Ed Lantz

Thanks Karen!  Just ordered it…  E

Mike, I think that Swimme and Berry’s Cosmogenesis concept holds promise for intellectual common ground as you suggest. The term is not as pithy and self-explanatory as the expression “living universe,” however. Duane, the term “trans-biological life” is intriguing and self-explanatory. However you still may run into philosophical issues since y…[Read more]

Great to see the conversation continuing… Mike: “The question, “Is the Universe a living system”, is a non-sequitur. There is a disconnect between the premise and the conclusion.” Thank you for this!  Yes, this thread has been going in circles and agree with your observation that folks are sticking to their guns, so to speak. I believe there…[Read more]

Jon – Thanks for your kind and thoughtful comments. You’ve taken the time to sift through and respond to my points in detail and I really do appreciate that. While we personally gravitate towards different approaches given the same data, we’ve reached a place of mutual understanding and respect and, as you say, we’ll see where the data take us.  …[Read more]

Davidson, I’ve too have pondered these questions.  I think the plant experiments you are referring to were referenced in the “Secret Life of Plants,” and is the work of Cleve Backster. His work was subject to scathing attacks by skeptics and, in their favor, he did not work under strict laboratory conditions so his work was easily discr…[Read more]

That’s great, Duane – I have some reading to do…

 Duane,     I agree with your “rational knowing” versus “direct knowing” differentiation – it is an extremely important one in these discussions.   As was alluded to in the conversation with Davidson, objective and subjective are radically different domains and care must be taken when cross-referencing from one to the other. Phenomenologists and…[Read more]

 Duane,   I agree with your “rational knowing” versus “direct knowing” differentiation – it is an extremely important one in these discussions. As was alluded to in the conversation with Davidson, objective and subjective are radically different domains and care must be taken when cross-referencing from one to the other. Phenomenologists and my…[Read more]

Thanks for replying, Jon. You’ve raised some questions that I can address.  You say you need a “test for reasonableness”:   “…I can’t accept all interpretations of experiences (because they contradict each other), so I have to find a way to choose which to look into – and that way can’t be just by gut prejudices, but must be based on fairly a…[Read more]

Thanks for replying, Jon. You’ve raised some questions that I can address.  You say you need a “test for reasonableness”: “…I can’t accept all interpretations of experiences (because they contradict each other), so I have to find a way to choose which to look into – and that way can’t be just by gut prejudices, but must be based on fairly…[Read more]

Davidson,   I agree with your point that we’re talking about mental experiences or processes, not sensory experiences (at least not in the way that ordinary sensory experiences are taken in). Sure, there may well be anomalous physical phenomena “out there” (UFO’s, etc.) but I expect the vast majority of phenomena that are believed to be “out the…[Read more]

Davidson, I agree with your assessment of personal versus empirical “truth.” That was a very poignant story illustrating your point. I would add that there are types of mental phenomena that _can_ be evaluated objectively and shared. Mathematics and logic are purely mental exercises, for instance. Because we have developed a shared language, s…[Read more]

Exactly, Duane. These are not isolated cases. Anomalous informational “experiences” are a pervasive phenomena spanning from the dawn of history to the present scientific age. Well-meaning skeptics have attempted to suppress popular mystical “face-value” interpretations (i.e. telepathy is exactly as it seems, not a mere coincidence – a ghost r…[Read more]

Davidson, you raise a great point which is the core issue of any phenomenological research… that is, how do we objectively confirm what is essentially a personal subjective experience? As you point out, the woman having the alien births could be lying/acting, or she could be deluded, or, though few of us would buy it, she could be telling the…[Read more]

Here’s my personal take on the “Living Universe” discussion: 1) Elisabet Sahtouris’ “autopoiesis” argument aside (I did not fully understand her argument), I see no evidence for the universe being a self-replicating living being in the same way that a biological organism is alive. Planets and galaxies do not have nervous systems. They do not…[Read more]

Jon – To me, your arguments seem to come from a need to fit everything into a particular worldview – one that assures us that there is “nothing out of the ordinary.” And I am sure you see my arguments as the opposite – that I am trying to make something out of nothing.   I appreciate you sharing your personal (“mystical”) experience. As you kno…[Read more]

Jon – thanks for explaining your reasoning. While I still do not see the “diminishing effect” over time that you mentioned, indeed the effect in Bems’ and others’ data is relatively small. This should not come as a surprise – if these effects were large then they would be incontrovertible.  Anomalous information effects are close enough to c…[Read more]

I find this discussion about life being “simply mechanical” versus “something more” to be quite fascinating from a human point of view. What I see here are two very different world views, each claiming to be valid. On the one hand, Jon, Ursula and others feel that we mostly understand the processes of life and are perhaps even now able to create…[Read more]