Psychometry

Yabuturtle wrote: I never really liked the idea that they call it "psuedo" science. Parapsychology is even considered that but really anything they refuse to understand or not in every text book must mean it's a fake science

Pseudo-science is what ever tries to deceive people into thinking it is science in the hopes of using the credibility science enjoys without employing any of the methodology and rigor that earned science such pedigree in the first place. It's not relevant whether anyone understands it well, or whether any text books about it exist. There are text books on intelligent design and on astrology, but if a discipline treats evidence dishonestly or not at all, and makes almost exclusively unfalsifiable claims, then it doesn't matter in the least how many proponents it has or how many books they publish. And, of course, most science is not in text books anyway, nor well enough understood to make it into any.

But you may as well call Newton, George Washington Carver and Da Vinci pseudo scientists too. Why would these respected scientists even bother trying to study the mystical practices if it was all a waste of time. Doesn't add up to me.

If they could manipulate the world with magic, it wouldn't add up to me why they'd study any science, but the hope of obtaining that ability, be it for oneself, or someone else, is a perfectly plausible motivator, no matter whether it is realistic. And yes, I'm happy to call any and every pseudo-scientific activity so, no matter what brilliance the same mind produced on another day, because science has neither saints nor idols. One can birth a baby on one day and wash the dirt off it on another and there is absolutely no need to throw the bathwater out along with the baby, nor is there any need to keep the dirty sludge just because you keep the child.

There is an energy field around us and a soul.

Maybe. What there isn't around us is any reason to think so, but the thing itself, who knows.

Without that energy, are bodies are lifeless, but like a robot If a robot doesn't have electricity or some kind of power it doesn't move. So there must be some kind of energy causing us to move

Yea, that "some kind of energy" is called energy. Newton could have saved himself a lot of trouble had he been the one to come up with it, when he was already so, so close... But one can only pioneer so much, I suppose, once one gets too busy doing alchemy instead.

Well, science and spirituality share the same ancient source. Pythagoras was a mystic as well as a mathematician..

Uzima Moto wrote: Well, science and spirituality share the same ancient source. Pythagoras was a mystic as well as a mathematician..

As were quite a few others too. I never thought it was a coincidence that the greatest mathematicians and scientists also happened to be interested in the mystical and magical.

Sure, let's just repeat the claim ad nauseam, until people stop responding to it.
This is a typically religious misconception anyhow. To you, science is just another one, with its own monks and priests. You think that just because someone contributed to science and also was into woo, therefore the two must be connected. They aren't. Nothing in science hinges upon personalities like everything in religion does. It's not all one and the same thing and the more some saint connects them, the more together they belong. The lines are clear and non-arbitrary and if they cut right through some historical person of note, then so be it. It costs us nothing, because the lives and names were never the valuable or interesting thing to begin with.
Why do you keep asserting it as if it were so without any indication that it is, and in a thread where it was addressed and challenged no fewer than twice already, on a forum where it was addressed and challenged in multiple threads an unspecified number of times already? How is this fair or honest conduct still?

Gisteron wrote: Why do you keep asserting it as if it were so without any indication that it is, and in a thread where it was addressed and challenged no fewer than twice already, on a forum where it was addressed and challenged in multiple threads an unspecified number of times already? How is this fair or honest conduct still?

I'm not sure much is being 'asserted' necessarily for, beyond the reality that saying 'in my opinion' or 'I believe' cannot be mandated as a requirement onto posters, it is often avoided for various reasons seemingly; whether it be brevity, personal voice, or actual assertion.
So IMO it's generally accepted when it refers to a topic - but not so much when its a person. In the case of the later, even by adding those conditions to a statement it would still probably be considered inappropriate conduct, even if it were accurate.
In the former it would probably have to be overt before it raised eyebrows with most folk, as conduct in this regard is probably more of a measure of participation by not deliberately derailing the topic if I had to guess, as a 'discussion' forum. As one of a few Mods, I hope that helps clarify how I see fair and honest participation.

Gisteron wrote: Sure, let's just repeat the claim ad nauseam, until people stop responding to it.
This is a typically religious misconception anyhow. To you, science is just another one, with its own monks and priests. You think that just because someone contributed to science and also was into woo, therefore the two must be connected. They aren't. Nothing in science hinges upon personalities like everything in religion does. It's not all one and the same thing and the more some saint connects them, the more together they belong. The lines are clear and non-arbitrary and if they cut right through some historical person of note, then so be it. It costs us nothing, because the lives and names were never the valuable or interesting thing to begin with.
Why do you keep asserting it as if it were so without any indication that it is, and in a thread where it was addressed and challenged no fewer than twice already, on a forum where it was addressed and challenged in multiple threads an unspecified number of times already? How is this fair or honest conduct still?

Well, for one religion doesn't completely hinge on personalities. There are the teachings themselves after all. People just tend to idolize those they see as better than themselves..

Two, the reason why science and spirituality seem connected in ancient times is because they both extend from the same source. It's not just by happenstance. It's not a coincidence. They both come from a tradition of deep thought, an understanding that there are subtleties to the world, and a drive to investigate everything possible.. science is just the exoteric form of this tradition..

One without the other creates an imbalance. Thus you get "flat earth" when it was those of the ancient mystery schools that knew the world was round and theorized the Big Bang..

The Egyptians constructed monuments of mathematic precision and psychological symbolism to encode deeper connections between the inner and outer worlds. Some of their writings detail an intricate knowledge of consciousness. Which also go further into what you or your contemporaries call "woo"..

There are modern examples of this intersection as well. People are looking deep into this kind of stuff. Mainstream science however, approaches this subject with a primitive mindset. Mainly that only what they see and can touch is what exists. Which is ironic to me lol. They can't reject these ideas like they normally would. You can prove that lightning isn't thrown down by some old man in a toga. However, you cannot prove that an astral plane doesn't exist. Nor that the belief in such things is an indication of disease or a harbinger of disorder..

Yet their denial and certainty of its nonexistence is as strong as unfounded, almost cultic, like blind faith. Even the more open-minded approach it with a fundamental misunderstanding of the maliability of this "mental plane" consisting of entities formed of thought and intangible reflections of physical objects. Where it is very possible to see what you want instead of what's actually there..

The scientific community can continue in denial if it wishes. However, without concrete proof of it's position. Research in "woo" will continue.. without the accolades of people who like to pat themselves on the back.. They don't have the patent on science..

I find this discussion should be less about belief in such things as psychometry, or science being juxtaposed with religion, how they connect, if they connect, etc.

Mostly irrelevant, people will believe what they will. Its like watching Richard Dawkins argue with Christians. What is the point?

What should be getting looked at is just how well the rigorous testing process of such practices are in giving good feedback for the wood be practitioners that come here for more than just "Do you or dont you believe". Some sort of measurable practice with sign posts and goals a student could strive for and ultimately "find out for themselves" if it does, or does not work, and if that grates too much than " find out if it works for them".

Mainstream science however, approaches this subject with a primitive mindset. Mainly that only what they see and can touch is what exists. Which is ironic to me lol.

Since psychometry deals specifically with coming up with results dealing directly with touch I find that quite ironic.

The scientific community can continue in denial if it wishes

Asking for some kind of measurable result is not denial. How is the metaphysical community not continuing to foster gullibility?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avrjkW2HNRQ

Perhaps time to view this thread from a different angle.

Lets say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, psychometry is real. Perhaps there is a scientific explanation, or perhaps not, it matters little. All we know is it is fact. But, however, it takes time and dedicated training to learn.

What then would a Jedi use this ability for? How would it serve in our individual Paths, and the overall Path of the Jedi community?

All we know is it is fact. But, however, it takes time and dedicated training to learn.

We do? It does?

Actually no on both.

What we know is that some people believe, and that there is no real measurement of learned, applicable, skill. Only the claim that it is possible through such. No real ballpark of how much intensity, or what length of time for even a modicum of useable ability.

What a jedi wpuld use it for, and put in such time with such low return on investment likely being the case is a great question though

Khaos wrote:

All we know is it is fact. But, however, it takes time and dedicated training to learn.

We do? It does?

Actually no on both.

You missed the point. I'm making an example (a what if scenario) for the sake of discussion and to take the thread in a more constructive route.