
I did invite the members of the modern day Christian and Muslim religions to convince me that their versions of God were correct. It was these people who ‘utterly failed to convince me’. In short, the philosophers convinced my only that God exists and that he/she/it created the universe, the religious did not convince me that their version of God is correct (‘he’ did not create the world in seven days, create a heaven and hell, flood the world out of anger, etc.) So the ‘they’ that convinced me and the ‘they’ that failed to convince me are different people arguing about different things who I lumped together in a blanket ‘religious community’ since all the people involved (except for me) were religious.
If this does not satisfactorily clarify things, I apologize, but this is the best I am able to do via a web log. I will move on to your other posts as I have time, but I will spend no more time trying to clear up my initial statements.
June 13th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
sidfaiwu,
Thanks, that clarifies your initial statement for me. Now you named names and stated that “their” was referring to those putting forward the Cosmological Argument for the existence of a diety. Good enough for me. Not trying to annoying you, but I had to nail you down, because what you were saying was vague initially and I misread it thinking you were referring to more traditional religious folks like Christians, and I had no idea what you based your beliefs on. Thanks!
June 14th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Hello John C,
It was not your insistence on clarity that annoyed me, but my inability to express my self clearly. My frustration with myself may have come through as a negative tone in my last post so for that, I apologize. On to finally responding to another one of your posts…
@John C #14 and #17:
Your objection to the Cosmological Argument is a very good one. Please remember, though, that it is deferent from the Teleological Argument in that the universe need not be designed by God, merely created by God. The universe, under the Cosmological Argument, does not need a purpose nor does it necessary need to have humans in it. It’s the fact that there is anything at all that needs an explanation. Perhaps ‘explanation’ is not the right the right word, because it does speak to a human desire. ‘Cause’ is often used. We observe that all things and events in the universe have a cause.
Even seemingly random things (like the random mutation from primordial soup to humans that you site) are not actually ‘random’ at all. It’s just that the physical processes are so complex that we are unable to explain or predict them. Take a simpler example. Consider a coin toss. The results of a coin toss are seemingly random but, in fact, if we knew all the conditions of a single coin toss (the weight of the coin, the amount of force applied to the coin, the location on the coin the force is placed, the center of momentum of the coin, the loss of energy of the coin to air resistance, the distance to the ground, etc.), we could use Newtonian physics to predict exactly on what side the coin will land. In other words, the coin toss is completely determined, not random. It is just that a coin toss is too complex for us to predict the outcome and thus seems random. I therefore claim that there are no accidents in nature and that the universe itself is no exception.
June 15th, 2006 at 7:11 am
Newtonian physics are an oversimplification. And while evolution is too complex to simulate, we know the principle. We even have been successfull in cultivating custom breeds of animals and plants. But in quantuum physics, which are the foundation of the universe, the more we learn, the more random everything seems.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Newtonian physics is not an oversimplification. A simplification, indeed, but the experimental error margins are negligible to non-existent. All his laws of force are obeyed by everything within certain bounds. Object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, objects exert a gravitational force on each other that is proportional to the inverse square of the distances between the objects, etc. It is only at the extremes that the laws begin to break down. Objects that move too fast (near or at the speed of light), are too small (atomic particles), or too massive (black holes) are exceptions only because, in these extreme conditions, other, normally minute forces begin to influence processes.
Quantum physics is, by no means, random. The physics are quite deterministic. The problem is that the uncertainty principle insures that we cannot know all the inputs. We cannot know both the position and momentum of atomic and subatomic particles with complete accuracy. Since we do not know the inputs, the outcome cannot be predicted with absolute accuracy. Thus, like the coin toss, quantum processes only seem random to us.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Nice analogy. But even if complex evolution can be rationalized away as being too complex for us to understand its ultimate design, it still does not definitely answer the basic question of the cosmological argument: is the cosmological argument worldview based on the complexity of the universe and an inherent need for an explanation of that complexity or is the cosmological argument worldview based on man’s need for an explanation for his existence based on man’s ability to reason. Mankind has spent most of his reasoning existence contemplating that same existence and whether a diety or God of some sort created it.
So, I take it you do believe in evolution, but you think it is part of grand diety design?
June 16th, 2006 at 9:09 am
I do acknowledge that humans have a need to explain everything. What is important is how we explain things. Our reason is the best tool we have for finding true explanations (unlike religions which rely on imagination). Thus if an argument stands up to reason, than is should be accepted as truth. If we were to abandon our quest to provide explanations simple because we have a bias towards wanting explanations, then we would not pursue science. For instance, consider gravity. Gravity explains why the moon revolves around the earth. We do not dismiss the theory of gravity by pointing out that it is the result of our need for an explanation as to why the moon moves around the earth. Therefore pointing out that we desire an explanation for the creation of the universe does not dismiss the cosmological argument. We have to decide whether or not the argument stands to our reason.
I do believe that the theory of evolution is true for the very same reasons I believe the cosmological argument. The theory stands to reason. As to it being designed and purposeful, I have found no evidence or logical arguments strong enough to convince me either way. While I desire a purpose to evolution, it is not something that I believe. I have a similar stance towards psychic abilities.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Quantuum Weirdness
BTW, what about human willingness to believe in God being the proof of it’s existence? Like where did the idea come from? If I was a god, I’d definitely ensure that my creation recognizes me as it’s creator.
June 17th, 2006 at 11:36 am
Hello CannibalSmith,
That was a wonderful video you found. It’s a great description of the origins of quantum mechanics. As has been noted before, quantum mechanics grew out of Einstein’s relativity theory. Einstein started developing his theory because he noticed a contradiction between Newtonian physics (which governs the behavior of non-atomic particles) and Maxwell’s equations (which govern the behavior of waves). His reconciliation of these two theories eventually resulted in the General Theory of Relativity. His equations could describe both non-atomic particles and waves.
The interesting thing about the electron experiment described in the cartoon is that it showed that electrons behave both like a wave and a particle, hence the quantum mechanic term ‘particle-wave’. One important feature the cartoon leaves out is about the observation techniques. In order to observe an electron, we must interact with that electron. Interacting with it changes its momentum and/or its position. This is described as Heisenberg’s Uncertainty. What this means is that when experimenters ‘observe’ they are actually ‘interacting’. It is this interaction that alters the experiment results.
The really weird thing is that this interaction determines which slit the electron passes through after it has already passed through a slit! This means that the experimenter’s interaction changed the path of the electron in the recent past. Many physicist now believe that quantum interactions are non local in both space and time. If this is true, there might be a way to communicate over distances and times instantaneously using quantum particles. If so, does that mean we should be looking for messages from the future encoded in quantum particles? It’s a very far-fetched, but interesting thought.
It is this very phenomenon the first gave rise to the Anthropomorphic Principle. It was argued that since electrons (and all other fundamental particles) exist in multiple possible places at once until observed, after the big bang, the universe existed in an infinite number of possible configurations. The reason the universe exists as we see it is because this particular configuration was the one which produced observers. Since we observe the universe in this configuration, the positions of all the particles where determined after the fact (like the electron in the cartoon).
I can go on indefinitely about this sort of stuff, but I’ll stop here. To finally get to your comment, I’m afraid I don’t quite understand your question. But there are several explanations as to why God does not make it absolutely clear that he/she/it exists. One is that God does not have the power to do so. Remember that the cosmological argument only states that God has the power to create. It does not claim he/she/it (can I shorten that to heshit?) can communicate with everything or anything in that creation. Another possibility is that God does not care. Also, God could possibly not know that thinking beings are even in the universe. Which of these is tru
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Dear sidfaiwu,
I enjoy your determination in trying to come to understand what “psychic” is all about. First you have to get in the right state of mind to come to understand the ablilities that seem so “supernatural”. They are actually natural events that take place all the time in the universe. If you like to come to understand the psychic activity in a person you must let go of how “psychic” is described today. The way some people see psychic is in a very damaging way. It seems that they are considering a psychic as some one that can communicate with the dead and that knows all the answers in the universe (detach yourself from this belief). What is really occuring is that they are not communicating with the “dead”, they just say that because its easier for less conscious individuals to comprehend, but whats happening is that they are connecting with an energy that comes from there psychic activity. I have developed a paper on the theory of the psychic activity ,and my background is the personal study of psychology (Carl Jung) and my own personal psychic activity. Remember that the expectation of this society to establish crediability is to get a degree, but what they fail to realize is the growing comprehension level of an individual that may have been suppressed by lifes obstacles, like financial problems, that did not give them the oppurtunity to get a degree. Have you ever seen Matilda, its alot like that for psychics or anyone that is trying to expand there mind. This is my defense to my crediability. I had a conversation on Coast to Coast with George Noory and John Holland on June 20, 2006, to get John Holland’s theory on how are people able to connect with the psyhic activity, and for some reason he was not able to give me his theory, so he focused on my abilities and drew his conclusions on the information that I gave him. The intresting thing is that we did not have a good connection in the begining, but at the very end we connected and then I knew he had a gift.
So he told me that I was a good psychic as well, and all of my research with psychics, I have never heard another psychic tell another person that they are a good psychic. Sorry for braging but it felt comforting that people like John and I want to change the world to become peaceful, but there is still that possibility that he might be doing harm for the psychic activation movement. I am not quite sure if the psychics are coming together with the money that they make to establish there own power with in this world but I believe that is what needs to be done. Our systems in the past have failed us and we are searching for a new one. Sidfaiwu, you are connected to the universal understanding of how a civilization must be ran. Change is comming and we need all the honest and moral people that we can find to make a new world. This world is self-destructing and we have to question everyones intentions, and you must question me, I know I do. So keeping yourself in check is a great path to understading.
Anyways, to get on the full explanation of psychic activity, here is my theory. Enjoy:THE UNCONSCIOUSNESS FROM THE PSYCHIC ACTIVITY TO THE
CONSCIOUS MIND
BY: Allan
The dawn of humankind brought perplexing ideas that would later spawn off the understanding of the reality of the human mind. We still have failed to fully explain the comprehension of consciousness, but we have settled close. The unconscious mind has given us a superb understanding on how the unconscious influences our daily choices and ideas. Along side the unconscious, the psychic activity, collective unconscious, and consciousness plays an important role in what makes up our reality.
“The unconscious mind is that part of the mind wherein psychic activity takes place of which the person is unaware”, according to dictionary.com. When mentioning psychic activity we must detach our selves from how the word is presented today. The modern view of “psychic” is broadly viewed as a person that can communicate with the dead and/or knowing all the answers of the universe. This is a damaging point of view that puts astounding pressure of what “psychic” truly implies. To explain the psychic activity, unconsciousness, consciousness, and collective unconsciousness in a model form, we must think of it as a hierarchy.
The psychic activity is the smallest unit within our thoughts that take in information to construct the ability to understand the world and the result is the unconscious mind that derived from the psychic activity. Psychic activity can also be compared to an atom. The atom is a key factor that propelled science in many directions but still has never been observed with our eyes. So Psychic activity is the key element with in our thoughts that gives us the building blocks to live in our conscious minds. Dreams are observed as psychic activity phenomena because they are difficult to fully explain. The extent of our understanding of dreams is that it helps adjust the mind to where it can cope with the next conscious state which will be reflected in the up coming day. So there is activity with in our minds that need to absorb the physical plain that our eyes take in which the psychic organizes these daily symbols of matter for us to understand our reality.
We can see these implications of psychic activity in ancient writings and stories like that of Adam and Eve. The story of Adam and Eve revolves around the forbidden fruit that must not be eaten. Eve contemplates this rule and starts to explore her inner thoughts and then eats the fruit. Next she becomes aware of the naked body of Adam and then becomes banished from the garden along side Adam to venture into the world. What this shows about the psychic activity element is that it constructed her ability to choose to eat the fruit or not. Then she becomes aware of the naked body which is a sign of the unconscious mind becoming conscious. We also can compare this transitioning state to that of our lives. Just go back to your first memory of life and then this concept will make sense. Your first memory of life is your unconscious mind becoming conscious of your reality at that moment, but you can go back even further if you explore your unconscious state of mind to where your psychic activity constructs the ability to recall more physical symbols of the reality that you have not been able to recall. The understanding of this can be sided with memory, but that too is defined improperly. Some psychologist say that we are only capable of so much information for our brains to store, which means that new information comes in and old ones come out. This implies that our previous thoughts become non existent because we can no longer recall them. This can be compared to a car going around the corner that you can no longer see, but this does not mean that the car no longer exist all because it is out of our range of understanding.
The unconscious mind is like a building which houses endless thoughts that we are unaware of consciously, then it’s capable to project an image into our conscious thoughts to where it forms our conscious state of perceiving the world or consciousness. The transitioning of the unconscious to our consciousness is a special occurrence that takes place with in our minds that construct new meaning in our lives and formulate new approaches to problems (like that of eve and the fruit). Most often we rarely notice the transition, but when exploring and analyzing our thoughts we may connect to the unconscious where our conscious minds try to construct meaning from our psychic activity. This construction site has a name as well, the psyche. We can put this theory of the psyche to the test by an easy demonstration of straw picking. Let’s say we have 10 straws and one is shorter than the rest. The test is to pick the shortest straw (10 times) that is not visible due to it hiding behind my hand along side with the normal size straws. Let us imagine that we have made a 50% accuracy of choosing the correct straw. What this shows is that it seems that chance is the nature of this demonstration, but what we fail to realize is that we may have chose the correct straw out of understanding that we will pick the correct straw. In other words we were drawn to the correct straw for deep “psychic” reasons and we just did not recognize the unconscious thought of why we chose it. With the incorrect choice we have lost the psychic activity and went on an empty thought. We also have to consider the endless possibilities that occur around us that disrupt the nature within our unconsciousness, but with enough self exploration of our thoughts we can come to perfect this method to a degree. The psyche was imbedded into the mind from the first creation of humans and spread through out each person from this time. This contributed to a field of unconsciousness known as the collective unconscious.
The collective unconscious is a special field of understanding. This field is the joining of all unconscious states of mind that enable us to take in information not of direct physical observation. This has been observed in many ways in psychology and in my personal life. For example I was walking to class one day and I passed a guy with a face of a man on his multi-colored shirt. For some reason I felt unconsciously connected and consciously knew that the man was an important observation of “psychic” origin. The face looked familiar but I could not recall his name. I went to speak with a friend on the other side of town that day and I was telling him about a psychologist named Carl Jung who made a difference in his field. He proceeded to tell me about a man named Bob Marley and how he made a difference with his music. So then it struck me that the man on the shirt that I was deeply attracted too was the man that he was describing. What this implies is the connection of my conscious observation to that of my friends which can be determined by chance, but when occurrences to that nature take place frequently than the only explanation that fits is the collective unconsciousness.
Another example is that one night I was going to bed and I closed my eyes, then a few seconds later I felt that my uncle was calling me to let me know that he was in town and he wanted me to visit. What occurred was that I was beginning to travel to my unconsciousness but was confronted with the collective unconsciousness which reflected into my conscious thoughts. Two days later I went to my uncle’s house with the invitation of my aunt and my uncle was there. I told him about my psychic activity that toke place two days before, and he was impressed because he did arrive that day and was going to call me around the time I had my connection but he couldn’t find my number. So this is a confirmation on the collective unconsciousness and the natural abilities that all living things share which is bonded by the psychic activity element. So our consciousness determines realty on the perspectives and experiences we have endeavored and our unconsciousness is the building blocks of those perspectives and experiences to where the psychic activity is the smallest unit that gives the unconscious its existence.
To say there is no other realty is saying that there are no other points of view. This can not be conclude because we all have our different ways of looking at this world, but we share a common focal point to where we are all connected in the unconscious states of our minds or the collective unconscious. This point is important because the understanding of it and the experiences that come forth after it gives us a better understanding of the differences we all share. These differences are shared by a bonding factor of psychic activity that can be formulated by taking in and analyzing our life experiences (on a physical and mental level) which helps us determine what is different. Once formulated, then the collective unconscious helps us join the differences we share and places them together to where it gives the individual a state of enlightenment or universal understanding that we are all the same but in different realities. Reality is the observation and choices that lead us to settle on an idea of what our environment offers us and how we construct it.
The unconscious mind is the main factor in who we are and what we will become, along side of focusing on the issue of expanding our realities to become further aware of what builds our conscious state of perception. So the unconscious mind is that part of the mind wherein psychic activity takes place which the person is unaware, but contributes to the expansion of his/her ability to formulate new thoughts and experiences that will come to surface.
Source:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=unconscious%20mind
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Nicely written Allan, thanks for sharing that :) Also, good to see another Coast To Coast fan on here! I was really into that show when Art was still hosting, but now I tend to listen on weekends when he’s on.
gasmonso
June 26th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Hello Allan,
Thank you for sharing your exposition with us. It was quite interesting. Also, I’m sorry about the slow response. I’ve been on vacation that past week. I do not attach myself to any modern (mis-) conception of what psychic abilities are since I consider them so ill-defined. I really appreciate a more clear definition that we can discuss and critique together so that we all may learn something.
I have a few questions for you. First of all, let me make sure I understand what you wrote correctly. You propose a model for psychic ability based on a unit of consciousness called ‘psychic activity’. These units of psychic activity occur mostly in our unconscious minds and can be made conscious via various techniques. Learning and/or experiencing are two of the techniques that you mention (in the example of Eve and an infant’s first memory). You also state that there is an endless supply of these psychic activities that is available to anyone at anytime, though we are not consciously aware of it. My first question is then, how do you know (or how does one prove) the supply of psychic activities is infinite? Secondly, how do you know (or how does one prove) that everyone shares these psychic activities?
Please clear up any misunderstandings that I have concerning your article. Thank you in advance for your reply.
June 27th, 2006 at 1:33 am
Hi sidfaiwu,
I hope you had a great vacation.
To answer your questions, it involves certain levels of explanation. Bare with me.
First there is a belief system that drives all of this together. This belief is based on the universal understanding that everything in the universe comes from one source. They call it the big bang or god, but it is more than that. It is like the big bang in another big bang in another big bang that starts from the source of everything thing, but this source is not compressed in its original form anymore, but has been expanded to create us and everything in space, but we are still it and all information started from that source. Of course this took sequence of events based on a universal law of “everything”. This law was beginning to form in Einstein’s mind when he was coming up with the theory of everything, but of course he had never finished it or found a way to present it to the public in mathematics. To grasp this belief or concept (what ever suites you), is the start of coming to understand what is occurring in the unconscious mind.
Remember that the psychic activity is the main focus of creativity. The psychic activity absorbs the information you take in to construct the meaning of what you are observing. This then is placed in your unconscious mind to where you can retrieve the information if you are capable of doing it by the experiences that you have gone through. Example: You look at the wall, and do you really believe that you are just looking at the “wall”. We were taught that the wall is a wall because we built it that way. But what really is the wall. Is it the simple way of looking at it or is it what you learned in science (experience)? Science or the experience of it, says the wall is a solid by the bonding factors of compounds that come from atoms and atoms are made by electrons, neutrons, protons and other numerous things. You are supposed to be analytical in everything that you see and then this analyzing will become second nature and disappear from being a task to analyze. Its funny when people say that, “your looking into it to much”, or,”it’s not healthy to analyze to much”, all because these funny people can’t handle it. Its this way because there reality is based on simplistic concepts and understandings. Analyzing is the exploration and understanding of your environment. People that are “psychic” or intuitive are more conscious of there reality then the simplistic people (no punt intended for those people). This will give you the understanding of how our minds observe the “reality” that has been set for us by the teachings (school) and/or experiences or obstacles that involved our judgment. Judgment, or going on an idea that will result in your decision by means of understanding what constitutes the rationalizing of events that will contribute to your choice is a great path to becoming more conscious of your reality. Let’s say you never had a love one pass away. One day the number one person you loved died. This introduces a new way of thinking by means of psychic activity because it awakens your consciousness by you trying to grasp something that you never encountered before. You start to ask yourself what is death, and that question means something more than before because of the experience that you are going through. Society usually labels it as a “traumatic” event. Usually people that have traumatic events become more conscious of there reality and see life in a different light, but that does not mean that they are “psychic” all of a sudden. But this introduces self exploration which will give the individual, experiencing the event, the connection to the unconscious mind and the creativity of the psychic activity that starts to take form to construct the new reality that the person will soon take a hold of. So this touches base on the question of if everyone shares this psychic activity and how it comes to be activated. Just to let you know, you do not have to go through traumatic events to become “psychic” or more conscious of your reality which will give you a new form of consciousness, but it does speed it up. And that is why you have mainstream “psychics” trying to sell you books on how you can become more intuitive with your environment. But since I am giving you all the information you need, then I would not bother on buying there books unless you want a good story.
To answer your first question on how do I know that psychic activities are infinite. You might want to go into detail with that question because it is to general, be more specific please. Also I do not recall writing about psychic activity being infinite. But psychic activity is infinite like everything else. To answer your question to the best of my ability, I have to say that its only proof on what makes since to you. If I don’t make complete since then don’t take it and if I do then we are moving in the right direction. Basically it is what you believe in. Like I said, please be more specific with that question. So to touch base on how can this be proven, this only can be proven (at this time) by your determination to experience it by the guide of individuals that have already experienced the psychic activity and understand it (like any other teaching). I apologize if I did not satisfy your questions but we can continue to discuss it unto you feel that you have received everything you wanted (just an obvious comment).
June 29th, 2006 at 9:03 am
Hello Allan,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I understand what you are saying about the connection between the conscious and unconscious and how experience and/or introspection can make one more aware. That part of the hypothesis makes sense.
A more refined question for you would then be, “Are there any things that are unknowable to any given individual at the unconscious level?” You have satisfactorily explained how thoughts enter the conscious mind, so another question is, “How does information enter the unconscious mind?” Also, does everyone share the same unconscious thoughts?
Thanks,
Sidfaiwu
June 30th, 2006 at 4:55 am
Hi Sidfaiwu,
It has been a privilege discussing the bases of the human mind and how we are able to recognize self awareness which must be understood to fight for a better future. I have given you the information that I only hope that you will take and spread. I will give you a test to start researching; Synchronicity, self awareness (consciousness), Bosnia (1992), Adolf Hitler (Burning of Reichstag), George W. Bush (9/11 twin towers). Its hard for some people to be told a lie, but it is even harder for them to accept the turth. The truth is overwhelming at times which will give some people the state of denial and defense because they dont want to accept and/or they dont understand because the level of consciousness. These words are important because they will give you a better understanding of what this world has become and why we must recognize this problem for the future of our planet and children. I could lay down all the facts but if you are meant to see the signs then you are meant to see them. I only hope that you will use your intuition to guide you and remember that you are able to reach a higher level of consciousness if you believe. I know I seem so serious but I am only trying to give you a path for you to see the truth. I hope you see the signs on the way to the truth because we need more individuals for this world problem. We all have gifts and it’s about time that we all realize it. I am sorry that I wont be able to answer your questions for now. Once you find out the meaning of the words, then we can continue discussing into detail the language of the mind. If you are not willing to take the “test” then I can understand. “When lost in yourself, spread yourself amongst the stars”, Allan.
July 3rd, 2006 at 5:44 am
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-488429980136392991&q=twin+towers+attack
July 5th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Thanks for the discussion Allan.
Also,
here’s a link for a little counter balance to the conspiracy theories.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Thank you for your theory =).
July 24th, 2006 at 8:24 am
=) WE CAN HELP
October 30th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Lipitor and beer….
Does lipitor cause insomnia….
June 24th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Tetracycline….
Tetracycline metabolism in human. Tetracycline hcl. Tetracycline dosages. Tetracycline interactions. Levofloxin and tetracycline….
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Lets go deeper, raising my arm to cometonight. It happened janet jackson naked for all.
July 26th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
kat von d nude
August 18th, 2008 at 2:55 am
ebony deepthroat
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:52 am
amanda bynes in a bikini