Demonology self help: Adam Blai

[adreno]

Today Quantum field theory has dissolved particles into scalar fields of energy boiling with virtual particles and guided by abstract mathematical rules.... there's no way to pin down matter. Hence, materialism is baloney

You are hung up on matter. Call me a physicalist, then. I will even go so far as to accept property dualism (but not substance dualism), which is akin to emergent physicalism.

In any case, none of this are arguments for demonology. If you propose a model that demons cause disease, there is no data that support the model. There are however lots of data that biology can cause disease, and that's why I prefer a biological model of disease.

 

[adreno]

Problem is that priests like Fr Amorth, former chief exorcist of the Catholic Church, are unlikely to lie on such issue, not so much because of the possible backfiring on their respectability and credibility but because it's utterly against their beliefs system.

And just because a priest believes something he says (i.e., is not lying) doesn't make what he says true.

 

[PeterPositive]

You are hung up on matter. Call me a physicalist, then. I will even go so far as to accept property dualism (but not substance dualism), which is akin to emergent physicalism.

We're all hung up there, because that's the dominant position. And if matter is postulated to be the basis for everything in the universe then we better be able to know what the heck it is

Otherwise we're just clinging onto an old fashioned philosophical view that has no longer any relevance to the our description of reality.

Positions like physicalism today are very difficult to maintain, imho, because information is not physical plus it's a category of its own, not being neither matter nor energy.

Similarly it arbitrarily restricts the nature of consciousness as being an epiphenomenon while it could be an independent phenomena or even it could be the fundamental element to all cosmos.

In any case, none of this are arguments for demonology.

No, I am not arguing in favor of demonology. More broadly I argue in favor of open mindedness for phenomena that suggest non locality of consciousness. In this framework the possibility of disembodied consciousness interacting with living, conscious being is indeed a possible hypothesis. And there is good evidence for this.

But evidence can always be improved to make it stronger, if the hypothesis is correct.

Unfortunately the many prejudices and taboos in materialistic sciences and the related closed mindedness make this kind of inquiries very difficult and subject to nasty attacks.

One doesn't need to go into the dreaded field of demonology to find this kind of bigotry. You can consult the dozens of experiments and studies (all reproduced innumerable times) on telepathy and precognition to find out the sort of hostility, bias and partiality from mainstream science.

Of course, what doesn't fit in the model must be rejected a priori. Talk about science being about evidence and not belief

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Evidence alone has no meaning. We add meaning with our filters and beliefs.

If you propose a model that demons cause disease, there is no data that support the model.

No this is an oversimplification.
Remove the demon (which is very confusing) with consciousness and we can probably discuss how the latter affects the physical body for better or worse

 

[adreno]

Adreno, you quoted me when you posted the above. To briefly mention, I never said "demonology" was science, and I'm pretty sure nobody else on this thread has said that either. I'm not even sure anybody in the entire cyber-world has ever called it science. I don't understand your point, which seems to be some kind of rebuttal of sorts. -- Just because something is not "proven" by science doesn't necessarily mean it's not true--or would you disagree.

Yes, I disagree. Seems to me that several people in this thread are trying to elevate the subject matter - which is demonology - to something that is at least plausible, which it isn't. Like I said, it is no more credible than claiming Santa Claus makes us sick. Frankly, it's misinformation and I find it ethically wrong to even entertain such ideas to sick people. And you are entertaining those ideas, although you did not specifically call it science.

 

[adreno]

You say it isn't plausible, which sounds like a belief.

Did you miss what I posted before? What data do we have to support demons as a cause of sickness? What data do we have to support biology (e.g. bacteria, viruses etc) can cause sickness? Which is then most plausible? That's not belief, it's observing the world, and making rational, probabilistic judgments.

 

[adreno]

In this framework the possibility of disembodied consciousness interacting with living, conscious being is indeed a possible hypothesis. And there is good evidence for this.

Really? Where?

The James Randi million dollar challenge still hasn't been paid out. You're welcome to give it a try:

The James Randi Educational Foundation will pay US$1,000,000 (One Million US Dollars) ("The Prize") to any person who demonstrates any psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability under satisfactory observation. Such demonstration must take place under the rules and limitations described in this document. An applicant can be from or in any part of the world. Gender, race, and educational background are not factors for acceptance. Applicants must be at least 18 years of age and legally able to enter into binding agreements.

http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html

 

[JAM]

Problem is that priests like Fr Amorth, former chief exorcist of the Catholic Church, are unlikely to lie on such issue, not so much because of the possible backfiring on their respectability and credibility but because it's utterly against their beliefs system.
They would never and could never do what they do because it would seriously harm them, if you knew what battling on a daily basis against demons really meant.

Yeah, against their belief system, like pedophilia and murder? Seriously, are you going to try and give the moral argument for the group that is responsible for the Crusades? What a joke.

 

[adreno]

Seriously, are you going to try and give the moral argument for the group that is responsible for the Crusades?

and inquisition.

 

[JAM]

and inquisition.

We could play this game all day...

 

[PeterPositive]

Really? Where?

Near death experiences have been around for 40 years in medical literature and in the past 20+ have been studied more thoroughly by the medical profession. They are a fascinating and baffling phenomena: peak, hyper-lucid, complex experiences running in a brain with little to no blood flow. Very difficult to reconcile with our present knowledge. Some also have veridical out of body experiences. Memories of these occurrences don't get altered even 20 years later. It is pretty impressive stuff and all of the proposed conventional causes (oxygen deprivation, ketamine, dmt, rem intrustion...) fall very short of being able to account for these complex, highly organized experiences.

See any work by Dr. Bruce Greyson, Dr.Pim Van Lommel, Dr.Peter Fenwick, Dr.Jeffrey Long etc...

Also I've already mentioned the studies on psilocybin and how, similarly, peak experiences are obtained with a diffused dampening of all brain activity. All of the regions we know being involved in conscious experience are put to sleep while the subject goes into hyper-lucid mode.

More interesting evidence suggestive of mind ≠ brain:

- telepathy and precognition studies
- remote viewing studies (which even critic R.Wiseman admits it's a "proven phenomena by the standards of any other area of science")
- terminal lucidity
- well documented cases of "possession" (see references I gave earlier in this thread)

Personally I would like to see a lot more of these studies because at the moment the few scientists who venture in these fields are mostly met with hostility, prejudice and scorn. The money that goes into this research is infinitesimal and most of these researchers are basically risking their reputation because these topics are considered taboos under the current paradigm of materialistic sciences.

The irony is that behind closed doors many scientist feel fascinated and sympathetic with this sort of research but because they need to keep their career safe, they won't speak about any of this in public.

So yeah, science is ultimately driven by a set of beliefs, just like any other human endeavor.

The James Randi million dollar challenge still hasn't been paid out. You're welcome to give it a try:

No please, let's keep the conversation serious.
That's just a publicity stunt with no scientific validity proposed by a non scientist. Science doesn't need an ex-magician, self promoted Defender of the "Truth", to advance.

cheers

 

[adreno]

No please, let's keep the conversation serious.
That's just a publicity stunt with no scientific validity proposed by a non scientist. Science doesn't need an ex-magician, self promoted Defender of the "Truth", to advance.

Aha, okay then. Until you can quote peer-reviewed research on "telepathy", "disembodied consciousness", "possession" or likewise you are proposing, I won't take anything you say seriously. References, please.

 

[A.B.]

How is information not physical? Energy is a physical phenomenon. Information doesn't exist without a medium. In human language, this could be a piece of paper with a text. In computers, a sequence of bits on a storage medium. In cells, DNA.

The interpreter in all these cases is again physical: in the case of human language it is the brain, in the case of computers it is the CPU, in case of cells it is the cell nucleus if I remember my biology classes right.

 

[PeterPositive]

Aha, okay then. Until you can quote peer-reviewed research on "telepathy", "disembodied consciousness", "possession" or likewise you are proposing, I won't take anything you say seriously. References, please.

Here you go:
http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

 

[adreno]

Some of these studies look interesting and seem to support these phenomena (lets call the psi). However, we must carefully look at the conditions (methodology) of those studies, to ensure that alternate hypothesis are not more plausible. This is an enormous work. Many studies are also refutals. Here are some random excerpts from those studies:

In spite of these characteristics of the study, psi stimuli and non-psi stimuli evoked indistinguishable neuronal responses—although differ- ences in stimulus arousal values of the same stimuli had the expected effects on patterns of brain activation. These findings are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena.

- Moulton & Kosslyn (2008). Using neuroimaging to resolve the psi debate

In summary, although Storm et al.’s (2010) meta-analysis seems to provide a large degree of support for psi, more critical evalua- tion reveals that it does not. In our view, the evidence from Storm et al. for psi is relatively equivocal and certainly not sufficient to sway an appropriately skeptical reader.

- Rouder et al (2013). A Bayes Factor Meta-Analysis of Recent Extrasensory Perception Experiments: Comment on Storm, Tressoldi, and Di Risio (2010)

The studies failed to confirm his main effect of participants scoring above chance on
2the ESP task, Stouffer z = 0.70, p = .24, one-tailed; M effect size (z/JV" ) = 0.013, SD = 0.23. The new
studies included replication attempts of 3 out of 5 internal effects reported as statistically significant by D. J. Bern and C. Honorton. Only 1 was confirmed, and the authors found that D. J. Bern and C. Honorton were mistaken in describing the original effect as being statistically significant. The authors conclude that the ganzfeld technique does not at present offer a replicable method for producing ESP in the laboratory.

- Milton & Wiseman (1999). Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer

@PeterPositive , if you have already carefully studies these references, what is the most convincing evidence you have found?

 

[PeterPositive]

How is information not physical? Energy is a physical phenomenon. Information doesn't exist without a medium. In human language, this could be a piece of paper with a text. In computers, a sequence of bits on a storage medium. In cells, DNA.

The problem with this is semiosis. Symbols are just clumps of matter. They have no meaning without something else recognizing the symbol. In other words meaning is abstract, immaterial.

In cells there is exchanging of specified information with semiotic dimension, which brings us back to consciousness. Information is useless without it. Semiotics have never been shown to happen via natural processes, which makes the origin of life even more mysterious than what already is.

Again, this is a very complex subject, would require an entire new thread.

cheers

 

[adreno]

The problem with this is semiosis. Symbols are just clumps of matter. They have no meaning without something else recognizing the symbol. In other words meaning is abstract, immaterial.

Meaning and information is not the same. Meaning is abstract, subjective, but information doesn't have to be. For example the DNA of bacteria is information that matters, regardless of a consciousness perceiving it or not.

 

[PeterPositive]

Some of these studies look interesting and seem to support these phenomena (lets call the psi). However, we must carefully look at the conditions (methodology) of those studies, to ensure that alternate hypothesis are not more plausible. This is an enormous work. Many studies are also refutals. Here are some random excerpts from those studies

Thanks, very good. This is the kind of point I was making.
There are interesting and fascinating studies. It would be interesting to see more of them, more independent replications and relative publications. Also it would be great to see that finally academia takes these subjects seriously as it does with all other fields of science.

If you're interested in taking deeper look at these phenomena I can highly recommend and any recent book by Dean Radin, Charles Tart, Russel Targ, Rupert Sheldrake.

Also the study on psilocybin I mentioned earlier:
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/6/2138.full
And some interesting reflections about it here: http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/01/disembodied-trippers.html

cheers

 

[PeterPositive]

Meaning and information is not the same. Meaning is abstract, subjective, but information doesn't have to be. For example the DNA of bacteria is information that matters, regardless of a consciousness perceiving it or not.

So all the bits running in your computer have subjective meaning?

 

[adreno]

If you're interested in taking deeper look at these phenomena I can highly recommend and any recent book by Dean Radin, Charles Tart, Russel Targ, Rupert Sheldrake.

Authors of books are usually very biased. They have to account to no one. It's non-science.

Someone non-biased has to take make a thorough meta-analysis of all the data. That would be worth reading.

 

[adreno]

So all the bits running in your computer have subjective meaning?

No. But if those bits are organized into for example a picture, and I perceive it, then meaning in generated in my mind.