[Bored chemist]

I have found them to be remarkably accurate,

Where did  I say I was suggestible?

I thought I made it clear here

I had one young girl who went so deep she was capable of doing psychic stuff. Reading minds even at a distance, remote viewing and telling the near future. I stopped because it got too spooky for us all.

And again, thanks for pointing out how suggestible you are.

So, still being suggestible then?

Got any plans to branch out into science?

I had no "prophesy" or expectation of illness or symptoms at the beginning of the tower installation.

Not much good then, is it?

You expect my symptoms to be psychosomatic and so you fit my situation to your expectations.

No
The evidence shows that (in the absence of any plausible mechanism for a real effect) your symptoms are probably psychosomatic.

And you fail to recognise that you have done nothing to refute that.
But, because you are committed to your idea, you can't recognise that you are doing this.

You are the quintessence of the man so blind because he will not see.

And if you think that using Tarot cards is an indication of suggestibility, you are again wrong in that assumption.

It's not an assumption; it's a deduction.
Since you don't know what you are talking about, I guess we can safely discount the rest of your postings here.

Why should I stick to "conventional" sciences?

So as to not look a fool?
To get answers  that are reliable?
So that you can make evidence based judgements?

And to avoid looking like the pointy haired boss in Dilbert cartoons.
https://dilbert.com/strip/1999-03-10

[CliveG]

Blind Chemist, sorry Bored Chemist. Hmmm, shows you where my mind is at.

Everyone agrees that there has to be an Ultimate First Cause. Even the scientists that say the universe came from nothing backtrack and concede that there has to be a Prime Uncaused Cause. Conjecture and speculation would fall into your definition of Not Science. More Philosophy maybe. But scientific principles can be applied. Is there contradiction in my my hypothesis? No. Does it give a rational and consistent explanation that fits current known observations including consciousness, intelligence and mystic experiences? Yes.

Have there been many frauds and charlatans who have discredited spiritual theories and religious experiences? Yes. Does that mean that there are no true mystical and spiritual experiences? No.

Once more serendipity gives me an example of your rigid rule based exclusionary thinking. Funeral expense are paid out with 8 hours of the claim. The fine print says that a claim is only "made" once it meets all the tests for proof of death of the individual and proof of beneficiary. So when a South African insurance company dragged it's feet for 5 days, two female relatives visited the office and gave them "proof". A body bag with the dead relative inside. "Here is the body. You bury it," they said. The money was paid with 18 minutes. The two women left the body there and went to the bank to draw the money to be sure it was actually paid out.

What you want is formulaic proof of my experiences. Virtually any study can be criticized and rejected by narrow application of rules. The courts do it all the time. I have a life-time of experience that have been lessons in the spirit world that changed me from a hard atheist into a person deciding that what I experience follows a pattern that points to the existence of a spirit world. This is not some parallel universe but one that has some intelligence based interaction with humankind. If you are blind. then you have to rely on those who can see to describe to you a reality that sighted people experience.

This argument of "proof" and "proving a lack of harm" also underpins this topic. My experiences with emfs may well be ahead of the "accepted" (read as public popular perception) science. The real science on emf harm is there for those who want to see it.

[Bored chemist]

Everyone agrees that there has to be an Ultimate First Cause

Nope, some things just happen.
For example, particles pop up  out of nowhere.
They have real effects like the evaporation of black holes, the line widths of spectra and the  casimir effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Now, given that you refused to look to see what scientists believe before trying to  lie to me, perhaps you should do some serious apologising for this

Blind Chemist, sorry Bored Chemist.

[Bored chemist]

And you repeat it albeit slightly differently.

No, I quoted you saying something similar to, but not the same as, what I had said.
Try to pay attention.

[alancalverd]

The purpose of life is to evolve and to learn.

Citation needed. And this is a deviation from the meaning of life. I don't see the need for either.

[Colin2B]

The purpose of life is to evolve and to learn.

Citation needed. And this is a deviation from the meaning of life. I don't see the need for either.

I agree with Alan, this is very anthropomorphic.

How are you getting on with finding someone to do the trials on you?

[CliveG]

Everyone agrees that there has to be an Ultimate First Cause

Nope, some things just happen.
For example, particles pop up  out of nowhere.
They have real effects like the evaporation of black holes, the line widths of spectra and the  casimir effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Now, given that you refused to look to see what scientists believe before trying to  lie to me, perhaps you should do some serious apologising for this

Blind Chemist, sorry Bored Chemist.

Go and read "A universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss. He admits to a misleading title. That nothing comes from nothing except the Prime Cause.
Particles pop in an out of the underlying quantum field. Ask yourself (as many scientists do) where did the Big Bang come from? But before the Big Bang, where did the Laws of Physics come from. My answer is that they are all an illusion in the mind of the Ultimate Intelligence. We all are.

Careful with accusations of "Lies"! That means I am knowingly telling a falsehood. I am not. Look at the petitions sent by scientists who work in this field to politicians to warn them. You are choosing your group of scientists - that does not mean you are lying, just misguided.

[CliveG]

The purpose of life is to evolve and to learn.

Citation needed. And this is a deviation from the meaning of life. I don't see the need for either.

Okay. Citation from CliveG. An expert who has a lifetime of first-hand experience learning of both the meaning of life (an illusion to entertain a bored singular Ultimate Intelligence) and the purpose of life (to evolve into greater intelligence and hence achieve even more entertainment for the Ultimate Intelligence).

Our "souls" guide the growth of life and program our brains before birth. When our bodies die, the soul resides in a portion of the Ultimate Intelligence. One can compare it to a "class" in C++ coding language. It retains certain properties and loses the specifics like memory of events. But the loss of memory takes a generation or two in the case of humans. The code is however refined and expanded by the experience of a living physical body. It needs this in order to evolve the next reincarnation to guide and tweak the combination of DNA (and you think it is random chance?), and the formation and interconnection of brain neurons. Souls can be erased and cease to exist. So one cannot rely on eternal existence.

If you limit your citations to certain branches of science, your limit your capacity to gain knowledge. There have been many in history who have had mystic insights and many religions have been given a piece of the puzzle. It was only recently (2010) when interacting with the spirit (not the soul) of a suicide that I learned the differences between body, spirit and soul. Perhaps we should continue this off-thread in the thread "Can science prove God exists".

I would leave these posts here for continuity.

[CliveG]

The purpose of life is to evolve and to learn.

Citation needed. And this is a deviation from the meaning of life. I don't see the need for either.

I agree with Alan, this is very anthropomorphic.

How are you getting on with finding someone to do the trials on you?

Too busy with life. Fixing broken equipment and the house. Getting ready to move. Having a nose repair to open my nostrils to breathe better. And so on.

I am having to spent most of the day at the house to do repairs. I am finding that I am less susceptible (except I must shield my knee which is still healing). I am attributing that to an improvement in my health. It may seem that the radiation first degrades ones health before the effects become noticeable and severe. Hence the elderly, the very young, and the sick are most at risk. It may take decades (depending on the duration and strength of the exposure) to affect healthy adults.

I do find that I need a long sleep away from the radiation in order to recover from the previous day.

BTW - Life evolves to being very anthropomorphic in that human intelligence mirrors the Ultimate Intelligence. If it is a fact and is true, then denial will not change it into a falsehood. One can argue there is no proof, or argue about the type of proof (human experience), but it will not change the ultimate truth.

[alancalverd]

BTW - Life evolves to being very anthropomorphic in that human intelligence mirrors the Ultimate Intelligence.

Citation needed. No evidence visible here. Several species from microbes to cats and dogs have evolved since homo sapiens arrived on the scene. The preservation of the weakest humans and the eradication of our nearest relatives (and the most intelligent humans) is distinctly anti-Darwinian.

[Bored chemist]

But before the Big Bang, where did the Laws of Physics come from. My answer is that they are all an illusion in the mind of the Ultimate Intelligence.

You forgot to ask the important question.
Where did the "Ultimate Intelligence" come from?

It's more sensible to imagine the idea o some hydrogen popping up out of nowhere than that some "Ultimate Intelligence" popped up from nowhere.


Get back to us when you can explain the existence of this "Ultimate Intelligence".

Citation from CliveG. An expert who...

No.
You can't claim to be an expert on something that you are wrong about.

[Bored chemist]

Careful with accusations of "Lies"! That means I am knowingly telling a falsehood.

You have, in the vernacular, "got previous".
All those times when you were begging the question and creating strawmen.
You had the evidence, but chose to ignore it.

[CliveG]

BTW - Life evolves to being very anthropomorphic in that human intelligence mirrors the Ultimate Intelligence.

Citation needed. No evidence visible here. Several species from microbes to cats and dogs have evolved since homo sapiens arrived on the scene. The preservation of the weakest humans and the eradication of our nearest relatives (and the most intelligent humans) is distinctly anti-Darwinian.

This last year has educated me as to how incredibly complex life is. Sure the Laws of Physics apply most of the time. And sure the atoms of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and so on all have a propensity and capability to form the tiny machines that churn out the enormous variety of complex proteins needed for the structures supporting and interconnecting the billions of cells that must work cooperatively together.

I agree that humans have now reached an anti-Darwinian point. It is a temporary state of affairs which will be corrected with a massive die-off and then the strongest and most spiritually cooperative will survive.

When the Big Bang (an event remarkably akin to Biblical Creation) occurred, it had all the properties for galaxies and planets to form and for life to start and evolve. The question BC is avoiding is what is a logical choice for a Prime Cause. Random chance, or an Intelligence of sorts. Both are beyond the capacity to imagine. I do not have to imagine, since I experienced the "dream" (the illusion of a universe) terminating and being a thinking part of the Intelligence. It was more real than real. But the "dream" restarted and I was allowed to keep my knowledge of what I was. It makes the "game" more interesting to give some people a hint of the truth.

What is your hypothesis of the Prime Cause? Or do you choose not to think about it? I originally rejected religion because (at 12 years of age) I found it to be contradictory and I found priests and ministers to be uninspiring. My hypothesis (supported by the evidence of my experiences) make sense of a lot of religions and man's spiritual happenings.

[CliveG]

But before the Big Bang, where did the Laws of Physics come from. My answer is that they are all an illusion in the mind of the Ultimate Intelligence.

You forgot to ask the important question.
Where did the "Ultimate Intelligence" come from?

It's more sensible to imagine the idea o some hydrogen popping up out of nowhere than that some "Ultimate Intelligence" popped up from nowhere.


Get back to us when you can explain the existence of this "Ultimate Intelligence".

Citation from CliveG. An expert who...

No.
You can't claim to be an expert on something that you are wrong about.

A few comments. Virtual particles are an interesting concept used in Feynman diagrams. There is a very lucid article by a scientist that explains the disturbances in the underlying quantum field when particles interact. Give me a link to your "popping in and out of nowhere".

You do not understand what a Prime Cause is. It is the only "thing" (for want of a better word) that has no cause. Everything else flows from this prime cause. You say that the Laws of Physics along with some Quantum Field is a Prime Cause. I used to think so, but it is not a good explanation for us to evolve into sentient beings, or for some of the strange psychic phenomenon that most deny exist because of their rarity. The stranger the phenomenon, the rarer they are; but they are not non-existent.

You state I am wrong. Prove it. Or at the very least provide some serious argument to support your position.

[CliveG]

Now that I am spending days at a time at the house next to the cell tower, I am again experiencing overall pain (fibromyalgia). I am back on pain tablets in order to function. I will be on holiday for a week in December and we move house in the first week of January. I expect to be able to stop the pain medication when there is little or no radiation.

I am surprised no-one said that my reduction in sensitivity was a precursor to a cop-out if my box tests failed. I am not unhappy with being less sensitive. It is just one more observation about how the effects of cell tower radiation work.

[Bored chemist]

I am surprised no-one said that my reduction in sensitivity was a precursor to a cop-out if my box tests failed.

Since you are failing to do the tests, it hardly matters...

I am again experiencing overall pain (fibromyalgia).

Maybe you have fibromyalgia and it's nothing to do with the phone mast.

You state I am wrong. Prove it. Or at the very least provide some serious argument to support your position.

No, that's the wrong way round.
You are making the extraordinary claim so it falls to you to provide the extraordinary evidence.

We have provided evidence for our position; you just keep ignoring it but here it is again.

" A systematic review of medical research in 2011 found no convincing scientific evidence for symptoms being caused by electromagnetic fields.[2] Since then, several double-blind experiments have shown that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a sham exposure as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields, suggesting the cause in these cases to be the nocebo effect."

From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity
And loc cit.

[Bored chemist]

Give me a link to your "popping in and out of nowhere".

I did.
You ignored it because, I presume, you have no intention of actually seeking the truth.
Here it is again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

[Bored chemist]

Sure the Laws of Physics apply most of the time.

And that's another tacit extraordinary claim.
Please show your extraordinary evidence that they do not apply all the time.

[CliveG]

Give me a link to your "popping in and out of nowhere".

I did.
You ignored it because, I presume, you have no intention of actually seeking the truth.
Here it is again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Where in that link does it mention a particle "popping it an out of nowhere"?

Here is a better Wiki article seeing as you want to use that source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

In physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle. The concept of virtual particles arises in perturbation theory of quantum field theory where interactions between ordinary particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. A process involving virtual particles can be described by a schematic representation known as a Feynman diagram, in which virtual particles are represented by internal lines.

Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. The longer the virtual particle exists, the closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles. They are important in the physics of many processes, including particle scattering and Casimir forces. In quantum field theory, even classical forces—such as the electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges—can be thought of as due to the exchange of many virtual photons between the charges. Virtual photons are the exchange particle for the electromagnetic interaction.

The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of "real particles": it is not; rather, "real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. The accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but as they cannot be detected in experiments, deciding how to precisely describe them is a topic of debate

This in in agreement with the article I mentioned. And even if a virtual particle does "pop out of the underlying quantum vacuum field" it does so very briefly - and the underlying quantum vacuum field is not NOTHING!

Funny, but the quantum vacuum field is somewhat like the "ether" described by early scientists.

[CliveG]

I am surprised no-one said that my reduction in sensitivity was a precursor to a cop-out if my box tests failed.

Since you are failing to do the tests, it hardly matters...

I am again experiencing overall pain (fibromyalgia).

Maybe you have fibromyalgia and it's nothing to do with the phone mast.

You state I am wrong. Prove it. Or at the very least provide some serious argument to support your position.

No, that's the wrong way round.
You are making the extraordinary claim so it falls to you to provide the extraordinary evidence.

We have provided evidence for our position; you just keep ignoring it but here it is again.

" A systematic review of medical research in 2011 found no convincing scientific evidence for symptoms being caused by electromagnetic fields.[2] Since then, several double-blind experiments have shown that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a sham exposure as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields, suggesting the cause in these cases to be the nocebo effect."

From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity
And loc cit.

By your definitions and logic you are failing to do Christmas. I will try to do the tests next week. Your logic, or lack of it, is extraordinary.

My fibromyalgia - I use cause and effect. No radiation = no pain. Near cell tower for long periods = pain. Do you have a better explanation? (It is not from being near my wife because she was with me during the low radiation period where I was able to stop the pain tablets.) This morning was really bad.

The Wiki article on EHS is regrettably proof that Wiki is not a peer reviewed source, and can in fact be manipulated by the powerful cell industry for people like you to cite.

Aaah - the extraordinary claim burden of proof debating position. No - you cannot wriggle out of your statement that I am wrong. Admit that you cannot prove me wrong.

Also admit that my hypothesis is not only viable but better than any other theory as to Prime Cause.

Admit that people have mystic experiences and that humankind is "engineered" or "genetically evolved" to have mystic experiences. But why? There is speculation that starts with the assumption that God or the spirit world cannot and does not exist and therefore mystic experiences gave some sort of evolutionary advantage - although it is not clear how.

Since the cause and effect link between the spirit world and the physical world is weak, the effects are mostly on thought processes. This is why quiet solitude are usually the times the interaction is mostly felt.

You cannot explain how I knew an event was about to occur in the next few minutes - and it did. On an ordinary day with no unusual circumstances to distract from the vivid knowledge that entered my mind. None of the current mind science has an explanation. You can only choose to not believe me.