rem-IMO not all discussions are the same. sometimes people who agree can have interesting conversations. yes, it would be boring if ALL discussions did not include debate, but some are not started for that purpose. this said, i still think you have the right to say whatever you want. it would be nice if SOMETIMES people don't have to be criticized, if that is their wish. for me i rarely want to talk about something without being challenged, but there are a few instances where i might not want criticism. i say rarely because people that know me know i love to debate. if you still wish to criticize on this one occasion, i don't think it makes you a bad person, and i'm not going to cry about it. i'll take what you said into consideration, but that doesn't mean that, categorically, no one should ever be able to discuss something on the board w/out being criticized, does it? it's just how i feel about this one topic, and it may well be a view that is unique to me-if so, that's fine, i'm definitely not wishing to make a rule.-nate
To All those on REINCARNATION thread
by RavynX 27 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
eyes_opened
I know this is a bit off the beaten path, but when I read it today it made me think of this threaed:
====================================================================
Updated 1:11 PM ET March 28, 2001
LONDON (Reuters) - Scientists may have come a step closer Wednesday to the creation of a bionic eye with new research showing how the eye provides sketchy images that the brain interprets to create what we see.
A bionic eye using a computer microchip to restore sight is still a very long way off, but researchers at the University of California Berkeley have uncovered new secrets about how we see."Even though we think we see the world so fully, what we are receiving is really just hints, edges in space and time," said Frank Werblin, a professor of molecular and cell biology.
Werblin and his colleague Botond Roska discovered that the eye has about 10 to 12 output channels each carrying information to the brain which then constructs images.
Writing in the science journal Nature, they showed that the retina of the eye creates a stack of image representations, how they are formed and that they are the result of communication between layers of cells in the retina.
Roska's father, Tamas Roska, and Leon Chua who also work at the university invented the computer microchip called Cellular Neural Network (CNN) that can be programmed to do visual processing just like the retina which would form the basis of a bionic eye.
"The biology we are learning is going into improving the chip, which is getting more and more similar to the mammalian retina," Roska said in a statement.
But before a bionic eye can become a reality scientists must discover how to connect the chip to the complicated circuitry in the brain.
The researchers discovered the output channels by meticulously measuring signals from ganglion cells, the eye's output cells to the brain, in rabbits while flashing images of squares or circles in front of the animals.
They found that groups of ganglion cells represented different visual features and sent the information to different paths in the brain.
Hungarian software designer David Balya then used their findings on a computer model which mimics the ganglion cells in the retina.
"We are now looking at the predictions the model makes when viewing natural scenes...and comparing them with what we measure in actual retinal cells, to learn how good the predictions are," said Roska.
I found the statement that I put in bold print to be of interest. Even those in the field of science admit that there is much more to the universe than that what we can see and touch
Eyes
-
larc
eyes_opened,
What you say about the eye is true, but what we can sense and measure is far beyond that of the human eye. Scientists can accurately measure all frequencies along the elctromagnetic spectrum, not just the narrow part that we can see. So far at least, these measurements have not correlated with the supposed tranmission of information from one person to another. Physicists have tryed it on the measurement side, and psychologists have tryed it on the behavioral-self report side with consistently disappoining results.
-
RedhorseWoman
Rem, I misunderstood you. I apologize. The way your post was worded, it appeared to indicate that anyone who believed in the existence of paranormal phenomena was unaware (and ignorant) of any scientific evidence purportedly disproving it.
I do agree that people shouldn't rush into any belief system without researching. I also believe that one shouldn't miss out on something simply because it doesn't fit the generally accepted line of thinking.
-
RavynX
well basically, I don't need to be validated by anonymous posters on a message board about John Edward. John has read me personally. I never met him, he did it 'cold' with his back to me. All I answered to his questions was YES or NO, absolutely no elaboration. And for all you scepitcs crying fraud, before he finished he said to me-"you can't afford this- I will not charge you for it."
He was totally accurate. He did not only tell me about deceased people. He managed to tell me my mother's father's name(she was the result of a rape and never knew her father), also my father and birthdate(which has been a family secret for about 38 years now.) Since then I have verified everything he told me.
I do not ever see him pumping anyone for information on his show, and I have been in the audience 3 times since my reading. In fact many times he gives information that means nothing to the one receiving it, only to find out there is aconnection somehow to the one who does know what he is talking about. His books are much more down-to-earth than his tv show, which I agree can look like a circus act upon shallow inspection.
Now as far as the charge of ignorance because someone puts more trust in supernatural and paranormal than scientific...try having an intellectual conversation with a Kabbalist or a 27th level Freemason! Most Rosicrucians I know could hold their own with any astrophysicist. Perhaps the idea of ignorance comes from the very real situation of most J-Ws who are denied the freedom to pursue any knowledge outside of the false doctrine of that cult. Been there done that. But not anymore.
Incidentally I am not even looking for 'truth'. It is a waste of time. Chasing your tail. Truth is relative. Only freedom is absolute. Without freedom you cannot even THINK about the CONCEPT of truth. My truth is not your truth and it should not be. But my freedom means nothing without your freedom- if you are not free I am limited too.
Simply, Jesus the new commandment was to have love among ourselves. He said the whole Law was summed up in the two commands to 'Love your God(etc)' and to 'Love your neighbor(etc)'. Then John said 'God IS Love'. I say Love needs no command. To command love is to destroy it. Love cannot exist without the freedom to choose it or not. If I love it is because I choose to love freely, not because I was commanded to do it. That is my truth.
RavynX -
thinkers wife
Thank you for your great post Ravyn. I have watched John Edwards and enjoyed it very much.
I also watched a show on the history channel where a woman had a disturbing memory of a past which included a whole other family. Through much effort she was able to find the family, and she was indeed their mother. She had so many very distinct memories and landmarks and once she found the remainder of the eight children, they were able to fill in the confusing spots for her. She was probably in her forties at the time of the taping of the show. The children were in their seventies or eighies. She knew names, places, even right down to the placement of the pictures on the walls and what they were of in their home. It was fascinating.
I am of the mind, that if someone has never experienced it, they have a tendency to reject it.
On a side note. It is very interesting to have discussions with others and not all agreeing. But, there is a polite way to disagree without agreeing.
TW -
dark clouds
Ravyn you pagan you. . .
its refreshing to know that some of us arrive at the same conclusions, because we left for similar reasons, what we know in our hearts and in our minds is irrefutable, it is so personal and it is so clear, and the beauty lies within the fact that there is nothing to prove, because when you know it doesnt matter.
The teacher comes when the student is ready, and some truths are not to be wasted, i believe casting pearls to the pigs is how it is refered to in the scriptures. . .
your last response was so ON i got chills. . .
not for lack of words, but because i find it appropriate for this thread, i am reposting clips of one of my posts from Englishman's thread:
This post is becoming a debate synanymous to proving whether or not god exists. . .
Here we are debating whether or not psychic abilities are real or not. of course we are going to have opposing views. The nonbelievers want hardcore facts, the believers could care any if they are believed or not, they know what they have experienced. There are valid points to both sides of the argument. . .
When a born again claims that the holy spirit has decended on him and shown him the light, do we accept it or do we think he is nuts? When someone claims to have seen a ufo do we judge them? when it was brought to our attention that the WT dabbled in the occult did it make sense or did it take us into denial?
It all comes down to tolerance and respect, i dont think anyone here is trying to change anyones opinion on the matter, most of us here are strong, fairly intelligent and open minded individuals, in search of good subject matter to discuss, wanting to expand our horizons.
I think the attacks should be saved and the words thought out before submiting them to the board, that way saving the bickering and keeping the post in focus with the subject. . .if not we may as well put on our blinders go back to the hall and highlight our watchtowers. I see nothing wrong with a little speculaton and hypothesizing now that we are able to without the guilt trip of doing so. The name calling and intelligence knocking only shows the lack of compassion and understanding for what we have gone through, perhaps it even reflects a tad of hostility, and immaturity that may remain.
I personally am a believer if my posts havenot given it away, but i am not blinded by the charlatans that tend to exagerate the gifts that we as humans were given.
Pete A. Sanders, Jr. wrote a book based on his study at MIT [Michigan Institute of Technology]. It is a scientifically proven method for harnessing inborn psychic powers. Through his study of biomedical chemistry and brain science, he developed techniques along with his associates to locate and access at will the 4 psychic reception areas.
There is knowledge that is being discovered through quantum physics which interrelates with theories in metaphysics that at one time were only speculated, now these have basis in science.
CHUCK
of the X-files class (the truth IS out there)PS. his book is titled----- you are psychic!
-
RavynX
Thinker's Wife- I saw that documentary too- it was an Irish woman wasn't it? amazing! She felt the emotions of the previous life before she felt anything else and even as a child she was driven to find her 'lost children'... If you want to judge such experiences by the J-W rule of thumb that it is demonic, I just can't find the point. I mean if Satan is behind the 'light show'-(eg 'angel of light') what is his motive? Pretty elaborate if all he achieves is confusion(especially when it seems he could do the confusing alot easier by just starting an Internet Message Board- ) I cant see any ill effects of becoming more aware of natural pyschic abilites.
Dark Clouds! My Love! I am glad I gave you chills!
excellent posts sweetie. I have been reading everything you write and I agree, we are definitely sympatico! (PS- Lee had an interview for a job in Memphis this morning that looks really good---wouldn't it be fun to have an AOL party in New Orleans next year? I am trying to figure it out!)
RavynX