It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
#1: Do you agree that your example of the behavior of the monarch butterfly, can be explained with genetic memory?
Another unsolved mystery is how Monarchs find the overwintering sites each year. Somehow they know their way, even though the butterflies returning to Mexico or California each fall are the great-great-grandchildren of the butterflies that left the previous spring. No one knows exactly how their homing system works; it is another of the many unanswered questions in the butterfly world.
#2: Do you claim I can tap into the collective unconscious and "Download" Information - such as learning a Language without having to study, finding the whereabouts of Archaeological artefacts, or learning about Extraterrestrials on other Planets?
#3: If your answer to Question 2 is affirmative, would you mind sharing the exact method of achieving these things with us, so that I can test their usefulness?
#4: Could you tap into "that "field" and find out what I am wearing right now and share this information with the readers?
#5: Since science has not yet disproven that there are pink elephants on Mars, does that mean it is probable that there are?
I just want to reiterate the subject of this debate, which is whether a shared body of knowledge exists, such as a collective unconscious, not whether we can take full advantage of it and harness this force at will.
Also, you seem to be focusing on its usefulness or benefit and burden to society, which matters not in the case for its existence.
Imy argument is that a collective body of knowledge does exist and that we indirectly interact with it on a subconscious level through our intuition, inspiration and innate behaviors
I don't think that at this time, you possess the ability to tap into and harness the collective unconscious,
The sad truth of the matter is that there are scam-artists in almost every field,
Butterflies' sensory systems help them find food and mates, avoid predators, and choose appropriate host plants for their eggs. Their senses may be divided into four basic categories: touch, hearing, sight, and taste/smell. The last two categories are usually the most well-developed systems in butterflies.
#1: How do you think that the Monarch butterfly can navigate to its respective destination, while avoiding large obstacles such as the Gulf of Mexico or large bodies of water (even when moved from its original migratory route) if neither the butterfly itself or its ancestors have traveled the route?
#2: Do you believe that our current understanding of science can adequately explain the entire universe, thus if our scientific model can't explain something, it must not exist?
#3: Do you agree that creative people who draw from creative inspiration, often succeed over those who don't or can't, when solving problems?
#4: Where do you think that intuition or creative inspiration comes from?
#5: When and if you get a "gut feeling" about something unfamiliar, where do you think this knowledge originates and how?
until we have the means to scientifically measure something or evidence to prove or disprove its validity, it has an equal footing of probability as anything else
The distinguishing characteristic of truth is that it can be used, harnessed, applied.
I point this out because my esteemed opponent kept repeating that his idea cannot be harnessed, cannot be used, cannot be proven, cannot be repeated, cannot be demonstrated.
Socratic Question 1:Can you teach us how to tap into that "body of knowledge" you profess to know about?
Socratic Question 2: Are you saying we can harness a supernatural force for the purpose of gaining intuitive spiritual insights?
Socratic Question 3: What benefits have you personally gained from embracing the idea of "Akashic Chronicles"?
Socratic Question 4: What benefit does believing in the Akashic Chronicles have?
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Basic explanation of debating:
You and an opponent will be assigned a proposition at random. One will argue pro (that the statement made in the topic is true) the other will argue the con (that the statement is not true). Source
Socratic Question 5: Could Intuition and Inspiration also come from Nature, or God, or a Soul, or the Mind or Genetic Memory?
Originally posted by airspoon
If my opponent wants to argue the "pros and cons" of the collective unconscious, as opposed to the pro and con supposition of the debate topic (whether or not it is true), then that is indirectly admitting its existence
Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world’s most innovative biologists and writers is best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic resonance, which leads to a vision of a living, developing universe with its own inherent memory.
this butterfly seems to formulate its route in a manner that avoids obstacles before the creature can even see them,
an awesome and mysterious occurrence. However, over the past two decades, scientists have begun to unveil the journey for what it is: a spectacular result of biology, driven by an intricate molecular mechanism in a tiny cluster of cells in the butterfly brain
I don't exactly "embrace" the idea of Akashic Chronicals
Well, in a way the collective unconscious could be considered "god"
the prophecies and alleged "healings" of Edgar Cayce
#1: Do you think that genetic memory is responsible for our "gut feelings" or inspiration and if yes, how so? Could you please explain?
#2: If you believe that god, as opposed to a collective unconscious, is responsible for psychic powers, intuition, inspiration or a plain old gut feeling about something, could you please explain the difference between the two, such as how god wouldn't then be the collective unconscious?
#3: Do you believe that you can interact with something without being able to harness it at will? If not, please explain.
#4: If the migratory behaviors of Monarch butterflies are so easily explained through our established scientific model, then why are scientists stumped as to how they behave? Why hasn't science been able to explain it?
#5: Could you please explain where you believe intuition, psychic powers, "Deja vu" and "gut feelings" come from and how the process works?
1. To point out that something that is neither experience-able, nor tangible nor useful nor usable cannot be considered to be "true" or to exist.
2. To lure the Debate opponent into wasting two large posts debating this in order to distract him from building a case. To this point in the Debate he still hasn't actually built a convincing case. We dont know much more about the "akashic records" or their use than we did before.
No one knows exactly how their homing system works 2010
Socratic Question 1: Which of Cayces prophecies have come true?
Socratic Question 2: Which of Cayces "visions" on Atlantis have been confirmed by Archaeological finds?
Socratic Question 3: Could you go into Detail about this gut-feeling you have (as in where is it, where does it come from)?
Socratic Question 4: Is a collective mind required for Inspiration?
Socratic Question 5: What are thoughts?
Read more here: Basics of Migration
Animals have evolved highly efficient direction-finding systems. This enables them to steer the right course over great distances, often with astonishing accuracy.
Originally posted by airspoon
While my opponent serendipitously changes strategy, I will not, as the reader is more inclined to both understand and believe his or her own experiences, over those of someone making extraordinary claims (however true they may be) or selling books.
Our IQ and aptitudes, musical skills, athletic ability, even our psychological and emotional traits may be significantly affected by the DNA within us.
if my opponent makes a good counter argument against this idea, then a move into what I believe to be the most credible cases of harnessing this library of knowledge would be considered
his is why I am not going into the spiritual teachings and extraordinary supernatural claims of certain individuals or disciplines of mysticism
"genetic memory", which I might add has also not been proven.
having a "gut feeling" or logically superseding intuition about getting onboard an aircraft or dumping stock, I can not. Quitting your job (and being better off) against your logical and rational judgment, due to intuitive reasoning, can not be explained through genetic memory.
If I wasted two whole posts being distracted, then you wasted two whole posts distracting.
No one knows exactly how their homing system works 2010
Cayce accurately and correctly foresaw the stock market crash of 1929 (2723-1 and 900-425), WWII (416-7), the convergence of communications companies (257-30, Par. 17-A, 18-A on 8/24/28), blood as a diagnostic tool (283-2) and the El Nino and La Nina climate affects (195-29), just to name a few.
If your biological processes create rational thought and your gut accurately overrides this biological process, you are clearly thinking beyond your means, thus the origin is elsewhere.
SQ #1: How do you think that genetic memory could have formed to give us intuitive insight to modern problems?
SQ #2: Do you not agree that a shared body of knowledge may be no more magic than the four fundamental interactions of the universe (gravity, strong & weak nuclear and EM) and if not, why not?
SQ #3: Do you agree that just because our current scientific model can't explain something doesn't mean that it is magic or non-existent?
SQ #4: Do you agree that you can interact with something, while not harnessing its full potential?
SQ #5: Can you please enlighten us all as to how people succeed by following their gut or intuition, in spite of their rational thought process?
Socratic Question 1: For the beneft of me and the reader: What is the best case for "the collective unconscious"?
Socratic Question 2: If you believe in some extra-dimensional library, isnt it also easy to believe in an individual soul?
Socratic Question 3: For the benefit of me and the reader: How can we best interact with this "extradimensional collective" or whatever it is you are arguing?
Socratic Question 4: Do you now agree that the behaviour of a Monarch Butterfly may also find a non-supernatural and non-collective-field explanation?
Socratic Question 5: Did you know that many of Edgar Cayces "ideas" are ripped off from the Theosophical Society?
or whether it is shared through an extra-dimensional means (such as with intuition, psychic powers, creative intuition or innate behaviors)
how do we explain the knowledge that doesn't come from someone or something else and which doesn't come from our own experiences?
This same limited dimensional view makes this knowledge (the knowledge itself or the body of knowledge) seem like it is coming out of thin air, when in reality, we only perceive it that way, as we can only perceive the three dimensions in which we live, as opposed to any extra-dimensional aspects of this body of knowledge
A butterfly's brain or central processing unit is not nearly large or developed enough to weigh complicated decisions, such as flying 200 miles to the east in order to avoid a large body of water 100 miles to the south, an obstacle that neither the butterfly nor its ancestors would have had to negotiate or contemplate. While a dolphin might possess the abilities of such complicated decisions making, an insect certainly does not.
That has always been my motto, if your gut is telling you something, you better listen. If you are looking for instructions on seeking these interactions,
I never disagreed that the behaviors of the Monarch butterfly weren't necessarily supernatural, though I do believe that the observed behaviors of the Monarch butterfly are best explained through an extra-dimensional body of knowledge.
n order to avoid an intellectually stalemated debate.
In this debate, my opponent has tried and failed to turn this into a "mystic versus skeptic" issue
by trying to distract with the benefits and detriments of the industry that has sprang up around the notion.
I zoomed way in and broke this issue down to the fundamentals by focusing on the abstract, so that the reader could use his or her own logic, reasoning and experiences to come to a solid conclusion.
My opponent has yet to adequately counter my argument that there is a shared body of knowledge which transcends space and time
He has also failed to adequately counter my point that when we break the subject matter down to the abstract, we can deduce that this shared body of knowledge must exist.
Frankly, there discourse is very shallow. I see almost no references and questions are not posited with any deep understanding of the side they're defending. While this is understandable, given their individual mindsets and that they're arguing against the thing they believe in, each side essentially sets up a strawman belief to defend.
There is a shared body of human knowledge which transcends space and time, such as the "collective unconscious" or "akashic record".”
What an excellent debate!!! Quite the joy to read as it was obvious we had two “monsters” of debate going head to head..
The first few posts to include the opening, were neck and neck. It was about half way into the debate that it appared Skyfloating became a little desperate and began attacking airspoon instead of continuing along the smooth flow of information the debate had previous.
Skyfloating’s call for links and facts from his opponent, all the while trying to turn the debate away from the subject, went hollow in the face of the subject matter and only proved to support my previous observation.
While I consider this to be a VERY close debate, airspoons overall consistency and wonderful answers to the Socratic Questions won the day, but just barely.
Win to airspoon