[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Uplift

Before atoms, particles, waves, strings, humans, what exists. Where and what do all things that can be experienced through humanity, and without humanity, come from. What exists without the earth, space, universe and so on, but can create the whole lot? And how? Thats the realm of Spirit, which is the reason the mundane exists, or doesn't. It makes the mundane possible, but isn't effected by the mundane, so thats what I believe is outside the mundane or normal, but can shape and effect the mundane in any way it chooses. Spirit is us.

It sounds like you're describing spirit as "everything that we don't yet understand or can explain by other means."

Originally Posted by Lallymac

When you find yourself spontaneoulsy standing in the energy field of another human being on the other side of the world, feeling their physicality, hearing their thoughts, breathing their breath, looking out of their eyes and accurately describe their environment, you 'know' we are spirit/energy beings having physical experince.

I would love to experience that! It would certainly change my mind.

Originally Posted by Lallymac

"I've created my own mental search engine. When I get stuck, I imagine myself asking the question to my voice activated search engine, then wait to be shown the answer." I asked why he didn't do it earlier instead of waiting until he was at the end of his wits. He reckons it doesn't seem to work until he's exercised all his other options and then mumbled something about having to explain how he worked it out to his boss without compromising his credibility.

An interesting visualisation for accessing the universal mind.

I've had similar experiences (I'm also a programmer). Much of software development is the adaptation and application of existing solutions to new, but similar problems. Once in a while we'll come across a novel problem which doesn't seem like one with an existing solution. It almost always does have an existing solution, yet it can still stump us.

We'll think about the problem for ages, turning it upside-down and inside-out, looking it from different angles, picturing the problem apple as an orange or even a monkey and seeing if that allows us to come up with the solution (I know this from observing my own thoughts, and asking questions of colleagues to gauge their mental processes). We can cover almost all of the problem space looking for that solution (or one that can be adapted) but fail to connect with a small section that contains an answer.

It's when we stop thinking that our brain, continuing to work in the background beyond conscious thought, provides the answer that we already knew, making the connection which we couldn't consciously make. So while you see that as connecting with the universal mind, I see it as allowing our wonderful, yet entirely physical brain to do its work.

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

I’ll admit that there have been times in my life where judgement from others has led me to I question whether or not I should leave my current path and become more “normal”, but I always bounce back with a hardened sense of clarity, knowing that I’ve made the right choice in being myself instead of trying to aspire to some sort of socially accepted image of what is “right” and what we “should” be.

Well said. I can understand why Lallymac made her comment about the 5 senses being boring. That's how I see normality. But perhaps, as with the 5 senses, normality isn't as bad as we make it seem? Perhaps it's ok to be "normal" as long as it's by conscious choice after considering the options rather than because everyone else is doing it. (for the record I've never considered myself "normal" nor anyone I've actually come to know. Which leads me to believe there's really no such thing as normal, which I guess is the reason for the quotes )

Originally Posted by Lallymac

It was an attempt to tackle the subject from a different angle and hopefully bi pass some of the standard scientific evidence blockades that usually stall this kind of discussion from getting off the ground.

And yet the need for empirical evidence is probably the most significant reason for the lack of acceptance by the general public. That, and my lack of personal experience, it the reason I don't accept it. I have no issue with exploring the possibilities though, but until I have undeniable personal experience or explanations which either fit within (or give me good reason to modify) my current understanding of the way things work, I would be denouncing my own principles and beliefs if I accepted ESP as a whole. I am willing to consider particular abilities, (and perhaps change my beliefs), on a case-by-case basis, such as the example you gave of your computer programmer friend (which clearly didn't change my beliefs ).