Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ Beyond Human The Amazing Randi's $1 Million Dollar Prize Offer

"Do Good in Secret" ... AMEN! .... AND ... consider sharing your talent
with me, who will treat you with the most respect, good-will, and
open-mindedness which a fellow human being can offer another, and who will
afterward hold your talent in secret if you so choose.

Peace,

HF

Hi HT;

To be honest I just have this feeling you are very inflexible, that there is this "control thing" hanging there. It is easy to go off on other tangents that don't apply.

But then how could anyone feel something over a great distance? Surely it couldn't possibly be proven.

Aloha

Jeff

Dear Jeff,

Hee hee ... you've put me in a tight spot, here, because how can I answer
your last post without appearing to have a control-problem?

Allow me to try to state directly what I have been trying to say in all my
posts: I want to encourage people to think for themselves and to base
their lives on what is rational and sensible.

All I'm trying to do is to get people to open up their own eyes and
question whether they are being duped, whether what they're being told is
in their best interest.

My motto has always been, "The truth shall set you FREE." Quite the
opposite of wanting to control anyone (least of all you, dear Friend), I
want them to find the tools and means by which they can escape the control
of dark forces in thought which only bind and hurt them, which won't serve
them well in the end.

So, while I readily admit the possibility of transmitting thoughts and
feelings over vast distances (such as what we're doing now), I also have
to suggest that the feelings you seem to be getting from me arise from
your own prejudices against people of reason and science, and not from
who I really am.

As for what I'm feeling about you, I sense someone who also wants to help
people, and in this regard, we are kindred spirits. We may have different
methods toward that end, but why be at odds? Why can't we use the best of
our disparate worlds to raise the level of awareness of what is good and
true? I seem to be the one in this forum trying desperately to bridge a
chasm between us, and, to be honest, I'm not sensing much progress at all.
I can only extend my hand in openness and friendship, and if it is
rejected, at least I have tried.

I accept you. I wish you can accept me.

All the best to you,

HF

Hi HT;

Raising Consciousness is always work, many times it is thankless work. The reward is in doing the work itself and gaining self mastery. Sometimes you hit the home run, many times you feel like you hit the windshield.

I like reason and science and use it all the time but feel it only takes you to the ballpark. Once you are in the game the rules change again. The spark of creativity must take over for it to attract any attention.

Attention, after all, might be the most valuable commodity. It might be considered the source of life.

I do not have any prejudices regarding people of reason and science but they limit themselfs if that is the only tools they use.

On the other hand if an Artist does not pay attention to his accounting practices proverty will be his companion. They need to work together to have balance and growth.

If you want to touch the skies you also have to have strong roots.

I wish you all successes in your ventures, may the light be always on your path.

Aloha

Jeff

Re: Perfect pitch....

I don't know what this has to do with science and the scientific perspective. It seems to be about the petty envy and jealousy as well as the fascination of people in general when confronted by excellence.

This example also shows a non-slippery phenomenon. She could do it again and again, even when asked to present in situations that would have made her feel nervous. Her decision to hide her talent was her individual response to becoming a sensation. Other people deal with it differently, and we are all familiar with the names of those individuals who do not run away from fame and sensationalism.

The way I see it, science hasn't proved that this stuff absolutely does not exist (doing that is probably impossible). In my mind, it does show that psi in most cases is not a likely explanation.

What seems to be the case here is that no one firmly entrenched on their side of the fence is going to move very far in either direction.

*shrugs*

In the case of the superstitious, as long as someone can come up with an alternative view that is something I consider a reasonable (scientific) explanation for something and understand how it makes sense, it is not important to me whether they believe it or not. They have shown that they can use their minds in a way that is reasonable, and understand both sides of the issue.

Hopefully an argument can get to a point where both parties can say, "I don't agree with you, but I think I understand your perspective."

Dear bayabada,

Re: perfect pitch ...

Many (though not all) of the great composers throughout history had
perfect pitch, so it's nothing new nor controversial at all. It's easily
demonstrable and universally accepted, having been been well studied and
documented scientifically. (See my response to Coldrayne above.)

Those with perfect pitch can distinguish musical tones as easily as
someone with normal vision can distinguish colors in all its various
shades. Moreover, perfect pitch can be learned by anyone who wants to
develop it. There are well-established protocols which have been
objectively demonstrated to be nearly always effective. (The only
"failures" in these studies were due to the time-constraints of the
study-periods. Those who failed to develop perfect pitch in the time
frames of the studies eventually go on to develop it at their own pace.)

What's also true is that perfect pitch is NOT a predictor of success in a
musical career. Someone without perfect pitch can become as successful a
musician as someone with perfect pitch. What's much more important in
musicianship is "relative pitch," the ability to discern the intervals
between musical tones. Relative pitch is absolutely essential to becoming
a successful musician, and that is why "ear training" courses in music
conservatories and universities stress the development of relative pitch.
Some programs are starting to also teach perfect pitch, but it's not vital
for musical success, so it's not stressed as much as relative pitch.

As for why some people seem to "naturally" have perfect pitch, the best
explanation based on the evidence to date is that the "natural" perfect
pitchers were exposed to music and musical education very early in their
lives (before age 7, the earlier, the better). They were exposed to rich
tonal stimuli during a vital stage when the language areas of their brains
were developing. Indeed, the best analogy we have regarding perfect pitch
(and musical ability in general) is "language." Just as it's very easy for
kids to learn languages during a critical stage in their development, so
it is easier for them to learn perfect pitch (intentionally or not) when
they are young. And just as it's very difficult to get rid of a foreign
accent after a certain age, so it becomes harder (but certainly not
impossible) to develop perfect pitch later in life.

The sooner someone is exposed to the richness of musical tones and taught
to REALLY listen to them and notice their differences, the easier it will
be for them to master perfect pitch. Some children are able to notice
these differences on their own, and thus develop the ability by
themselves. In the process, though, they had to undergo a self-training
period where they learned by trial and error to distinguish the various
tones. They did naturally what we can now do intentionally, but everyone
who has mastered perfect pitch goes through essentially the same process
when developing the ability.

Anyway, others have written much more extensively and eloquently about
perfect and relative pitch than I can hope to do here, so if you're
interested, here are good places to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_pitch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_pitch

Perfect pitch is a great example to show how the objectivity of the
scientific method can be used to carefully study, understand, and
effectively teach a certain human ability. As I'm sure you know, there
are many other abilities which humans manifest, which we are currently
trying to understand, things like total recall, genius-abilities in music,
art, and math by idiot savants, etc. Hopefully humanity will be well
served as we better appreciate how to develop our full potentials. May we
be guided by a rational, objective spirit toward that end.

Best,

HF

HT

You said "The truth shall set you FREE."

Whose truth? Yours? Science? Religion?

Truth changes based on your perception of reality, which changes based on your knowledge base. Truth in the 15th century was very different than truth is today. Truth for even yourself is different now then it was when you were a teenager. Truth is not very good judge of reality, at least not objective reality which you so highly prize. Perfect pitch is really no different than "paranormal" abilities. As you say, it can be developed by anyone if they put forth the effort.

I am highly logically based and have a strong intellectual bend in thinking but this can become a problem because you start to force everything into the same box that is largely preconceived. Often the facts we find are fanatastic to our current flawed understanding and we refuse to accept them because they don't "seem" logical. In reality this is based on our lack of understanding not on reality being "illogical".

The more humanity learns the more they seem to think they know, rather than the path of the wiseman, to realize how little they really do know. This becomes a major stumbling block to wisdom and knowledge.

I am getting the impression that you are kind of naive (assuming your good intentions) concerning the workings of science in the real world and its recent history.

Dear Lord Shandor,

No, I've stated many times in other postings that I do not believe science
is "truth." I use that quote from Christ in the same spirit that he gave
it: What is true and worth keeping will set people free and not bind them;
what binds people is not true and should be let go. I believe science
offers us a method to discern things which can be objectively quantified
and qualified as being "true," and it is certainly effective in weeding
out things which are "not-so-true." It is a tool toward an end, not the
end in itself. The end is true freedom. The end is truth.

You say that anyone can develop "paranormal abilities" as easily as they
can develop perfect pitch. On what basis do you make this claim? I can
show you dozens of published studies which document (scientifically) the
effectiveness of methods which teach perfect pitch. Can you show me even
one study which does the same for paranormal abilities? Please, I would
very much appreciate reading such a study.

Quantum mechanics, the cornerstone of our current scientific understanding
of the atomic and sub-atomic world, is not very logical, yet it is
scientifically validated. A great physicist, Richard Feynman, once said
if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't really.
Something can be very illogical, and yet be scientifically validated.
Something can also be very illogical and NOT be scientifically validated.
The question is not whether something is logical or not, but whether it
can be objectively validated. If yes, we keep it as "true;" if not, we
keep working on it. I see no problem with this approach, and I wonder
what is it that you find so unpleasant about it.

We as scientists surely do appreciate all that we don't know. In fact, it
was Einstein who said that knowledge is like an expanding sphere of light
in an ocean of darkness ... the more we know, the larger the sphere
becomes, but at the same time, the greater is the surface area of the
sphere that touches the darkness outside of it. The more we know, the
more we know that we don't know. But this does not invalidate what we
already DO know, and as the sphere grows ever larger, the rate at which
the volume of the sphere grows exceeds the rate at which the surface area
grows. Yes, we don't know a lot, but we also do know a lot, and it would
be unwise to throw away what we do know.

I'm trying to discern your higher purpose in these attacks against science
and scientists. Thus far, I've found your arguments to be based on
passion, not substance. Please state clearly next time what agenda you
are so attached to, that you are willing to forgo rational, objective
thinking. When you attack science and scientists, you are attacking the
structure and people whose purpose is to prevent us from fooling ourselves
and others. Why be so vehemently opposed to us? I'm trying to understand
where you are coming from.

All the best,

HF

Here is a good article that brings up the "the experimenter effect" when comparing experiements to test if people can tell if someone is staring at them. http://www.highbeam.com/library/docFree.asp?DOCID=1G1:60302609 Experimenters that believe in paranormal effects tend to have results that suggest that confirm paranormal effects exist and experiments with no such belief tend to have results that disprove paranormal effects.

Interesting.

Here is another great link to a summary from Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things". http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/sherm3.htm Twenty-Five Fallacy's That Lead Us to Believe Weird Things.

Also interesting.

But, according to Michael Shermer, more people now believe in ghosts than during the 1960's. Are people less rational and are critical thinking skills now worse than 40 years ago?

Michael Shermer also wrote a nice piece about Rupert's Resonance in the November 2005
issue of Scientific American.

The theory of "morphic resonance" posits that people have a sense of when they are being stared at.
What does the research show?

Rupert's Resonance, Scientific American, Nov 2005: