Dean Radin article on Psi, science

[Eldritch]

If the universe is a hologram, its still as real as it is now for all concerned.

Agreed, but if that's true then that is all that really need be said until such time as we all become hologram gods. Maybe I am lacking in imagination.

So dont quite get how suspecting that the current basis might not be complete - a nutty makes?

I think Hugh just believes, rather wet blanket like, that such esoteric intellectual pursuits are a waste of time and energy (or worse, intentional diversions), when there are pressing, desperately urgent "real" world issues that people ought to be focusing on instead.

That's an interesting point of view, and most people probably share it, at least to one degree or another.

But I think there's an even deeper question that needs to be asked and seriously considered, if "real world issues" are the most important:

If "real world issues" are really the concern—and if "reality" is sometimes as porous and anomalous as people like Vallée and Radin have demonstrated and many of us here have experienced firsthand for ourselves—then how can we honestly claim to know what the "real world" even is ultimately, let alone what really drives the "issues" within it?

[cptmarginal]

If "real world issues" are really the concern—and if "reality" is sometimes as porous and anomalous as people like Vallée and Radin have demonstrated and many of us here have experienced firsthand for ourselves—then how can we honestly claim to know what the "real world" even is ultimately, let alone what really drives the "issues" within it?

Now, now; let's all be adults here.

[Wombaticus Rex]

"If you haven't read ______, you're not even qualified for this discussion."

Wow, I'm so familiar with that one from years taking my intellect seriously. Dealt with that ploy in many contexts, and used it myself in many more.

Then I realized: if you can't explain yourself concisely and succinctly, you really don't have anything to say.

I dig the fact you'd just chalk it up to my ignorance and inability to understand all the amazing work you've put in -- I'm familiar with that one, too. Your conclusions are so transparently self-evident that anyone who actually disagrees must not be familiar with the facts, right?

All in all, I think we're done, Hugh. There's no communication.

[Eldritch]

If "real world issues" are really the concern—and if "reality" is sometimes as porous and anomalous as people like Vallée and Radin have demonstrated and many of us here have experienced firsthand for ourselves—then how can we honestly claim to know what the "real world" even is ultimately, let alone what really drives the "issues" within it?

Now, now; let's all be adults here.

Would I be right in assuming that you're pointing out the irony that most adults in our civilization don't normally ask (and therefore have not thoroughly dealt with) the very adult question concerning what is actually "real" and what is not?

If so, I agree.

If there are really the kind of flaws in the prevailing materialist paradigm as there appear to be, then this civilization has based its priorities on faulty presuppositions.

I think it has done this, and I think this is also very dangerous.

Which may explain why this civilization's priorities are so often so far removed from what we intuitively know to be real and important.

[nathan28]

"If you haven't read ______, you're not even qualified for this discussion."

Wow, I'm so familiar with that one from years taking my intellect seriously. Dealt with that ploy in many contexts, and used it myself in many more.

Well, the "if you haven't read X" argument is actually fair. The problem is, the people who make it soundly also provide summaries, excerpts and exhibits. If you have facts, data or theory then list them, then list the source.

Various folks into "research" would do well to learn the difference between a hypothesis, a fact, a source and rank speculation.

on edit, i am a real grammar and syntax hero today. kids, when the energy drink has multiple warning labels on it, take them seriously. "May cause poorly-punctuated logorhea".

[Searcher08]

Why not try a version of the kind of test Radin is talking about and see just how aware you are?

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/245320/

Thanks for that - Hugh - you gotta watch it!!!




Mr Radin, Game , Set and Match

[barracuda]

Why not try a version of the kind of test Radin is talking about and see just how aware you are?

This test doesn't do much for me. Maybe if I could watch a high quality version full screen, it might be an interesting experiment, but at the size and resolution available on the web, how are you supposed to tell that the so-called "bear" (which looks nothing like a bear, but everything like the other members of the black team) is at all out of place? Lameness is. Above is a stopped frame of the "Awareness test" video. The "bear" is in full view. Who would look at this image and find a bear? Or see anything out of place? Sheesh.

[cptmarginal]

Would I be right in assuming that you're pointing out the irony that most adults in our civilization don't normally ask (and therefore have not thoroughly dealt with) the very adult question concerning what is actually "real" and what is not?

If so, I agree.

That too; mostly it was a jab at Hugh's earlier statement which struck me as funny:

That would be funny if this board didn't have people looking at UFOs and asking if 'maybe the universe is just a hologram' and promoting Dean frikkin' psychic remote viewing Radin and "intentional chocolate." This is from adults. Astonishing.

On another note, it's totally hilarious when Hugh accuses someone of not understanding psy-ops, and proceeds to treat the person as if they are totally clueless on the topic. It's his way or the highway - and it seems that he truly believes most everyone here is hopelessly naive or ignorant.

[Eldritch]

Would I be right in assuming that you're pointing out the irony that most adults in our civilization don't normally ask (and therefore have not thoroughly dealt with) the very adult question concerning what is actually "real" and what is not?

If so, I agree.

That too; mostly it was a jab at Hugh's earlier statement which struck me as funny:

That would be funny if this board didn't have people looking at UFOs and asking if 'maybe the universe is just a hologram' and promoting Dean frikkin' psychic remote viewing Radin and "intentional chocolate." This is from adults. Astonishing.

Good point. What I find intensely frustrating about many of Hugh's assertions revolves around the fact that I actually share his deep distrust of the American intelligence apparatus. I think there are very real conspiracies it has concocted—designed to manipulate and influence both foreign and domestic populations—and there is much evidence for this.

But to dismiss all Fortean phenomena as "woo," as Hugh so often does—except when the paranormal becomes so blatantly inconvenient to that tactic of ridicule that it must then be a "government plot"—is an astonishingly limited point of view, it seems to me.

[chillin]

If "real world issues" are really the concern—and if "reality" is sometimes as porous and anomalous as people like Vallée and Radin have demonstrated and many of us here have experienced firsthand for ourselves—then how can we honestly claim to know what the "real world" even is ultimately, let alone what really drives the "issues" within it?

I use that to rationalize surfing the web when I should be working. =)

[Wombaticus Rex]

Well, the "if you haven't read X" argument is actually fair. The problem is, the people who make soundly also provide summaries, excerpts and exhibits. If you have facts, data or theory then list them then list the source.

various folks into "research" would do well to learn the difference between a hypothesis, a fact, a source and rank speculation.

That's a good point and I appreciate the correction. It reminded me that Dean Radin makes essentially the exact same argument in his recent Reality Sandwich essay, as well as several chapters of The Conscious Universe.

[vanlose kid]

deleted

[vanlose kid]

deleted

[teamdaemon]

Hugh,

Number one, please show me evidence that Den Radin works directly with the CIA. That would be interesting, although in the end I don't really care. Even if Dean Radin is a spook, I know that psychic phenomena exist because I experience them fairly regularly. That somebody with academic credentials is trying to study this is very encouraging to me.

Number two, please explain to me what Wonderment Occluding Objectivity means to you. From what I've gleaned from reading your posts, a working definition could be "anything that takes attention away from what Hugh wants people to think about".

Number three, does "real activism" include preaching to the choir on internet message boards? Because I've got to say, all of the foaming at the mouth that you do doesn't seem to be doing anything at all to change anything.

[teamdaemon]

I would also like to add that Daniel Pinchbeck's website is fucking horrible because it totally does distract people from more serious issues. Occasionally there are some decent articles such as this one, but it is usually almost all puff garbage.

What do you think Hugh? Is Daniel Pinchbeck working for the CIA? Any intentional keyword highjacking going on at Reality Sandwich?