Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10982
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Poodle » Tue Dec 08, 2015 11:25 am

gorgeous wrote:no
That's it, gorgeous - knock 'em dead with logic.

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5750
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by gorgeous » Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:25 pm

it's a Jedi mind trick... :mrgreen:
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5585
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Monster » Tue Dec 08, 2015 4:29 pm

Matthew Ellard is correct regarding Washington and the Illuminati.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5750
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by gorgeous » Tue Dec 08, 2015 4:31 pm

the illuminati still exists...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:02 pm

gorgeous wrote:the illuminati still exists...
Where are they based?
Who is their leader?
Name members?

Don't forget to set out all your evidence....
:mrgreen:
not gorgeous wrote: It must be true, Seth a intergalactic fictional alien, channelled by two hippies in California, said it was true in a book, the hippies sold for profit and I read that book.

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5750
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by gorgeous » Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:53 pm

Norma said she is one...all the presidents, leaders of many countries, Royals of England, Dutch royals, other royals...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:20 am

gorgeous wrote:Norma said she is one...all the presidents, leaders of many countries, Royals of England, Dutch royals, other royals...
So your evidence that the illuminati exists, is because Norma Blum, a forum member told you she was one? So you think that Norma Blum, secretly controls the world, with the Queen of England?

Oddly, you also claim the Queen of England is a reptile alien.

Has it occurred to you, that you are really really really stupid?
:lol:

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10982
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Poodle » Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:46 am

Ahem!! Her official title (shortened version) is ...

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

There are lots of other bits to her full-blown title, but nowhere is England mentioned.

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5585
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Monster » Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:47 am

gorgeous wrote:Norma said she is one...all the presidents, leaders of many countries, Royals of England, Dutch royals, other royals...
Don't forget that you're one of the reptile aliens.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5527
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Austin Harper » Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:29 pm

Maybe we're all Illuminati and this is just a conspiracy to drive you insane.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5750
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by gorgeous » Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:33 pm

"Reincarnation involves the historical periods that you recognize, and the seemingly sequential progress of events. Your reincarnational selves more or less belong to the same probability, translated into historical terms. Since all time is simultaneous, however, all frameworks of historical nature are being formed at once. In those terms you are born in the past with your knowledge of the future held in unconscious abeyance, and you are born in the future convinced that your knowledge of the past comes only from history books."

"The entire complex social world rests however on strong probable relationships, and the power behind civilizations rests upon a great unconscious rapport, and is built upon, in any given present, future and past, personal and social relationships."

"An excess of male lives will turn a personality sour in a feminine manner, without the inner understanding and compassion that is usually associated with the female sex. In like manner, consistent feminine personalities will turn harsh without the inner strength usually associated with the male sex. For this reason, most entities live lives as male and female."
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10982
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Poodle » Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:44 pm

Bilge.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:28 am

gorgeous wrote:"Reincarnation involves the historical periods that you recognize, and the seemingly sequential progress of events. Your reincarnational selves ................."
You're not even trying any more. You copied and pasted this, in entirety, from a copyrighted webpage. :frown:

That's potentially a "banning' offence. This is the third time, you have done this, this month alone.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Barrie1 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:10 am

scrmbldggs writes: How do you (or Seth) explain that we are looking at and perceiving the exact same image of this page?

Barrie Responds: You may agree or disagree, but I will explain what you ask about. According to the Seth material, we each create the objects we see. Via ongoing telepathy, we agree what the objects should look like and where they should be located. So, if give people walk into a room with one chair and one TV in it--there are actually five chairs and five TVs--and each is like super-imposed on the other, giving the appearance of one TV and chair. We can actually only see the chair and TV we create--we can't see what another person creates. There are often slight differences but we don't usually notice--and pass it off as faulty or differing memories. It becomes more evident when police take a report of a crime. Then, the varying witness descriptions, etc, become very evident. Now, you may disagree with all of that and find no proof of it, etc. BUT that is the explanation and the answer to your question.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28650
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by scrmbldggs » Thu Jun 23, 2016 3:01 pm

Barrie1 wrote:scrmbldggs writes: How do you (or Seth) explain that we are looking at and perceiving the exact same image of this page?

Barrie Responds: You may agree or disagree, but I will explain what you ask about. According to the Seth material, we each create the objects we see. Via ongoing telepathy, we agree what the objects should look like and where they should be located. So, if give people walk into a room with one chair and one TV in it--there are actually five chairs and five TVs--and each is like super-imposed on the other, giving the appearance of one TV and chair. We can actually only see the chair and TV we create--we can't see what another person creates. There are often slight differences but we don't usually notice--and pass it off as faulty or differing memories. It becomes more evident when police take a report of a crime. Then, the varying witness descriptions, etc, become very evident. Now, you may disagree with all of that and find no proof of it, etc. BUT that is the explanation and the answer to your question.
Evidence, please.

The discrepancies in witnessing are based on the individual('s) physiology, brain and awareness. Lets take the color red, which may look different to different people. In any case, the objects are the same, the perception (and inner reporting) are not.


Welcome to SSF, Barrie.



Edit: To add link to post.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Jun 24, 2016 2:40 am

Barrie1 wrote:Via ongoing telepathy.....
What is this "telepathy" you mention?

Can you describe exactly how it works and offer a hypothesis for its mechanism of interacting with the human brain?

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Barrie1 » Sun Jun 26, 2016 5:31 am

Telepathy, or ESP, according to a dictionary, is a “way of communicating thoughts directly from one mind to another without speech or signs.” That works pretty well for me.
..........

“The news that should have rocked the world, that eventually will completely upend the scientific world and cause a radical rethinking of theory in a variety of sciences ranging from physics to biology to psychology, arrived . . . on little cat feet. The announcement, as is typical of the scientific community, came out in December of 2010, with little fanfare in the form of an abstract of a scientific paper with an unwieldy title: Extrasensory Perception and Quantum Models of Cognition. It reads:

“Today, using modern experimental methods and meta‐analytical techniques, a persuasive case can be made that, neuroscience assumptions notwithstanding, ESP does exist. We justify this conclusion through discussion of one class of homogeneous experiments reported in 108 publications and conducted from 1974 through 2008 by laboratories around the world. Subsets of these data have been subjected to six meta‐analyses, and each shows significantly positive effects. The overall results now provide unambiguous evidence for an independently repeatable ESP effect. This indicates that traditional cognitive and neuroscience models, which are largely based on classical physical concepts, are incomplete.

“The experiment in question here is the ganzfeld, which is briefly described in the paper:

“In a typical ganzfeld telepathy experiment, a “receiver” is left in a room relaxing in a comfortable chair with halved ping-pong balls over the eyes, and with a red light shining on them. The receiver is asked to keep his/her eyes open, and to wear headphones through which white or pink noise is played. The receiver is exposed to this state of mild sensory homogenization for about a half hour. During this time a distant “sender” observes a randomly chosen target, usually a photograph or a short videoclip randomly drawn from a set of four possible targets (each as different from one another as possible), and he or she tries to mentally send this information to the receiver. During the ganzfeld stimulation period, the receiver verbally describes any impressions that come to mind. These “mentations” are recorded by the experimenter (who is also blind to the target) via an audio recording or by taking notes, or both.

“After the ganzfeld period ends, the receiver is taken out of the ganzfeld state and is presented with four photos or video clips, one of which was the target along with three decoys. The receiver is asked to choose which target best resembles the image sent by the distant sender. The evaluation of a trial is based on (a) selection of one image by the receiver, based on his/her assessment of the similarity between his/her subjective impressions and the various target possibilities, possibly enhanced by listening to his/her mentation recorded during the session, or (b) an independent judge’s assessment of similarity between the various targets and the participant’s mentation recorded during the session.

“The results are then collected in the form of ‘hit rates” over many trials, (i.e., the proportion of trials in which the target was correctly identified). Because four possible targets are typically used in these studies, the chance hit rate is normally 25%. After many repeated trials, hit rates that significantly exceed chance expectation are taken as evidence for nonlocal information transfer. Most of these experiments are now fully automated, eliminating the possibility of data recording errors.

“This paper bases its conclusion on six meta analyses. Honorton (1985); Bem & Honorton (1994); Milton & Wiseman (1999); Storm & Ertel (1999); Bem et al. (2001); Storm et al. (2010). Of particular interest is the paper by Milton & Wiseman. They are both skeptics and their paper originally was meant to show that the ganzfeld actually showed no effect. However, the paper had serious statistical errors, which, when corrected, yielded significant positive results. Make no mistake; including this meta analysis to support the existence of psi was the parapsychologists way of giving a big middle finger to the skeptics and Richard Wiseman in particular. (You can find my post about him here.)

“More than 50 authors have reported successful replications from laboratories across the USA, UK, Sweden, Argentina, Australia, and Italy, and the reported effects have been reliably repeatable for over 30 years. In addition, a team of avowedly skeptical researchers led by Delgado-Romero and Howard (2005) successfully repeated the ganzfeld experiment, and they obtained the same 32% hit rate estimated by the meta-analyses.

“This is the first paper I’ve seen where the researchers flat out say “it’s been proven.” Tressoldi, Storm and Radin are all senior psi researchers with a great deal of experience in the field and judging by previous literature, they do not take this statement lightly.” --Craig Weiler

https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/201 ... o-be-real/

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6151
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Flash » Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:45 am

Barrie1 wrote:
Telepathy, or ESP, according to a dictionary, is a “way of communicating thoughts directly from one mind to another without speech or signs.” That works pretty well for me.
tele-
combining form
1.
to or at a distance.
psycho- word-forming element meaning "mind, mental; spirit, unconscious," from Greek psykho-, combining form of psykhe (see psyche).
www.dictionary.com/browse/-pathy
word-forming element meaning "feeling, suffering, emotion; disorder, disease," from Latin -pathia, from Greek -patheia "act of suffering, feeling" (see pathos).
Putting it together;
tele - at distance, psycho -mental, pathy -disorder, disease

telepsychopathy or a mental disease at a distance synonym for posting crazy stuff via the internet. :nuts: QED.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5750
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by gorgeous » Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:31 pm

when out of body all communication is through telepathy, also used by aliens....it has been said we are all reading each other's minds on a subconscious level all the time....(collective unconscious)......------------------------seth---The Unknown Reality, Session 742, Notes 1:

“You are meant to judge physical reality. You are meant to realize that it is a materialization of your thoughts and feelings and images, that the inner self forms that world. In your terms, you cannot be allowed to go into other dimensions until you have learned the great power of your thoughts and subjective feelings.”
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5750
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by gorgeous » Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:32 pm

tele--at a distance....pathy....feeling..
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:02 am

Barrie1 wrote:Telepathy, or ESP, according to a dictionary........“The experiment in question here is the ganzfeld, which is briefly described in the paper
You really need to start updating your general knowledge.....

"However, there were enough problems with the original ganzfeld studies that Honorton and Hyman issued a joint communiqué in 1986 in which they detailed the kinds of safeguards that future experiments should take. Hyman writes: “In our joint paper, both Honorton and I agreed that there were sufficient problems with this original database that nothing could be concluded until further replications, conducted according to specified criteria, appeared.”
http://skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html

There is no such thing as ESP or telepathy. It doesn't even make sense as a concept.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Barrie1 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:05 am

Barrie Responds: The excerpt I gave already addressed these issues that you bring up:

“This paper bases its conclusion on six meta analyses. Honorton (1985); Bem & Honorton (1994); Milton & Wiseman (1999); Storm & Ertel (1999); Bem et al. (2001); Storm et al. (2010). Of particular interest is the paper by Milton & Wiseman. They are both skeptics and their paper originally was meant to show that the ganzfeld actually showed no effect. However, the paper had serious statistical errors, which, when corrected, yielded significant positive results. Make no mistake; including this meta analysis to support the existence of psi was the parapsychologists way of giving a big middle finger to the skeptics and Richard Wiseman in particular. (You can find my post about him here.)

“More than 50 authors have reported successful replications from laboratories across the USA, UK, Sweden, Argentina, Australia, and Italy, and the reported effects have been reliably repeatable for over 30 years. In addition, a team of avowedly skeptical researchers led by Delgado-Romero and Howard (2005) successfully repeated the ganzfeld experiment, and they obtained the same 32% hit rate estimated by the meta-analyses.

“This is the first paper I’ve seen where the researchers flat out say “it’s been proven.” Tressoldi, Storm and Radin are all senior psi researchers with a great deal of experience in the field and judging by previous literature, they do not take this statement lightly.” -- Craig Weiler

https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/201 ... o-be-real/

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28650
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by scrmbldggs » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:07 am

Plz read the posted http://skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html (2011)


Also, the links in this paragraph of the article you posted are dead (italics/emphasis mine):
https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/telepathy-has-been-scientifically-proven-to-be-real/ wrote:There is also another skeptical paper published in the Psychological Bulletin that attacks the conclusion of the Tressoldi, Storm and Radin paper titled A Bayes Factor Meta-Analysis of Recent Extrasensory Perception Experiments: Comment on Storm, Tressoldi, and Di Risio (2010) and of course, the obligatory rebuttal: Testing the Storm et al. (2010) Meta-Analysis Using Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches: Reply to Rouder et al. (2013). Basically the skeptical argument goes like this: IF you switch from standard to Bayesian statistics, AND IF you set the prior probability really low AND IF you omit a bunch of the the studies, (including the ones with the best results) well, see? There is no effect. The problem with this approach is that it requires too much manipulation of the data to be a useful evaluation. You could do this to any set of data and have a situation where no one ever proved anything.
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:27 am

Barrie1 wrote:The excerpt I gave already addressed these issues that you bring up:
That's right. The experiments were flawed and no one bothered to try them again. Telepathy doesn't exist.

Next question?

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Barrie1 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:49 am

Matt, I don't mean this to be insulting...but can you read?

“...They are both skeptics and their paper originally was meant to show that the ganzfeld actually showed no effect. However, the paper had serious statistical errors, which, when corrected, yielded significant positive results. Make no mistake; including this meta analysis to support the existence of psi was the parapsychologists way of giving a big middle finger to the skeptics and Richard Wiseman in particular...

“More than 50 authors have reported successful replications from laboratories across the USA, UK, Sweden, Argentina, Australia, and Italy, and the reported effects have been reliably repeatable for over 30 years. In addition, a team of avowedly skeptical researchers led by Delgado-Romero and Howard (2005) successfully repeated the ganzfeld experiment, and they obtained the same 32% hit rate estimated by the meta-analyses.

“This is the first paper I’ve seen where the researchers flat out say “it’s been proven.” Tressoldi, Storm and Radin are all senior psi researchers with a great deal of experience in the field and judging by previous literature, they do not take this statement lightly.” -- Craig Weiler

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28650
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by scrmbldggs » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:51 am

B1 wrote:...I don't mean this to be insulting...but can you read?...
:rotfl:
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:08 am

Barrie1 wrote:Matt, I don't mean this to be insulting...but can you read?
Yes

Your scientific telepathy paper was debunked some decades ago.

Do you have something more recent?
:lol:

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Barrie1 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:22 am

Flash wrote:Barrie1 wrote:
Telepathy, or ESP, according to a dictionary, is a “way of communicating thoughts directly from one mind to another without speech or signs.” That works pretty well for me.
tele-
combining form
1.
to or at a distance.
psycho- word-forming element meaning "mind, mental; spirit, unconscious," from Greek psykho-, combining form of psykhe (see psyche).
www.dictionary.com/browse/-pathy
word-forming element meaning "feeling, suffering, emotion; disorder, disease," from Latin -pathia, from Greek -patheia "act of suffering, feeling" (see pathos).
Putting it together;
tele - at distance, psycho -mental, pathy -disorder, disease

telepsychopathy or a mental disease at a distance synonym for posting crazy stuff via the internet. :nuts: QED.
Hi Flash,

Here are some flashes for you--if the flash fits...

neo = anything new
phob = dread or fear
ia = Disease; pathological or abnormal condition
putting it together:
neophobia = Pathological fear of anything new


gnosio = wisdom, knowledge
phob = dread or fear
ia = Disease; pathological or abnormal condition
putting it together:
Gnosiophobia = Pathological fear of wisdom and knowledge


Pneumati = spirits or incorporeal beings
phob = dread or fear
ia = Disease; pathological or abnormal condition
putting it together:
Pneumatiphobia = Pathological fear of spirits and incorporeal beings

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:31 am

Barrie?

Can you explain how telepathy works faster than the speed of light, as required by your "Seth" mythology?
:lol:

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Barrie1 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:34 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:Matt, I don't mean this to be insulting...but can you read?
Yes

Your scientific telepathy paper was debunked some decades ago.

Do you have something more recent?
:lol:
Matt, I'm worried about you...can you read?

From the article:

“More than 50 authors have reported successful replications from laboratories across the USA, UK, Sweden, Argentina, Australia, and Italy, and the reported effects have been reliably repeatable for over 30 years. In addition, a team of avowedly skeptical researchers led by Delgado-Romero and Howard (2005) successfully repeated the ganzfeld experiment, and they obtained the same 32% hit rate estimated by the meta-analyses.

“This is the first paper I’ve seen where the researchers flat out say “it’s been proven.” Tressoldi, Storm and Radin are all senior psi researchers with a great deal of experience in the field and judging by previous literature, they do not take this statement lightly.”

Barrie NOW Comments to Help: In 2005, there was a study by "avowedly skeptical researchers" that "repeated the ganzfeld experiment" with the same 32% hit rate" ... "it's been proven."

Skeptical researchers led by Delgado-Romero and Howard (2005).

As far as I know, and I know that this is not a math site, that a 2005 study is not decades ago--nor did it disprove the study--but proved it.

And "more than 50 authors have reported successful replications from laboratories across the USA, UK, Sweden, Argentina, Australia, and Italy, and the reported effects have been reliably repeatable for over 30 years."

I think "reliably repeatable for over 30 years" means proven, not disproven...even on your version of this board.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Barrie1 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:40 am

scrmbldggs wrote:Plz read the posted http://skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html (2011)


Also, the links in this paragraph of the article you posted are dead (italics/emphasis mine):
https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/telepathy-has-been-scientifically-proven-to-be-real/ wrote:There is also another skeptical paper published in the Psychological Bulletin that attacks the conclusion of the Tressoldi, Storm and Radin paper titled A Bayes Factor Meta-Analysis of Recent Extrasensory Perception Experiments: Comment on Storm, Tressoldi, and Di Risio (2010) and of course, the obligatory rebuttal: Testing the Storm et al. (2010) Meta-Analysis Using Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches: Reply to Rouder et al. (2013). Basically the skeptical argument goes like this: IF you switch from standard to Bayesian statistics, AND IF you set the prior probability really low AND IF you omit a bunch of the the studies, (including the ones with the best results) well, see? There is no effect. The problem with this approach is that it requires too much manipulation of the data to be a useful evaluation. You could do this to any set of data and have a situation where no one ever proved anything.
Barrie Responds: We can have dueling articles all night long...accept whatever articles you wish. I am not trying to prove anything to you...I had in a fit of silliness I suppose...tried to respond to Matt. IF you don't believe ESP or telepathy exists--that is fine with me. I disagree with you. I can point to books and examples that your belief system can't accept. I accept that, too. All you really need to know in regard to the Seth material, is that it accepts telepathy as real and it offers its explanations of how and/or why it is real. These explanations may not fit what you find acceptable as explanations--but if you want to know about what is actually in the Seth material--I can be of help. IF you just want to go on imagining what is in the Seth material--you don't need my help for that.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:41 am

Barrie1 wrote:Matt, I'm worried about you...can you read?


“More than 50 authors have reported successful replications from laboratories across the USA, UK, Sweden, Argentina, Australia, and Italy, and the reported effects have been reliably repeatable for over 30 years. '
Where are these papers?
Barrie1 wrote:In addition, a team of avowedly skeptical researchers led by Delgado-Romero and Howard (2005) successfully repeated the ganzfeld experiment, and they obtained the same 32% hit rate estimated by the meta-analyses.
Try reading the actual paper. It doesn't say what you claim at all.

Finding and Correcting Flawed Research Literatures
http://deanradin.com/evidence/Delgado2005.pdf

Barrie, I'm worried about you. Can you read? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:44 am

Vultures.jpg
Barrie1 wrote:Well, here I am, folks. IF you want to investigate the paranormal or extraordinary claims--
What is the scientific physical system that allows Seth to communicate with Jane at faster than light speeds?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Barrie1 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:50 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Barrie?

Can you explain how telepathy works faster than the speed of light, as required by your "Seth" mythology?
:lol:
Barrie Responds: Yes, I can explain it--from the perspective of the Seth material. When it comes to these types of inner communications--linear time falls by the wayside. There is what Seth would call the spacious present which is a realm or inner area or plane of simultaneous time--in which events occur outside the physical scope of linear time. So, people can communicate "instantly" because these communications occur outside of linear time. This absence of linear time is being discovered, too, in the quantum realm. I believe there is a connection between the quantum realm and what is today considered the metaphysical realm...sort of an impending marriage between physics and metaphysics.

I've never studied physics--but I'd like to make a case that unites physics & metaphysics. I think that the following quote by Dr. Carlo Rovelli should frame all such discussions--and should be the foundation upon which all such discussions are built:

Dr. Carlo Rovelli (who works on spin nets at the University of Pittsburgh) has said: "If we believe what we really have discovered about the world with quantum mechanics and general relativity, then the stage fiction has to be abandoned and we have to learn to do physics and to think about the world in a profoundly new way. Our notions of what are space and time are completely altered. In fact, in a sense, we have to learn to think without them."

Seth (Session 752; July 28, 1975): “The sciences still keep secrets from each other. The physical sciences pretend that the centuries exist one after the other, while the physicists realize that time is not only relative to the perceiver, but that all events are simultaneous. The archeologists merrily continue to date the remains of "past" civilizations, never asking themselves what the past means - or saying: ‘This is the past relative (underlined) to my point of perspective.’"

THE CONCEPT OF SIMULTANEOUS TIME: This relates to Dr. Wheeler's concept of quantum foam. He writes in his 1998 memoir: "So great would be the fluctuations that there would literally be no left and right, no before and no after. Ordinary ideas of length would disappear. Ordinary ideas of time would evaporate."

Once "ordinary ideas of time" evaporate---we are left with simultaneous time, or nonlinear time. And if time is simultaneous, then the whole concept of stages must be re-thought because stages imply a building upon something that was previous. And with no linear time, there is actually no "previous." And this includes the “sacred” Big Bang Theory of the creation of the universe—which is based on linear time—even though, in theory, the Bang itself would have created linear time.

Therefore, the whole concept of cause-&-effect must be rethought because even this process intrinsically involves time as linear. Therefore, beyond linear time there must be another form and method of creation.

Linear time is our method of physically perceiving events. I suggest that the true nature of reality behind physical events do not involve linear time.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Barrie1 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:17 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Vultures.jpg
Barrie1 wrote:Well, here I am, folks. IF you want to investigate the paranormal or extraordinary claims--
What is the scientific physical system that allows Seth to communicate with Jane at faster than light speeds?
Barrie Responds: Matt, you keep conflating different concepts and putting them together more like Dr. Frankenstein creating his monster than a person putting together a puzzle.

We all communicate with each other telepathically faster than the speed of light. This is not related specifically to Seth communicating with Jane. We each put our thoughts together to make up our sentences faster than the speed of light. Do you consciously think of which word should follow the next when you are involved in a discussion or whatever. No. You have an idea or thought of what you want to say--and the word choice is automatically made and the words flow out--this ordering of the words occurs faster than the speed of light...which may be called the speed of thought, if you will.

When it comes to telepathy, it happens outside of linear time and physical space. Thus, people in various locations can "meet" outside of linear time and space--and have an experience together, and then go back to precise physical time and place they met. It may be said that they are in two places at the same time. And this would happen all the time--part of the normal process of our daily interactions. We seem to be "here" all the time--but that is only according to our five senses--and the instruments we create with our five senses and based on our five senses.

This concept of being in two places as the same time,, too, has been discovered by quantum physicists in the quantum realms.

“Congratulations to Drs. S. Haroche and D. Wineland for winning the Nobel Prize in Physics.. These two physicists got the Prize for doing experiments once thought to be impossible, i.e. studying single atoms and single photons (particles of light).

“They proved the correctness of the bizarre properties of quantum mechanics, i.e. that electrons can be two places at the same time...The idea that you can be in many places at the same time can be proven indirectly, by looking at the properties of many atoms, but testing it on single atoms and single photons was beyond reach. Until now...

“This also has philosophical implications. Many physicists now lean toward the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. So if the electron can be in two places at the same time, it means that the universe has split into two universes.

“So quantum mechanics naturally predicts a multiverse of universes, no matter how strange or bizarre.”
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/n ... physicists

Barrie Comments: This has to do with the blinking or flickering nature of reality that quantum physics is also proving or showing as with virtual particles.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Barrie1 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:23 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:Matt, I'm worried about you...can you read?


“More than 50 authors have reported successful replications from laboratories across the USA, UK, Sweden, Argentina, Australia, and Italy, and the reported effects have been reliably repeatable for over 30 years. '
Where are these papers?
Barrie1 wrote:In addition, a team of avowedly skeptical researchers led by Delgado-Romero and Howard (2005) successfully repeated the ganzfeld experiment, and they obtained the same 32% hit rate estimated by the meta-analyses.
Try reading the actual paper. It doesn't say what you claim at all.

Finding and Correcting Flawed Research Literatures
http://deanradin.com/evidence/Delgado2005.pdf

Barrie, I'm worried about you. Can you read? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Matt, You have my permission to believe as you wish and accept the articles you accept and reject those that you reject. I have tried to entertain your desire for me to prove things to you in your language. I have a psychological understanding which tells me that people will never accept that which that can't believe exists. The idea goes, "It can't be, therefore it isn't."

This is why I have repeatedly said that I have no desire to try to convince you of anything. I am just trying to explain misconceptions about the Seth material.

You have the right to believe whatever articles you want, and minimize others...as I have that right, as well. I don't expect you to be me or to think like me. I accept our differences when it comes to our beliefs about the nature of reality. I will discuss those differences if you wish.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:24 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Barrie? Can you explain how telepathy works faster than the speed of light, as required by your "Seth" mythology? :lol:
Barrie1 wrote: Yes, I can explain it--from the perspective of the Seth material. When it comes to these types of inner communications--linear time falls by the wayside........
This is complete religious crap from your cult's own fantasy framework.

1) What exact particle or wave form is communicating faster than the speed of light?

2) How does hit magical particle then react with normal physical particles and form a reincarnated soul in another living thing's brain?
Barrie1 wrote:I've never studied physics
That's obvious. What have you studied?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 27, 2016 6:28 am

Finding and Correcting Flawed Research Literatures
http://deanradin.com/evidence/Delgado2005.pdf
Barrie1 wrote: Matt, You have my permission to believe as you wish and accept the articles you accept and reject those that you reject.
You directly lied about the contents of this paper you cited, and then asked if "I could read" when in fact I read the paper and you didn't. :lol:

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Barrie1 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:07 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Finding and Correcting Flawed Research Literatures
http://deanradin.com/evidence/Delgado2005.pdf
Barrie1 wrote: Matt, You have my permission to believe as you wish and accept the articles you accept and reject those that you reject.
You directly lied about the contents of this paper you cited, and then asked if "I could read" when in fact I read the paper and you didn't. :lol:
Barrie Responds: I did not lie about anything. Haven't you got something better to do on a skeptic board whose mission is to investigate and understand things--than to be such a name-caller? Why not have some respect for skeptics instead of painting them as a bunch of mental thugs who don't know or care how to listen and engage in discussion?

I've tried to answer your questions despite the barrage of detractions and distractions you hurl. You act as if you are being chased in a cartoon--when the guy being chased starts throwing all these things out the back of his car to put obstacles in the way of the person chasing him. In this case, I am chasing you by trying to take your questions seriously--and you keep throwing up obstacles instead of using your intelligence to engage in an open and friendly discussion in line with the mission of this board.

Have you any questions about the Seth material?

How do you know consciousness ends at death? You never answered my follow up question? How do know which came first, consciousness or physical reality? Is time linear or simultaneous? What is your expanation concerning why you believe telepathy doesn't exist?

What about the issue of money? You keep conflating someone making a living with someone only doing something for the money in order to rip people off. I have given you examples about how Jane was not like that. I've asked you what of a scientist who gets paid writing a book? What about if anyone paid you to lecture about how Seth is a fake? Would the scientist and you both be fakes because you received pay for your work?

These are just SOME of the MANY questions and issues you have avoided--while projecting onto me that I am dodging questions. You seem to live in Dodge City when it comes to having a full back-and-forth discussion.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Post by Barrie1 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 8:27 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Barrie? Can you explain how telepathy works faster than the speed of light, as required by your "Seth" mythology? :lol:
Barrie1 wrote: Yes, I can explain it--from the perspective of the Seth material. When it comes to these types of inner communications--linear time falls by the wayside........
This is complete religious crap from your cult's own fantasy framework.

1) What exact particle or wave form is communicating faster than the speed of light?

2) How does hit magical particle then react with normal physical particles and form a reincarnated soul in another living thing's brain?
Barrie1 wrote:I've never studied physics
That's obvious. What have you studied?
Barrie Responds: If it is "complete religious crap" then why do you pretend sincere interest to ask further questions? What is your actual agenda in this discussion? To understand the Seth material or to just insult--and use your questions as fodder and fuel to ignite your insults? By the way, you ignore so much of what I write, it becomes a waste of my time to try to engage you. It is like throwing words and ideas into an abyss that somehow manages to create a dim echo--and the echo which filters out from your darkness--is insults. Take a deep breath--and respond to some of my questions before you continue this game of yours.

You know, maybe you should read Seth Speaks before you actually ask questions. Or ask questions as you go along, and I will answer them the best i can.

Do skeptics believe in being knowledgeable about what they put down? Is it acceptable for a skeptic to ask a question, receive an answer, and then actually have a discussion--or are one-line put downs the way to go--and then move ahead?

I've answered a lot of your questions--many more than you have answered mine. Your responses are not pleasant on purpose and not much fun. You like to play games and pretend you are not playing games. This is not being very authentic, as I see it.

To sum up what I mean, I take the time and effort to sincerely respond to your questions--and you come back with "this is complete religious crap." Well, fine, THEN let's take it from there: Specifically what is "complete religious crap" and specifically why? And how would you specifically define "religious crap?"

This is what is called having a discussion: Matt asks a question. Barrie answers it. Matt responds (religious crap) and Barrie follows up. Let's first explore your comments--before you just heap more questions that I will take the time to answer--just to receive more thoughtless one-liners meant to further no understanding at all.

So then, Specifically, what is "complete religious crap" and specifically explain why? And how do you specifically define "religious crap?"