![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 3 to 27 of 28. Go back in thread:
Posted by fayeroe on July 2, 2009, at 13:37:50
In reply to This may sound foolish., posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 23:31:00
Dinah, I've experienced some wonderful things concerning dogs that have passed on to their other lives.
I believe that Tippy walked through the house after he died. I heard his toenails on the linoleum in kitchen.
I hear Fayeroe's toenails in this house and one night I was sitting at the computer crying and I heard her little "it's me" voice behind me.
There is a tremendous void when they leave but their spirit stays to comfort us.
You are not alone. xoxo Pat
Posted by Phil on July 2, 2009, at 14:30:26
In reply to This may sound foolish., posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 23:31:00
If my cat came back all I'd hear is the tinkling of wine glasses.
Posted by fayeroe on July 2, 2009, at 15:25:37
In reply to Re: This may sound foolish., posted by Phil on July 2, 2009, at 14:30:26
Posted by Timne on July 2, 2009, at 15:44:51
In reply to This may sound foolish., posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 23:31:00
> Even though the little princess spent most of her time sleeping, the house seems a bit emptier without her in it. It reminds me of how a house with people in it, even if they are not in the same room or sleeping or being still as can be, feels different from an empty house.
>
> I wonder if there's some sort of life energy that you can feel even if you can't see or hear it.
>
>When my friends say "maybe we were together in a past life" or "we have an energy connection" I usually refer to things in our "reality" that could be the cause. If it's good enough for my friends, I figure it good enough for general publication.
The expectation that another will wake up and engage one, or that the person will return home -- after work or after a long trip -- to engage one can account for the feeling of togetherness present in an abode when people aren't presently engaged with each other. Expectation can be measured in the form of heat activity in certain parts of the brain. Since it's a measurable, predictable form of energy, logic suggests it a much more likely source of feeling than an as yet unmeasured "life energy."
However, it is also a measurable sociological phenomenon that people in situations of social stress -- including loneliness, which is stress arising from lack of socialization -- more often allude to paranormal causes, spiritual concepts involving more than psychological foundations, or other unknown forces as causative of particular feelings than do people in stable, supportive, predictable social situations.
Posted by Kath on July 2, 2009, at 17:05:32
In reply to This may sound foolish., posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 23:31:00
> I wonder if there's some sort of life energy that you can feel even if you can't see or hear it.
~ ~ I certainly think there is!
(((you))) luv, Kath
Posted by Dinah on July 2, 2009, at 20:58:07
In reply to This may sound foolish., posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 23:31:00
I'm not sure I believe in an afterlife of any sort. I think I quit believing in ghosts or reincarnation after the dog who was the love of my life died. If she had been able to come back to me one way or another, she would have. I looked for her for ages, but never did see her.
Although I did have a very freaky houseguest dog around the time my favorite died. Maybe three of my dogs died during the period that she stayed with us on a semiregular basis. And each time one did, she would do something that was totally out of character for her, but totally in character for the dog who died. I guess it could be explained by her picking up on our distress, and of course she knew the other dogs involved. But it was kind of freaky. The little dog I was speaking of used to curl up on a ball on the small of my back. After she died, our visitor dog came a month or so later, and for the first and last time in her life tried to lie on my back. Another time she copied the distinctive paw on the arm, downcast head with an upward glance, pose of another favorite dog who had recently died. And another time something else that I don't particularly recall, but was also very distinctive. The visitor dog had quite a sense of humor. Apparently in her own home, if they had human visitors who were complaining or whining, the dog would join in with similar patterns of "speech" and the complainer would think she was being very sympathetic. So some sort of mimicry might have been involved.
I think what I'm talking about may have some explanation. But more like feeling when someone is looking at you , even if they aren't in your field of vision. Or waking up knowing your spouse isn't in bed with you, even if you sleep on opposite sides of the bed. Or again, the difference between an empty house or a house with someone in it.
Or when you're with someone you know well, if your eyes are closed and they don't move you can still notice a change of their mood?
It may be being sensitive to small things that we don't register noticing. Scents or temperature or movements. Or I don't really see why it's so far beyond belief that it might be some sort of energy. After all, all life is electrical isn't it? Or something like that. We haven't figured everything out yet.
Posted by Timne on July 2, 2009, at 22:00:12
In reply to Re: This may sound foolish., posted by Dinah on July 2, 2009, at 20:58:07
In the broadest sense, it can only be "life energy." The question becomes more one of how we speak of the unknown than one of "what is the energy."
This is common in occult circles these days. It becomes a matter of authority and confidence. We (we wizards and witches) don't really know what the "energy" is or how it works, but we embrace a definition so broad, it can't be refuted. Then we start working back from our unquestionable position of authority to imply that, since we obviously pronounced the authoritative definition, we also have authority to define, explain and interpret. See, you're a Virgo and there's energy from the planets and...
These "energies" do seem real enough and sometimes, in my experience, extremely paranormal. Godawful paranormal. Caught up in worldwide events paranormal. Back from the dead paranormal. Talked about it before it happened paranormal. It's probably not the best approach to lump them together as some do (*and as I have here) under the rubric of paranormal. Each might involve a different kind of energy. Our thalamus shuts our most incoming information, but sound pressure from a beating heart reaches our ears, whether we listen or not. We "know" our spouse is there because we hear their hearbeat and breathing. We hear them roll over on schedule, whether we know it or not.
But then our perceptions are influenced by our expectations. We knew that lover wouldn't be there in the morning, but we did not entertain those thoughts. When our subconcscious doesn't report the expected subaudible sounds to our cortex for processing, then those thoughts get an audience. So we piece together interpretations from several sources in our experience, and we cloud perceptions with interpretation.
I've known indigenous people to be sensitive to muscle tone and posture in ways atypical for urban folks. It reminds me of animal perceptions, which to me is a complement. We're the young'uns around here. The older species attended to a variety of sensory input we (*we scientists and philosophers) filter out with our thalamus, in preference for a world we think we've pretty well controlled with our language and our symbols and our cultural artifacts. Then, confused by our failure to control it, we start making up definitions I can't expose lest someone feel put down.
Posted by Phillipa on July 3, 2009, at 0:09:46
In reply to Re: This may sound foolish., posted by Dinah on July 2, 2009, at 20:58:07
Dinah google the singing RAINBOW's BRIDGE that's where I want to go. Love Phillipa
Posted by twinleaf on July 3, 2009, at 5:30:03
In reply to Re: This may sound foolish., posted by Dinah on July 2, 2009, at 20:58:07
My analyst thinks much the way you do. He recently called our sessions "magical electromagnetic encounters"!
Posted by Dinah on July 3, 2009, at 6:01:50
In reply to energy... » Dinah, posted by twinleaf on July 3, 2009, at 5:30:03
:)
Electromagnetic encounters. I like that. :)
My therapist talks in terms of energy often.
I am a bit more fanciful by talking about Harry Potter when Harry's wand and Voldemort's wand met, and created a golden web of energy. Which is definitely sort of a magical image. It seems apt though. When two people bring their own energy to an encounter, the result can be something greater than the sum of the energy each brings.
Posted by Dinah on July 3, 2009, at 6:03:51
In reply to Re: This may sound foolish. » Dinah, posted by Phillipa on July 3, 2009, at 0:09:46
That would be my vote for an afterlife, Phillipa. :)
Posted by Dinah on July 3, 2009, at 6:14:04
In reply to Re: This may sound foolish., posted by Timne on July 2, 2009, at 22:00:12
I see no reason to use definitions that could put anyone down. Words have generally agreed upon definitions that all can agree on, but they also have personal meaning. We all can agree that "sun" is the star that is the center of our galaxy, or some other wholly factual description. But the sun may bring pleasant images of joy and warmth to some people, while to others it may bring up unpleasant images of intensity and heat.
I lost my belief in reincarnation or ghosts because what I would have considered the gold standard of proofs didn't occur. But I don't think any less of those who do believe in those things, and accept that they have had different experiences that would indicate different results.
These things are hardly so well studied that there are proper words for them. People trying to use totally inadequate words to explain their personal experiences of the universe are bound to use those words in slightly different ways. I think that indicates more about the inadequacy of the English lexicon to adequately express certain experiences than it does about the beliefs of the people using the words.
One day no doubt these things will be more fully explored, and we'll have a greater consensus of word useage.
Posted by Dinah on July 3, 2009, at 6:20:34
In reply to Re: This may sound foolish. » Timne, posted by Dinah on July 3, 2009, at 6:14:04
I suppose by that I mean that I have no earthly idea what precisely it is I'm sensing. I use the term life energy but it might be the sound of her breathing or anything else really. I'm describing a sense of stillness. Why that stillness is, I couldn't say. My choice of imagery is as much a poetic one as a scientific explanation.
The term seems apt to me, but may seem less apt to others.
Posted by Gabbette on July 3, 2009, at 6:50:33
In reply to Occum's razor, posted by Timne on July 2, 2009, at 15:44:51
Occam's razor- it points to The simplest answer- but the simplest answer according to what?
It works in many areas, but belief systems isn't really one of them.Much of our "reality" is cultural indoctrination, it's subjective, there
are other simple explanations, but validation by mainstream science is still almost synonymous with what is considered reality. Habit? I don't know but it baffles me. Scientists have been dreadfully slow at allowing us to believe what we already knew.."We will now allow you to believe that fire does actually make you feel warm because we can now explain using our definitions how it can have that effect"
Okay, that was a stretch but unfortunately not much of one.
I'm not remotely dismissing it's value but it's stubbornly limited.
As to Dinah's question: Residual energy - termed " psychic imprinting"
would be the Occam's razor to those who have a different level of knowledge, ancient intelligent but not given the O.K by the guys in lab coats. Well... so what?
Science has dismissed, scoffed loudly and then acknowledged the validty of "quacks, old wives tales, and anecdotal evidence" as a matter of course.I haven't a clue what I believe; mystification and fascination are about as rigid as I get in that regard.
Posted by seldomseen on July 3, 2009, at 9:18:32
In reply to Re: This may sound foolish., posted by Dinah on July 3, 2009, at 6:20:34
I think every single living creature has an energy that is palpable if you "feel" for it. This energy permeates the space in which it occupies.
Sometimes we particularly notice the absence, rather than the presence, of this energy because it is around us all the time. Perhaps grief helps us to notice it.
I suspected this energy was present when I was with my grandfather when he died. To me, it was as though he just got up and left the room. But when I returned to his house, it was just a blank place.
I became *convinced* of it the first time I was present at the passing of a tiger. Palpable indeed.
So, do I think what you are saying is foolish? Obviously not. It's something that I've personally experienced time and time again.
Seldom.
Posted by Dinah on July 3, 2009, at 14:00:43
In reply to Re: This may sound foolish. » Dinah, posted by seldomseen on July 3, 2009, at 9:18:32
Me too.
And I think that even though this little girl had slipped away from us bit by bit over the last three years, this final loss of her physical presence is making me feel more melancholy than I expected. Even with my vet's blessing, it still wasn't a good death. Then I get angry and think there is no good death except a peaceful death at the end of a long and full life. Her life was too short, and not full at all in the last few years.
Posted by Dinah on July 3, 2009, at 14:02:48
In reply to Re: Occam's razor » Timne, posted by Gabbette on July 3, 2009, at 6:50:33
> Scientists have been dreadfully slow at allowing us to believe what we already knew..
My thought precisely. You have such a wonderful way of expressing exactly what I'm struggling to capture.
How are you Gabbi Gabbi? I've missed you.
Posted by Gabbette on July 3, 2009, at 15:50:55
In reply to Re: Occam's razor » Gabbette, posted by Dinah on July 3, 2009, at 14:02:48
Dinah
Thank you. you know it goes both ways
I suspect we both think the other has a talent
we lack.How am I?
I'm not sure..
but thank you for asking..
> > Scientists have been dreadfully slow at allowing us to believe what we already knew..
>
> My thought precisely. You have such a wonderful way of expressing exactly what I'm struggling to capture.
>
> How are you Gabbi Gabbi? I've missed you.
>
Posted by Timne on July 3, 2009, at 20:19:41
In reply to Re: This may sound foolish. » Timne, posted by Dinah on July 3, 2009, at 6:14:04
> I see no reason to use definitions that could put anyone down. Words have generally agreed upon definitions that all can agree on,
Well, I'm not sure you're responding to what I said -- it seems more like some culture particular to this site, but the concepts don't come together like that. I'm shy, more like intimidated against honestly and maturely discussing the definitions people make up because people might claim my recognition of their definition as a made up definition not everyone shares might become part of their emotional landscape and they might blame me and ask someone to use rhetorical violence against me under color of this camp's authority.
I speak in riddles because the site is widely rumored to have a policy of putting people down or out or aside or something like that when administrators, who sometimes engage in conversations that I was told they sometimes end by wielding administrative powers, conclude something somebody said could make somebody feel "put down." try to define that, please. Is it like a street gang, and if you don't show enough respect i.e. if you wear your hat on the wrong side on the wrong street, you made your homies feel "put down". I grew past that when I was about 12.
Personally, I prefer people to take responsibility for their own feelings, and generally avoid situations where I am held responsible for others emotional behavior. But for some reason, I decided to post on this site and find myself writing in sawtooth language to try to explain things that for whatever reason I started writing about.
The "definitions" to which I refer are definitions of concepts. Not everybody agrees what "saved" means -- to me, it means rescued from some sort of peril. To others, it means some cosmic eternal thing. To me, Virgo means little more than folklore. In the occult world of religion and such, Virgo means a lot of things to a lot of people. Sometimes a knock in the walls is defined as a ghost -- those are the definitions I'm talking about, but if I use standard academic langauge to discuss them here as social constructs, I risk being attacked by somebody as "putting someone down," at least according to what people told me about this site.
So, if you say you see no reason to use definitions that "put people down," for me to have the slightest clue what you are talking about, I need to know quite a bit more about 1.) what you mean by "put people down" and 2.) what are your habits regarding personal use of force, rhetorical violence against others and authority in socially constructed settings. I don't think I'll learn enough about you, or that this is a safe place for me to engage in meaningful discourse regarding what you say you see reason to do or not do, so I'll otherwise just recognize that you said it.
Posted by Timne on July 3, 2009, at 20:40:03
In reply to Re: Occam's razor » Timne, posted by Gabbette on July 3, 2009, at 6:50:33
> Occam's razor- it points to The simplest answer- but the simplest answer according to what?
The answer that assumes the fewest postulates. There can be hanging chads when we go counting postulates, but generally evidence that can be repeated is not considered speculative.
> It works in many areas, but belief systems isn't really one of them.Oh. I thought that's where it was best used -- to separate beliefs from experiential knowledge.
> Much of our "reality" is cultural indoctrination, it's subjective, there
> are other simple explanations, but validation by mainstream science is still almost synonymous with what is considered reality. Habit? I don't know but it baffles me. Scientists have been dreadfully slow at allowing us to believe what we already knew..> "We will now allow you to believe that fire does actually make you feel warm because we can now explain using our definitions how it can have that effect"
>
> Okay, that was a stretch but unfortunately not much of one.
>
> I'm not remotely dismissing it's value but it's stubbornly limited.
>
> As to Dinah's question: Residual energy - termed " psychic imprinting"
> would be the Occam's razor to those who have a different level of knowledge, ancient intelligent but not given the O.K by the guys in lab coats. Well... so what?
Thing with this new age ancient intelligence, there is seldom a cultural continuum to support the notion of "ancient." I often hear claims of people speaking for some "ancient" persona, but it's a far, far stretch for me to accept that as a genuine residual delivery of some element of a long-dead person's ego when the far more reliable definition is that they are in fact engaging in a form of narrative that can be explained in psychological terms -- often related to needs to be recognized as an unquestioned authority after being nurtured early in life by authority figures who refused to allow their authority to be questioned.So we get back to loose definitions. "Residual energy" Yes, in the cerebral cortex, created by repeated exposure to a circumstance followed by abrupt termination of the circumstance. Like phantom pain after an amputation, we reach out for lost loved ones as if they are still there. Our mind has well-explained mechanisms for this -- we analyze internal perceptions along the same pathways as we analyze external perceptions. Memories float up through our roughly six layers of cortical neurons while incoming signals float down. It can be difficult to recognize the difference. So it's reasonable that we look toward our cultural constructs we've assembled to help us remember the difference -- science -- it is the harsh definition of reality that tells us, gone is gone is gone. We still feel it here, the energy is here, the smells are still reaching our nose, sounds come from that part of the house in familiar wavelengths we once used to recognize the presence of a life. No presumptions there -- all measurable forms of energy.
Residual energy with actual agency as a living being after death? Could very well be, but the presumptions we have to build to get there from here number in the dozens. That's the sharp edge of Occums razor.
> Science has dismissed, scoffed loudly and then acknowledged the validty of "quacks, old wives tales, and anecdotal evidence" as a matter of course.
Not as a universal matter of course. Some science has scoffed at some wive's tails, some of which later found some basis in empirical evidence.
> I haven't a clue what I believe; mystification and fascination are about as rigid as I get in that regard.
>
>Ah, same. I practice that stuff -- the paranormal, and most of my public life is related to some paranormal purpose, but I jealously guard the darkness against false light.
Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on July 4, 2009, at 8:09:53
In reply to This may sound foolish., posted by Dinah on July 1, 2009, at 23:31:00
> Even though the little princess spent most of her time sleeping, the house seems a bit emptier without her in it. It reminds me of how a house with people in it, even if they are not in the same room or sleeping or being still as can be, feels different from an empty house.
>
> I wonder if there's some sort of life energy that you can feel even if you can't see or hear it.Hi Dinah:
Well, when you lose something you dearly love, I tend to believe that the "life force" is a mark that remains tattooed on your soul. When I went through my couple of horrific losses, I remember there was this song with the line "Peace and quiet...are over rated words." The "silence" really f'ed me up. I would go down to the cemetery, and sit there and talk, and cry, for hours. I guess I somehow felt 'closer'. But, I've learned that I can still find and feel my loved ones in many places, in nature, in music..etc. Loss of others I love is now a MAJOR trigger for me. Just the thought can send me reeling. So, sorry if I didn't really answer your question, but just some thoughts on it.
Jay
Posted by Dinah on July 4, 2009, at 8:20:56
In reply to Re: This may sound foolish., posted by Timne on July 3, 2009, at 20:19:41
That's likely true.
I'm sorry if I didn't understand what you were trying to say, or that I didn't explain myself better. My answer really didn't have anything to do with Babble rules. But as you say, this may not be the time or place.
Posted by Gabbette on July 4, 2009, at 18:13:22
In reply to Re: Occam's razor, posted by Timne on July 3, 2009, at 20:40:03
>
> The answer that assumes the fewest postulates.Semantics the question remains, postulates defined by what?
There can be hanging chads when we go counting postulates, but generally evidence that can be repeated is not considered speculative.
>Exactly "generally" but your faith has to be in what is generally accepted.
Forty years ago it was a fact that smoking was good for you.30 years ago formula was an improvement over breastfeeding
15 years ago it ulcers were caused by
excess stomach acid.and on it goes
>
> > It works in many areas, but belief systems isn't really one of them.
>
> Oh. I thought that's where it was best used -- to separate beliefs from experiential knowledge.The two are not mutually exclusive unless one area of authority is trusted as omniscient usually that's because of ethnocentricity and not borne out by facts. I could give statistics, but the disasters caused by our current authorities "beliefs" and that's what they are.
are easy enough to findScience gained our current respect by violently eradicating any other form of knowledge and healing. By burning female healers at the stake
as witches. By destroying Pagan culture using hideous tortures.
People suffering during the bubonic plague could be healed, but anyone caught using traditional medicine to achieve this was killed.
And what do you know, the myriad methods used before patriarchal eradication are once again being used with success -and sometimes even promoted by by mainstream medicine now that they understand enough about how the ingredients affect the body.
I really don't want to discuss this anymore.
Not at all because I'm irked, or won't sincerely enjoy a discussion with you on a different topic.
It's my own fault really, for bringing it up.
My personal belief is that human beings are outrageously egocentric believing they have the
final answer on almost any subject.> > Much of our "reality" is cultural indoctrination, it's subjective, there
> > are other simple explanations, but validation by mainstream science is still almost synonymous with what is considered reality. Habit? I don't know but it baffles me. Scientists have been dreadfully slow at allowing us to believe what we already knew..
>
> > "We will now allow you to believe that fire does actually make you feel warm because we can now explain using our definitions how it can have that effect"
> >
> > Okay, that was a stretch but unfortunately not much of one.
> >
> > I'm not remotely dismissing it's value but it's stubbornly limited.
> >
> > As to Dinah's question: Residual energy - termed " psychic imprinting"
> > would be the Occam's razor to those who have a different level of knowledge, ancient intelligent but not given the O.K by the guys in lab coats. Well... so what?
>
>
> Thing with this new age ancient intelligence, there is seldom a cultural continuum to support the notion of "ancient." I often hear claims of people speaking for some "ancient" persona, but it's a far, far stretch for me to accept that as a genuine residual delivery of some element of a long-dead person's ego when the far more reliable definition is that they are in fact engaging in a form of narrative that can be explained in psychological terms -- often related to needs to be recognized as an unquestioned authority after being nurtured early in life by authority figures who refused to allow their authority to be questioned.
>
> So we get back to loose definitions. "Residual energy" Yes, in the cerebral cortex, created by repeated exposure to a circumstance followed by abrupt termination of the circumstance. Like phantom pain after an amputation, we reach out for lost loved ones as if they are still there. Our mind has well-explained mechanisms for this -- we analyze internal perceptions along the same pathways as we analyze external perceptions. Memories float up through our roughly six layers of cortical neurons while incoming signals float down. It can be difficult to recognize the difference. So it's reasonable that we look toward our cultural constructs we've assembled to help us remember the difference -- science -- it is the harsh definition of reality that tells us, gone is gone is gone. We still feel it here, the energy is here, the smells are still reaching our nose, sounds come from that part of the house in familiar wavelengths we once used to recognize the presence of a life. No presumptions there -- all measurable forms of energy.
>
> Residual energy with actual agency as a living being after death? Could very well be, but the presumptions we have to build to get there from here number in the dozens. That's the sharp edge of Occums razor.
>
> > Science has dismissed, scoffed loudly and then acknowledged the validty of "quacks, old wives tales, and anecdotal evidence" as a matter of course.
>
> Not as a universal matter of course. Some science has scoffed at some wive's tails, some of which later found some basis in empirical evidence.
>
> > I haven't a clue what I believe; mystification and fascination are about as rigid as I get in that regard.
> >
> >
>
> Ah, same. I practice that stuff -- the paranormal, and most of my public life is related to some paranormal purpose, but I jealously guard the darkness against false light.
>
>
Posted by Gabbette on July 4, 2009, at 18:58:33
In reply to Re: Occam's razor, posted by Timne on July 3, 2009, at 20:40:03
apologies, I missed the last paragraph of your post, and the last paragraph changed the whole meaning. And made my response redundant.
I do this frequently though I've vowed to work on it, I've gotten as far as apologizing very sincerely.
Posted by Timne on July 4, 2009, at 19:34:03
In reply to Re: Occam's razor » Timne, posted by Gabbette on July 4, 2009, at 18:58:33
> apologies, I missed the last paragraph of your post, and the last paragraph changed the whole meaning. And made my response redundant.
>
> I do this frequently though I've vowed to work on it, I've gotten as far as apologizing very sincerely.Apology accepted, but not required or requested. I, too, tend to respond on line to pieces of what is said and don't always grock the big picture of what is being communicated before I tap out a reply.
The riddle of all of this is that alchemy and some of those traditional practices forbidden by old faith-based institutions of yore (and which survive as organizations to this day) laid the very foundation for modern science. You're right, though, in my view, that much modern science has become somewhat the shadow of the rigid institutions that forbade it in the past. On the other hand, some say every charlatan with a bullhorn has claimed the "Galileo effect" as the only reason their bizarre "truth" isn't accepted, when there is often a clear understanding in scientific terms of whatever it is the charlatan is hawking as mysterious.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.