Summary and Conclusion
"There is a shared body of human knowledge which transcends space and time, such as the "collective unconscious" or "akashic
I think I take more of an issue with the way it was argued than with the topic itself. Much could have been made of this topic. Carl Jung had piles of
Evidence for the truth of this, gained through clinical trials, testimonies of thousands of patients and a life dedicated to the research of the
psyche and the nature of reality. In his earth-shattering and extremely controversial book "The Sense of Being Stared At" Renegade-Scientist Rupert
Sheldrake was able to prove - in double-blind studies no less - that animals as well as humans have some kind of sixth sense that transcends the
limits of the senses. He calls this "morphogenetic fields", arguing that it is a collective energy-field or a body of knowledge out of which
physical matter and phenomena arise. Then there are dozens of time-honoured Religious scriptures that describe such a shared field. Not to mention the
work of modern physics which stipulates a
of information, claiming we are all interconnected.
How could my
opponent miss such scientific milestones to argue his topic, I dont know.
A brief glance at Wikipedia would have been enough. It would have been my opponents job to find this information and present it. Instead my opponents
two main pillars for his case were:
1. Monarch Butterflies and
2. Edgar Cayce and
3. A "gut feeling".
We have seen, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Cayce is a highly questionable source. We have also seen that the behaviour of a Monarch Butterfly
could be explained in many different ways, by...
a) Its senses
b) Its antennas
c) Some kind of Echo-Sense similar to the Bat
d) Genetic Memory
e) Or my opponents "Extra Dimension"
My opponent did not explain the mechanics or process of this "Extra Dimension". Neither is it clear whether it can be harnessed or not. Neither is
the exact location and nature of this "gut feeling clear". As we have seen, his
"Gut Feeling" could come from:
a) Life Experience
b) The Mind / Brain
c) The Subconscious
d) The Soul
e) Genetic Memory / DNA
g) Something not yet known
h) My Opponents "Extra Dimensional Realm Outside of Time and Space"
My opponent did not give us suffiicient reason to prefer Option h) over the many others that I pointed out. Whats wrong with looking at more probable
explanations first? Why do we need realms beyond space and time in order to have a gut feeling about something? What, for example, if its an
energyfield within space and time?
Or what if its no collective energy-field at all?
Since the burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary (unproven) claim, it was not my job to disprove my opponents side. My opponent
says that was my job. But it wasnt. You cant disprove something there is not a shred of evidence for (well, actually there is evidence, but my
opponent did not check in Wikipedia for it). It was my job to refute and counter-argue my opponents points while providing all probable alternative
and conventional explanations for the phenomena described. I think I did this as meticulously and thouroughly as one could possibly expect from a
Debate on this rare subject.
Now to address some of Airspoons final points...
or whether it is shared through an extra-dimensional means (such as with intuition, psychic powers, creative intuition or innate
This statement again contains the presupposition that psychic powers, intuition, "creative intuition" (whatever that is) and "innate behaviours"
(thats a new one too) require extra-dimensional physics. To this I will say that even that which is invisible to the eyes, such as radio-waves, do not
require an Extra Dimension. So even if we receive, say, telepathy-waves from someone, that would not require an Extra Dimension "beyond time and
space". My opponents argument is not even consistent within itself.
First he used Edgar Cayce, then, in his final post, he says he is
skeptical of mystics. First he used "collective", now in his last post he says he is not arguing a collective unconscious. The question remains:
What exactly is he arguing
how do we explain the knowledge that doesn't come from someone or something else and which doesn't come from our own experiences?
That, I was hoping to learn in this Debate.
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
Which information? Where are the Case studies? There are literally thousands of websites with case studies of odd premonitions, precognitions and
whatnot. Not a single one was shown in this Debate.
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.
My opponent does not understand the Echo-Principle used by Bats and Dolphins. There is no complicated Decision making required here. In layman terms
it works like this: I send out a sonar. The sound reflects back in varying degrees, from which I, the insect or bat, can determine where objects are.
This is why bats can fly in the dark. Its simple, not complicated. And this is only ONE
possible explanation of the many I presented.
As for butterflies "just knowing" stuff hundreds of miles far away, this does not sound like echo or sonar, this sounds like a typical case of
genetically imprinted, ancestral memory.
Nature is fascinating, isnt it?
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
There is also the saying "The Body never lies". We've gone through many thousands of years of Evolution and our bodies should know a thing or two
now about life, wouldnt you think? Even without super-far-out extra-dimensional help I think we are pretty well equipped.
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.
I could kind of follow you with the "collective field" thing. But now you're loosing me man. Extra-Dimensional? Beyond Time and Space? Do we really
need to go that far out to argue the existence of a collective field? Wouldnt a collective field that operates within time and space suffice? Arent
even premonitions traits of time and space? You're way, way out there dude.
n order to avoid an intellectually stalemated debate.
You avoided specifics in order not to be attacked. The problem with that approach is you cant prove much of anything either. If you dont define your
position, you can keep moving the goalposts, but it will be difficult to score a goal yourself.
In this debate, my opponent has tried and failed to turn this into a "mystic versus skeptic" issue
I actually wasnt trying to do that. I only mentioned in passing that this is one of those mystic-vs-skeptic-classics. In fact, as every reader can
clearly see, I incorporated all sides of the issue, looked at it from EVERY angle.
by trying to distract with the benefits and detriments of the industry that has sprang up around the notion.
Distract? The industry that has sprung up from the notions you argue is of utmost importance to this Debate. It is the very reason why it is important
to stay grounded. As they say "Be open minded, but not so much that your brains fall out". The con-artists inhabiting this field are legion. And
some of the phrases my opponent used are used by exactly these kooks in order to peddle their stuff. The strategy is:
1. Make unspecfic promises. Never specifiy outcomes or results. But promise magical abilities.
2. Make Cash.
Thats all there is too it. That is not a "distraction" and not even only noteworthy. Its scandalous and its been going on since a long time.
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.
The most likely conclusion the reader has from this Debate is that the nature of the unknown remains unknown.
My opponent has yet to adequately counter my argument that there is a shared body of knowledge which transcends space and time
Like I havent already? And like its my job to disprove something you cant present evidence for? OK, I ll counter it again, here it is: There is not a
shared body of knowledge that transcends space and time. All knowledge is located within space and time. Thats actually proven. Its the current status
quo of science, the sum of thousands of years of research and experience. And even in the most optimistic cases it would still be 1-1 between us
because you have not provided research, studies, evidence, stats or anything to help
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.
Im afraid there is nothing to counter in this statement. its so vague that it could mean anything and everything. You are good at avoiding specifics
that can actually be discussed. Your point remains vague. Some vague gut-feeling you had the other day. Some abstract thought about extra-dimensions,
unspecified. If you would have specified you would have explained:
* If not time and space, what might govern these Extra Dimensions?
* What might they look, sound, feel, taste, smell like?
* Might our own Imagination be a door to such Dimensions?
* Might our Nightdreams be? (Precognition is often reported in Dreams)
* Who has reported such extra-dimensions?
* What scientific models have been created to explore such Dimensions?
* What do the ancients say about such ideas?
* How might the Monarch Butterfly interact with such Dimensions?
* How might Morphogenetic Fields, the Collective Unconscious and Quantum Fields be different words to describe the very same thing?
These things and more could have been explored in this Debate.
To finish things off, allow me to buffer up alternative and conventional explanations for that elusive "gut feeling" we sometimes have:
* I have a bad feeling about my new neighbour - Maybe its because I have met similar people before and it did not go well!
* I know which team is going to win the championships. And then they do - Maybe its because I could read the body-language of the players and that
body language spelled s-u-c-c-e-s-s.
* I have a bad feeling about getting on this flight - Maybe this really is a psychic insight, but it does not have to be from beyond time and space,
it could also be from a part of me that "senses" something about the plane.
* I sense that someone is in trouble. Maybe that is a type of telepathy - but that requires no extra Dimension. It can take place like radio-waves
take place within space and time.
* I have a gut feeling about a certain Company. Maybe thats because I am very experienced with companies.
This Debate was very much enjoyed. Arguing the opposite of what I believe was also very much enjoyed and really did balance me out. Before this
Debate, in real life, I was actually fond of Edgar Cayces "prophecies that had come true". But after taking a closer look because of this Debate I
realized my fondness may be misguided.
. I also enjoyed Airspoons style and attempts. He is a top-notch talker and thread-starter on ATS in general
so debating him here was certainly fun. I hope it was fun for you to read as well. Thank you for reading.