[CliveG]

Okay BC. You think you have all the answers. Explain terminal lucidity.

I experienced this with my father a few days before he died at age 95 in a hospice facility. He had dementia and most of the time he was not even aware of who I was. He would tell me about his oldest son (me) and ask me who I was.

Yet he had 15 minutes of absolute clarity. He told me that my present wife (who went to the car to get something) was a lovely women and I had finally made a great choice. Treat her right and do not lose her. It was my last moments with him. Explain to me how a damaged brain can have such clarity? Is this not a hint that there might be more to life than just machine following the principles of laws of physics?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51497433_Terminal_lucidity_A_review_and_a_case_collection

[Bored chemist]

Okay BC. You think you have all the answers. Explain terminal lucidity.

I experienced this with my father a few days before he died at age 95 in a hospice facility. He had dementia and most of the time he was not even aware of who I was. He would tell me about his oldest son (me) and ask me who I was.

Yet he had 15 minutes of absolute clarity. He told me that my present wife (who went to the car to get something) was a lovely women and I had finally made a great choice. Treat her right and do not lose her. It was my last moments with him. Explain to me how a damaged brain can have such clarity? Is this not a hint that there might be more to life than just machine following the principles of laws of physics?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51497433_Terminal_lucidity_A_review_and_a_case_collection

What's to explain?
He got something right- possibly by accident, and you remember it because of the context.

[Bored chemist]

Do you have a better explanation?

Yes, you just quoted it.

the cause in these cases to be the nocebo effect."

[CliveG]

Okay BC. You think you have all the answers. Explain terminal lucidity.

I experienced this with my father a few days before he died at age 95 in a hospice facility. He had dementia and most of the time he was not even aware of who I was. He would tell me about his oldest son (me) and ask me who I was.

Yet he had 15 minutes of absolute clarity. He told me that my present wife (who went to the car to get something) was a lovely women and I had finally made a great choice. Treat her right and do not lose her. It was my last moments with him. Explain to me how a damaged brain can have such clarity? Is this not a hint that there might be more to life than just machine following the principles of laws of physics?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51497433_Terminal_lucidity_A_review_and_a_case_collection

What's to explain?
He got something right- possibly by accident, and you remember it because of the context.

You have just validated a concept I have been trying to explain to you. The concept of experiencing something. Reading about something is one thing, but experiencing it is another.

You just cannot grasp the clarity of 15 minutes in which a person returned to a mental state that existed prior to their dementia. He recognized me, he recognized my wife and he waited until she left to tell me his opinion of her. The whole interaction was remarkable. I am just giving you the key part of my recollection.

You also cannot grasp the many unusual experiences I have had that give me an insight into what the Ultimate Truth probably is. And this is where science fails. No citations are possible - you should judge my insights the same way you would judge the information of a witness to a crime. There may be details that are incorrect but the key points usually have some merit despite the occasional exceptions.

Where is the science to explain the phenomenon of consciousness? It is not for nothing that it is known as the "hard problem".

[CliveG]

Do you have a better explanation?

Yes, you just quoted it.

the cause in these cases to be the nocebo effect."

What an strange tactic on your part. I quote you and you have a link and you then extract from that link to say I quoted something. Something I disagree with.

Once more I must quote my own experience. The various "studies" can be easily criticized. My own experience tells me that the effects are slow. Testing people by subjecting them to 15 minutes of radiation is unlikely to produce an effect. They probably used cell phones rather than real towers. Or they used non-pulsed microwaves.

I also think that a fairly high proportion of self-identified EHS people are likely to have latched onto the condition to explain some of their issues. When I talk to some people who complain about EHS I get vague answers. That is always a tell-tale sign that they are not sure. In my case, I gave you specifics and a time line. And I am still learning.

The industry has a very powerful motivation to produce studies that fail. Repeating such studies does not multiply the lack of effect. Zero times fifty is still zero.

But let me not convince you. The population must be reduced and if we scare people away from cell phones then it will not happen. Right?

[Bored chemist]

You asked if I had a better explanation for your observation.
I pointed out that, not only did I have a better explanation, but I had already said what it was and you knew that I had a better explanation- because you had quoted it.

You also cannot grasp the many unusual experiences I have had that give me an insight into what the Ultimate Truth probably is. And this is where science fails

No
Writing off unrepeatable woo is where science succeeds.
Anyone can claim to have a hotline to the "ultimate truth".
It's science which shows that they don't.

When I talk to some people who complain about EHS I get vague answers.

And that's one important diagnostic factor for saying that an effect is psychosomatic.

But let me not convince you.

I'm happy to let you convince me.
You just need to provide evidence (rather than hogwash).

It's your move...

[Bored chemist]

Zero times fifty is still zero.

So, you now accept that the incidence is zero.
That's good.

[CliveG]

BC - Once more... Sigh!

Today I have my nose operation. Do not know when I will next respond.

Just a question. How can you be so certain that I do not have an insight into the Ultimate Truth? I say insight and not a hot-line. Anyone who claims to "sit on God's knee and have a chat like a regular person" is a fraud. There are plenty of them.

[alancalverd]

How would you prove that it is Ultimate? or True?

[Bored chemist]

Just a question. How can you be so certain that I do not have an insight into the Ultimate Truth?

"an insight into the Ultimate Truth"
What does that actually mean?

[CliveG]

How would you prove that it is Ultimate? or True?

Why do want proof when it seems quite clear that there is not going to be any scientific proof? According to the Rules of the Game set by the Ultimate Truth, the God created in the "Dream" is not going to give "proof of his existence". But that does not mean that some individuals cannot be given an "insight" into what it is all about.

This is where one has to decide on a belief. Atheists "believe" that there is no God and no spirit world. And decide that absence of evidence is the crux of the hook on which they hand their belief onto. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Others choose to believe that some people have insight to a deeper truth - one that cannot be measured with instruments. I got the insight into the Ultimate Intelligence and Ultimate Truth in about 1974. This was before the Matrix and theories about virtual realities. I was an atheist then and had a number of psychic experiences despite my not believing in God. I just accepted them as some mystery separate to the existence of God and religion.

In the last decade I have been involved in modalities and communities where the spirit world and a Higher Power are used to do good. My late wife was an American who helped "ex-combatants" (freedom fighters or terrorists depending on the side one was on) abandon their lives of crime and murder and become productive citizens. This was done in a 4 day course. Modern psychology cannot achieve the transformations that I heard of and then saw for myself.

The biggest obstacle to modern religious belief is what is seen as contradictions in the religious texts and teachings. What I have learned by way of lessons and insights is how logical it all is when one sees the overall picture. The concept of an Ultimate Intelligence is a very old one and goes back to the Hindu religion. Brahman is the underlying force and all else is illusion. I find it interesting that this ultimate truth came very early.

The logic behind reincarnation is also a simple one. Where do all the souls come from and go to? Evolution of souls to match evolution earth life seems logical. Ghosts are explained by spirits that have the form of the physical and decay. Hence the wraiths and decaying forms - and also the lack of old spirits. One does not "see" them with physical eyes but in one's mind so photographs cannot exist. One lesson learned through my dream of being killed and dying is that souls are not eternal but can be deleted or destroyed. Very real dreams with all the pain.

It is said that we were created in God's image. This has truth if one takes God and the Ultimate Intelligence to have a form of pure intelligence. If Jesus were to be the greatest prophet and sit by the right hand of God as Islam believes then one can "access" God by a more human form that is easier to relate to. Thus I cannot fault the Christians for their Trinity belief. Nor can one negate the physical manifestation of spirits/demi-gods that may assist spiritually in various other religions, including ancestor worship and nature worship.

If one decides that the mind is the instrument to access the spirit world and the Ultimate Truth, then one has to find a mind that can do so, and then decide by a series of questions as to whether there are contradictions, and whether it fits with others who have similar insights.

Ultimately, it is a question of choice of belief. But my experience is also that a belief in God and Spirit world gives one an advantage - just as knowing the Laws of Physics has given modern man an advantage.

Just some personal info. All went well with my nose reconstruction. In recovery I had extreme pain in my nose. Worse than kidney stones or concussion. Rebound pain? They moved me to ICU to give me stronger pain killers when the milder ones did not work. After two or three hours I was fine. No pain since then. Even stopped the Stilpain. Had a good sleep last night and will rest today.

When I was in ICU and the pain in my nose was gone, I still felt the nervous tension pain in my shoulders. I reckon it was all the Wifi that have in the hospital. Now that I am home and off pain tablets I have no nose pain and no tension pain. Interesting that the pain killers do not stop the pain from the microwave signals. See - another lesson learned.

[CliveG]

God - a bug, a glitch, a neurological construct...

Just watched this short movie.

[Bored chemist]

But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

How do you sleep at night with that hungry tiger in your bedroom?
Obviously, there's no evidence for the tiger but, as you think "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" it must be a problem for you.

[Bored chemist]

Interesting that the pain killers do not stop the pain from the microwave signals. See - another lesson learned.

Painkillers work on real physical pain.
How well would they work on pain with an imaginary cause?

[Bored chemist]

This is where one has to decide on a belief.

People don't actually "decided" to believe something.

[Bored chemist]

I got the insight into the Ultimate Intelligence and Ultimate Truth in about 1974.

... and again

Just a question. How can you be so certain that I do not have an insight into the Ultimate Truth?

"an insight into the Ultimate Truth"
What does that actually mean?

[alancalverd]

Atheists "believe" that there is no God and no spirit world. And decide that absence of evidence is the crux of the hook on which they hand their belief onto. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Irrelevant to the present discussion, but untrue. Atheism is nothing more or less than the stance that the world makes sense without anthropic deities. The rationale for this axiom is that the world does not make sense if you introduce deities, but becomes more consistent and rational the more we investigate it without such assumptions. 

This approach does in fact allow the possibility of an ultimate truth where both words are subject to proof, because unlike any theism it doesn't require an inherently unresolvable mystery or absurdity.

[CliveG]

Atheists "believe" that there is no God and no spirit world. And decide that absence of evidence is the crux of the hook on which they hand their belief onto. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Irrelevant to the present discussion, but untrue. Atheism is nothing more or less than the stance that the world makes sense without anthropic deities. The rationale for this axiom is that the world does not make sense if you introduce deities, but becomes more consistent and rational the more we investigate it without such assumptions. 

This approach does in fact allow the possibility of an ultimate truth where both words are subject to proof, because unlike any theism it doesn't require an inherently unresolvable mystery or absurdity.

My statement is true. Atheists "take a stance" (read as "choose to believe") that deities are a contradiction to their perception of the world.

It is true that many people can do quite well without deities or a religious belief, and for such people the possibility of deities is problematic. Since their world functions without the need to explain an abnormal event beyond physics then their belief serves them quite well. One might take the stance that there is no need to deal with the question of the Ultimate Truth or the Prime Cause, and that it is irrelevant to most people.

There are clearly people who have psychic events that cannot be explained without deities (of some sort - intelligent spirit entities). I have had a number and it gets difficult to constantly say I have some kind of brain malfunction. Can you admit that my hypothesis has a possibility of being true? So far science has taken a wait and see attitude. This does not stop many from debating personal evidence by first assuming there is no spirit world, and then taking the stance that the person had to have had a hallucination of some sorts.

I do not see or hear things. I know things I should not know - even by intuition. This can be useful when advising someone on a course of action that does not have enough information to properly analyze.

It seems that one such "bit of information" was that there will be a pandemic causing a drop in population which in turn will resolve the environmental disaster that is looming. I thought it would be a combo fungus and virus which would reduce immune systems. But the answer comes by way of a cell tower next to us. What is so ironic is that neither science nor "woo" will be believed by the general public and so the reduction will happen. The professor in the ICU was very interested. He said they are seeing a marked increase in cancers.

My doctor called me and referred a patient of his to me. She is severely EHS. I will meet with her and hear her story. She says she is painting her house with reflective paint. That must be seriously expensive.

[Bored chemist]

read as "choose to believe"

This is where one has to decide on a belief.

People don't actually "decide" to believe something.

[Bored chemist]

There are clearly people who have psychic events that cannot be explained without deities

And once again, you make an extraordinary claim without the benefit of any evidence.

I have had a number and it gets difficult to constantly say I have some kind of brain malfunction.

It's much easier once you start saying  that the phones are making your brain malfunction.

But that misses the point.
There are well known  carefully documented malfunctions of the brain which everyone is subject to.
For example, the placebo effect.
But you refuse to accept that normal brain function happens to you.

Can you admit that my hypothesis has a possibility of being true?

Which?
Some might possibly be  true. others are not.

She says she is painting her house with reflective paint.

That's about as close to an experiment as we seem to get.
It will be interesting to see the results.