my ignorance

[mkrnhr]

Hello AaronAgassi,

Do you even understand what you write? I do not, so I waited to understand from other members' responses. However, it seems nobody understands the words you put together to write what I suppose to be sentences.

Keep in mind that you're not talking to your computer, you are communicating with real people out there, who do not always have the time to decipher your ramblings.

So, in order to communicate, try to be articulate, and make your writing intelligible.

 

[obyvatel]

Again, what is the problematic question?

It is spelt out in the links provided to you earlier

What is the hypothesis that comes in answer thereto and how so?

The working hypothesis about the current state of the world formed out of the cassiopaean experiment and associated research. So the "answer" would be the material covered in Laura's books, articles, forum discussions etc and is a work in progress.

If you are asking about what hypothesis led to the channeling experiment, I would guess that it was to test the possibility of meaningful communication with higher worlds.

How is said hypothesis being tested and what would be the conditions of refutation? What are the experimental controls?

Research and analysis of data from various fields of human knowledge constantly tests, and modifies the working hypothesis about the current state of the world formed out of the cassiopaean experiment. Any authentic new data that is uncovered and does not fit into the current working hypothesis leads to a change/expansion in the working hypothesis to accommodate reality. That could be treated as condition for refutation. The scope of such a hypothesis goes far beyond the normally practiced "double blind type experimental and control groups".

If your question pertains specifically to the channeling part, then the hypothesis of "possibility of meaningful communication with higher worlds" is tested via channeling with a board type instrument. Choice of the instrument (rather than trance channeling or automatic writing or other methods) serves as one of the important components of the experimental control. Another important component is to not accept the information that comes through the board as the absolute truth but subject the information to rigorous research and analysis. An associated factor is to work on the self to keep personal biases and prejudice out of the picture to maintain the fidelity of the channel and quality of the communication.

I am not sure that I really understood your questions and if this is what you are looking for though.

 

[AaronAgassi]

"What is it to be truly human?" Surely that is, if not mere semantics, then Axiology, value judgment, better stated: What is important rather than incidental to the human condition?

"Why is the world in the state it is? Why is there evil?"

That is a very broad question because there is complicated history and many contributing causes that may each be viewed differently from different perspectives.

"Is our way of life the best one possible?"

Again, value judgment and priorities enter.

"What is the reality of higher worlds?"

Surely you cannot forget first to ask: Are there other worlds? As to higher, lower or equal, surely that is once again, value judgment, unless the usage is esoteric and unfamiliar to me.

"And most importantly, what can be done to better ourselves and humanity?"

Again, many things.

It strikes me that first of all, the question ought to be: Are there these other worlds, as however specified or defined? How then, are they defined? Again, what is the hypothesis? What are the conditions of refutation? How does the hypothesis stand up against known existing competing explanatory hypotheses? What are the experimental controls? But even all of this might be jumping the gun: Again, what is the question? If there is anything that the existence of these other worlds would better explain? What is the problem or question that is answered thereby?

First there must be a distinct problematic observation, and only then comes an explanatory hypothesis. For example: Why are stars differently colored? Answer: because stars are of varying elemental composition, and different elements heated radiate at different wavelengths. As things stand, these other worlds of yours that as yet remain vaguely defined, seem, to begin with, like an answer is search of a question. That is what I do not understand. That is why I ask: What is the question?

 

[John G]

It strikes me that first of all, the question ought to be: Are there these other worlds, as however specified or defined? How then, are they defined? Again, what is the hypothesis? What are the conditions of refutation? How does the hypothesis stand up against known existing competing explanatory hypotheses? What are the experimental controls? But even all of this might be jumping the gun: Again, what is the question? If there is anything that the existence of these other worlds would better explain? What is the problem or question that is answered thereby?

First there must be a distinct problematic observation, and only then comes an explanatory hypothesis. For example: Why are stars differently colored? Answer: because stars are of varying elemental composition, and different elements heated radiate at different wavelengths. As things stand, these other worlds of yours that as yet remain vaguely defined, seem, to begin with, like an answer is search of a question. That is what I do not understand. That is why I ask: What is the question?

So you are asking what are the physics theories for channeling and the realm(s) being channeled? Well perhaps a place to begin is here (there are certainly detailed papers too in addition to this article if you are interested):

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/221694-Feeling-the-Future-Premonitions-and-Precognition-Elements-of-Practice-and-of-a-Theory

 

[HiThere]

First there must be a distinct problematic observation, and only then comes an explanatory hypothesis. For example: Why are stars differently colored? Answer: because stars are of varying elemental composition, and different elements heated radiate at different wavelengths. As things stand, these other worlds of yours that as yet remain vaguely defined, seem, to begin with, like an answer is search of a question. That is what I do not understand. That is why I ask: What is the question?

"The question" is per definition not possible to formulate as a zero hypothesis to be used as a basis for a clinical experiment, because our senses and our minds can't be trusted to supply reliable information about our reality. Einstein, Heisenberg and others formulated why this is so with mathematical theory, and it has since then permeated our culture - it is probable that this is why you bother to post here.

We cannot have irrefutable proof of the underlying conditions for our existence, but for some it is meaningful to try to understand more anyway.
This goes beyond what randomized controlled double blinded studies can tell us about our reality, and in my opinion there is nothing to gain from trying to apply a mechanistic, statistically oriented method to these questions.
If you understand why, then you will be curious enough to keep searching for answers outside of the Newtonian universe - if you don't, you don't.

 

[anart]

This might be helpful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3gnV09j3Vc

 

[liffy]

Aaron, it seems like you are looking for a single hypothesis for the Cassiopaean experiment. The experiment is more of a way of acquiring assistance on any given hypothesis or problem that could use a push in a right direction. There is no irrefutable proof that Laura is accessing higher forms of intelligence, but there are a lot of things that has been said in this exchange that later has been shown to be correct.

 

[AaronAgassi]

Only where channeling ever established, only then would there be much need of a physical explanation of channeling, beyond speculation for its own sake. No Bluelamp, I only took an example from Astrophysics for purposes of illustration. What I am ask is: What is that question to which the answer begins something like: "That can best be explained by the existence of those other worlds and their properties...

As for irrefutable proof, proof exists only in logic, and of validity meaning internal consistency of propositions. Whereas, science deal in Empirical evidence of external reality. I have said nothing of statistics, particularly. But yes, I am inquiring as to Scientific Method.

And liffy. If there have been predictions then later borne out, then that would suggest that there are questions that the predictions answer and perhaps even conditions of refutation.

 

[thevenusian]

Hi Aaron,

You seem to be rather stuck on wishing to argue about the validity of channeling, with an implied reasoning that if it cannot be validated using the scientific method it must therefore be invalid. This point of argument has very little to do with what goes on in this forum, and may never be resolved to your satisfaction. It is an open experiment, and is just one small part of the thinking, discussion and research going on here. You can take it or leave it- the essence of discussion here does not depend upon it. If you are just interested in nit-picking and arguing, you are in the wrong place.

It would probably be most helpful, if you are sincere about the questions you are asking, for you to do some investigation and reading to familiarize yourself with what this forum is about. There are many theoretical frameworks available from a variety of sources for considering 'these other worlds', and a wealth of information, links and references found throughout the forum.

One place to start, since it specifically addresses the Cassiopaean experiment, might be The Wave.

 

[obyvatel]

"What is it to be truly human?" Surely that is, if not mere semantics, then Axiology, value judgment, better stated: What is important rather than incidental to the human condition?

The essence of the question remains the same regardless of the wordplay.

"Why is the world in the state it is? Why is there evil?"

That is a very broad question because there is complicated history and many contributing causes that may each be viewed differently from different perspectives.

History as well as other diverse branches of knowledge, including but not limited to, psychology, mythology, neuroscience, archaeology, "paranormal" phenomena - are investigated to study the question from different perspectives.

"Is our way of life the best one possible?"

Again, value judgment and priorities enter.

Such value judgments and priorities are an intrinsic and useful part of human life. So what, if any, is the problem with that?

"What is the reality of higher worlds?"

Surely you cannot forget first to ask: Are there other worlds? As to higher, lower or equal, surely that is once again, value judgment, unless the usage is esoteric and unfamiliar to me.

Off course, that is elementary to look into the possibility of the existence of other worlds first. Mature spiritual traditions acknowledge such existence; the current state of the art knowledge available in mainstream physics and mathematics does not refute such possibilities either. The researchers involved with the channeling experiment did years (decades and more ) of work studying what is the state of the art knowledge in these fields before embarking on the experiment.

"And most importantly, what can be done to better ourselves and humanity?"

Again, many things.

The approach here is to study and research the "many things" and reduce them down to "a few" through application of research into daily life. This forum is not for armchair pontification - or for intellectual nitpicking but a school where like minded people get together to share observations and research - all geared towards a better understanding of the world and the condition that humanity finds itself in at this present point of time in history.

It strikes me that first of all, the question ought to be: Are there these other worlds, as however specified or defined? How then, are they defined? Again, what is the hypothesis? What are the conditions of refutation? How does the hypothesis stand up against known existing competing explanatory hypotheses? What are the experimental controls? But even all of this might be jumping the gun: Again, what is the question? If there is anything that the existence of these other worlds would better explain? What is the problem or question that is answered thereby?

You have now repeated the same lines quite a few times despite people telling you that it is not really making sense to them. Please read the forum guidelines to check whether you are interested in what this forum does. If there is interest, go do some study of the recommended material suggested to all forum members. Then there can be some meaningful discussion. Otherwise it is a waste of time and energy for both parties. Idle debate and nitpicking is not what we do here.

 

[Gonzo]

Let me first start of with the caveat that I have no formal training in the scientific method, but do have some basic understandings. So, I might not use the appropriate terminology and might even be over my head.

It seems you are coming to the forum with some specific assumptions, perhaps based around the terms "science" and "experiment". Furthermore, it seems you assume we know what assumptions you have made. This makes discourse prone to misunderstandings and put those who are trying to answer you in a position of guessing not only the substance of you inquiries but also the intent behind them.

If you are thinking this "experiment" is pure science, following the protocols of scientific method, I'm afraid you will be disappointed, OSIT.

It might be beneficial to note that, since this is a forum with participants with various levels of experience on this forum and knowledge of the fields of study involved in subjects handled on this forum, filtered through their subjective interpretations, you might find a variety of answers to your questions. Those closest to the processes, especially those who conceived and executed them would probably be able to give you the most accurate information regarding specifics of original intention, hypotheses and mitigations.

However, much of this information is documented in publications like "The Cassiopaean Experiment" (http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/index.html) and "The Wave" series (http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/waveindex.htm). If you read them, you will end up with the same basic knowledge that most participants of this forum have regarding the history behind and context surrounding the use of the board as a communications instrument (including why it was chosen as the method most likely to provide as objective a result as possible with the least amount of potential for personal and external manipulation), the responses received on it and the research that resulted from lines of inquiry resulting from certain responses.

If you are seriously interested in understanding what has been and continues to be experienced and why, then I would suggest you change your approach, since your current one will only result in frustration and will not give you what you seek.

If, however, you just came here to say "aha, I caught you claiming to be running a scientific experiment and have found several flaws in your logic" followed with accusations of being charlatans, then, not only would that be rude and ignorant, but it would make you out to seem rather foolish, since nowhere is it claimed that these experiences I channeling are following the scientific method. However, I do believe the selection of the board instruments, the process of working through personal ego influence and the purposeful use of specific protocols in the forumulation of questions occur withing an awareness of the scientific method insofar as to address as much of the intention or spirit behind pure science protocols as is possible and practical.

In fact, I think I'm safe to say that the approach taken is the most scientific I've ever encountered.

Finally, it's important to recognize that the responses afforded through the channeling sessions are not consumed as truths. Rather, they become seeds for hypotheses, for which great effort is applied to further evolve these resulting hypotheses to their natural end, where they are continuously refined. These working hypotheses are contributed through networked research, so that the more heads that research and contribute and the more eyes that critique result in the strongest theories.

Although this forum deals with a considerable amount of esoteric information, it also works deeply in the more concrete areas of biology, psychology, physics (incl. quantum, astro, or at least I think, since it's way beyond my scope of knowlede), cryptozoology, mathematics, to name a few off the top of my head. So, while the initial communications method might seem unconventional or even suspect to some, the resulting and requisite research should be much more familiar and more acceptable to anyone from within institutionalized science (not that they have much right to arrogance, considering the shameful amount of erroneous and fraudulent research that makes its way through peer review processes of late).

So, perhaps if you could back up and, instead of working from assumptions that may be faulty, perhaps you could start with something like, "where could I learn more about this experiment in channeling that I encountered on your front page?" Or "I see that you are running some form of experiment in channeling. Is this an experiment in the scientific sense (scientific method, standardized protocols?".

You might get more precise responses. That is, if that's what you're looking for.

Gonzo

 

[SeekinTruth]

Well, my understanding for why it is valid to call the Cassiopaean Transmissions an "experiment" is because what comes through the "spirit board" is not taken at face value and a skeptical but open mind is maintained. Then, the information that came through is researched using all the known resources available to be verified, and that sometimes takes many years.

What is the question? For me, I'd like to know what is consciousness? In the context of a cosmology, the levels of "Density" explains for me our world better than, e.g. "Big Bang" materialism -- "In the beginning, there was nothing, and then it exploded...." :P Everything followed mechanically, and by accident, eventually life forms came about on one planet among innumerable star systems and planets. What is the probability of this happening in this way? Why is this the most widely accepted explanation of how the Universe and life came about? THAT is a good question, as well.

 

[AaronAgassi]

venusian, regardless of any personal feelings on my own part that you care to read in, I promise you that my questions remain sincerely my only interest at all in the matter. Indeed, as to the philosophical questions intrinsically, I honestly don't see what channeling, one way or another, would make.

obyvatel, you say that science has not refuted channeling. But science is the competition among viable hypotheses. And I am as yet aware of no viable hypothesis of channeling to begin with. But then, I still don't know what yours is. So I cannot assay the viability thereof against any other known competing hypotheses. I still don't even know what question or problem demands explanatory resolution by whatever known competing viable hypotheses.

You complain that my standing questions don't make sense to any of you. But they are only the standard questions intrinsic to all science. So if they don't make sense to you, then you so not understand what is science. Without exactly that line of questioning, there is no science, no effective Empirical investigation of reality. Without the answers to my fundamental questions, nothing that you offer makes any intelligible sense to me.

For indeed Gonzo, such are my assumptions whereof you have inquired. And you can admix any scientific knowledge in any number of ways, and that makes no difference, because, nevertheless, what is intrinsic to science remains the process not the output, because the conclusions are not known in advance. The only question, then, remains, Epistemologically, as to the efficacious validity of the practice of science. Are you practicing or rejecting science?

There is any range of trial and error, but without standards of refutation, how would one know? Yes, there is experiment other than scientific, and therefore without protocols. For example, there is adolescent experimentation with sexual identity, or esthetic experiment in the arts. Is any of that what you allude to? Otherwise, given any investigation of objective reality, my questions stand.

SeekinTruth, how can there by open mindedness without standards of evidence and conditions of refutation? That seems somewhat like an unlocked door for a quadriplegic! And how can there be skepticism without standards of evidence and conditions of refutation? That seems somewhat like unto a stop sign written in brail!

"What is consciousness?" is certainly a plain question, and one still defying answer since time immemorial. So, how does channeling answer that question? How is it even relevant?

I am unfamiliar with levels of density. As for your question regarding likelihood, I refer you to: _http://www.FoolQuest.com/atheism#chaos [link deactivated by moderator]

 

[SeekinTruth]

SeekinTruth, how can there by open mindedness without standards of evidence and conditions of refutation? That seems somewhat like an unlocked door for a quadriplegic! And how can there be skepticism without standards of evidence and conditions of refutation? That seems somewhat like unto a stop sign written in brail!

"What is consciousness?" is certainly a plain question, and one still defying answer since time immemorial. So, how does channeling answer that question? How is it even relevant?

I am unfamiliar with levels of density. As for your question regarding likelihood, I refer you to: http://www.FoolQuest.com/atheism#chaos

Just where are the "standards of evidence" for mainstream science? Mainstream science has become the very opposite of open mindedness. My skepticism about materialistic Darwinism and Big Bang mythology asks where is the standards of evidence and conditions of refutation for these? In fact they seem to me to be just another linear, materialistic type of dogma like "God" created the world in 7 days, blah, blah, blah. Must be taken on "faith," shouldn't question the dogma or risk being "excommunicated."

 

[Tigersoap]

I am unfamiliar with levels of density. As for your question regarding likelihood, I refer you to: http://www.FoolQuest.com/atheism#chaos

I think that the "Page not found" is highly symbolic of the exchange getting place in here :D