who are we, who/how were we created, and does this journey continue beyond the flesh?

This has been my focus for the past year or so, digging into the origins and the scholarship surrounding these topics. Digging into the origins of the scholarship as well, because that can be just as telling.

does this journey continue beyond the flesh

This has proven to be a very interesting investigation. I certainly can't give a definitive answer, but I can point to a fair bit of scholarship (scientific inquiry) that suggests in some cases that the mind is not tied to the body, and in other cases that there is much more to "the physical universe" than the "scientific consensus." Our very ideas of what it means to be physical have no evidential support in science, yet we cling to them and preach physicalism with an "Enlightenment" (16th century) view of what that means.

Since I was a teenager, when I began to question my Christian upbringing, I have considered myself "agnostic," which is to say "I don't know the answer." After I began to question, I studied science, and worked in science or related fields (engineering). I retained that "I don't know" attitude, but I looked for answers everywhere and found none. I assumed that because there was no scholarship on the topic outside of philosophy (no scientific inquiry) that there was simply nothing there to look for. I was "on the fence," but definitely leaning towards the side of "this is all there is." I remained in that leaning position for most of my adult life. I have more recently changed my lean because of what I have found.

After my more resent investigation (now that I know better how to look for evidence), I am still in the "I don't know" camp, in that I certainly can't answer any of these questions to anyone's satisfaction, even my own (especially my own), but I can give some much more interesting answers now than I could a couple years ago.

My research suggests that we do not look to answer any of these questions using science, especially the last question. The first couple we ask (who are we, who/how were we created), but all of our inquiries are strictly confined to a box that was created by Rockefeller's school system and it's conditional funding. It isn't that "too few people think outside the box," it's that you can't think outside the box, because you can't get funding, or published, or even have a career at all if you look.

Despite this, quite a few have looked over the years. British Intelligence looked in the early 20th century. The Nazis looked afterwards (with connections between those organizations and this particular topic of inquiry), the C_A looked after the Nazis (some of the same exact people were involved, because the C_A was (are) the Nazis). But there are also quite a few academic investigations as well, they just aren't all that easy to find. Now that I've actually read some of those reports, it is obvious that they followed the scientific process perfectly fine. More interestingly perhaps, is that all of these sources, and many of their reports of scientific inquiry produced some very interesting positive results (Eureka!).

That doesn't make their results true, that's not what science does, but it does show that it is a topic worth further exploration. Other than follow ups by the same researchers, there is no corroboration or repeat experiments. There can't be because of conditional funding, not to mention brainwashing ("everyone knows there's nothing there"), and training ("this over here is proper science, don't look over there, that's quackery"), and calling it "pseudoscience" even though these experiments followed the process of science perfectly. It is "pseudoscience" ONLY BECAUSE it found results that don't fit in with the dogma of The Science.

So while I can't answer the questions, my research suggests that Mainstream Science has no grounds to say anything about it, because Mainstream Science hasn't looked to answer the question, rather, they quite purposefully direct us away from any inquiry.

Makes you think.

who are we, who/how were we created, and does this journey continue beyond the flesh?

This has been my focus for the past year or so, digging into the origins and the scholarship surrounding these topics. Digging into the origins of the scholarship as well, because that can be just as telling.

does this journey continue beyond the flesh

This has proven to be a very interesting investigation. I certainly can't give a definitive answer, but I can point to a fair bit of scholarship (scientific inquiry) that suggests in some cases that the mind is not tied to the body, and in other cases that there is much more to "the physical universe" than the "scientific consensus." Our very ideas of what it means to be physical have no evidential support in science, yet we cling to them and preach physicalism with an "Enlightenment" (16th century) view of what that means.

Since I was a teenager, when I began to question my Christian upbringing, I have considered myself "agnostic," which is to say "I don't know the answer." After I began to question, I studied science, and worked in science or related fields (engineering). I retained that "I don't know" attitude, but I looked for answers everywhere and found none. I assumed that because there was no scholarship on the topic outside of philosophy (no scientific inquiry) that there was simply nothing there to look for. I was "on the fence," but definitely leaning towards the side of "this is all there is." I remained in that leaning position for most of my adult life. I have more recently changed my lean because of what I have found.

After my more resent investigation (now that I know better how to look for evidence), I am still in the "I don't know" camp, in that I certainly can't answer any of these questions to anyone's satisfaction, even my own (especially my own), but I can give some much more interesting answers now than I could a couple years ago.

My research suggests that we do not look to answer any of these questions using science, especially the last question. The first couple we ask (who are we, who/how were we created), but all of our inquiries are strictly confined to a box that was created by Rockefeller's school system and it's conditional funding. It isn't that "too few people think outside the box," it's that you can't think outside the box, because you can't get funding, or published, or even have a career at all if you look.

Despite this, quite a few have looked over the years. British Intelligence looked in the early 20th century. The Nazis looks afterwards (with connections between those organizations and this particular topic of inquiry), the C_A looked after the Nazis (some of the same exact people were involved, because the C_A was (are) the Nazis). But there are also quite a few academic investigations as well, they just aren't all that easy to find. Now that I've actually read some of those reports, it is obvious that they followed the scientific process perfectly fine. More interestingly perhaps, is that all of these sources, and many of their reports of scientific inquiry produced some very interesting positive results (Eureka!).

That doesn't make their results true, that's not what science does, but it does show that it is a topic worth further exploration. Other than follow ups by the same researchers, there is no corroboration or repeat experiments. There can't be because of conditional funding, not to mention brainwashing ("everyone knows there's nothing there"), and training ("this over here is proper science, don't look over there, that's quackery"), and calling it "pseudoscience" even though these experiments followed the process of science perfectly. It is "pseudoscience" ONLY BECAUSE it found results that don't fit in with the dogma of The Science.

So while I can't answer the questions, my research suggests that Mainstream Science has no grounds to say anything about it, because Mainstream Science hasn't looked to answer the question, rather, they quite purposefully direct us away from any inquiry.

Makes you think.

who are we, who/how were we created, and does this journey continue beyond the flesh?

This has been my focus for the past year or so, digging into the origins and the scholarship surrounding these topics. Digging into the origins of the scholarship as well, because that can be just as telling.

does this journey continue beyond the flesh

This has proven to be a very interesting investigation. I certainly can't give a definitive answer, but I can point to a fair bit of scholarship (scientific inquiry) that suggests in some cases that the mind is not tied to the body, and in other cases that there is much more to "the physical universe" than the "scientific consensus." Our very ideas of what it means to be physical have no evidential support in science, yet we cling to them and preach physicalism with an "Enlightenment" (16th century) view of what that means.

Since I was a teenager, when I began to question my Christian upbringing, I have considered myself "agnostic," which is to say "I don't know the answer." After I began to question, I studied science, and worked in science or related fields (engineering). I retained that "I don't know" attitude, but I looked for answers everywhere and found none. I assumed that because there was no scholarship on the topic outside of philosophy (no scientific inquiry) that there was simply nothing there to look for. I was "on the fence," but definitely leaning towards the side of "this is all there is." I remained in that leaning position for most of my adult life. I have more recently changed my lean because of what I have found.

After my more resent investigation (now that I know better how to look for evidence), I am still in the "I don't know" camp, in that I certainly can't answer any of these questions to anyone's satisfaction, even my own (especially my own), but I can give some much more interesting answers now than I could a couple years ago.

My research suggests that we do not look to answer any of these questions using science, especially the last question. The first couple we ask (who are we, who/how were we created), but all of our inquiries are strictly confined to a box that was created by Rockefeller's school system and it's conditional funding. It isn't that "too few people think outside the box," it's that you can't think outside the box, because you can't get funding, or published, or even have a career at all if you look.

Despite this, quite a few have looked over the years. British Intelligence looked in the early 20th century. The Nazis looks afterwards (with connections between those organizations and this particular topic of inquiry), the C_A looked after the Nazis (some of the same exact people were involved, because the C_A was (are) the Nazis). But there are also quite a few academic investigations as well, they just aren't all that easy to find. Now that I've actually read some of those reports, it is obvious that they followed the scientific process perfectly fine. More interestingly perhaps, is that these reports of scientific inquiry produced some very interesting positive results (Eureka!).

That doesn't make their results true, that's not what science does, but it does show that it is a topic worth further exploration. Other than follow ups by the same researchers, there is no corroboration or repeat experiments. There can't be because of conditional funding, not to mention brainwashing ("everyone knows there's nothing there"), and training ("this over here is proper science, don't look over there, that's quackery"), and calling it "pseudoscience" even though these experiments followed the process of science perfectly. It is "pseudoscience" ONLY BECAUSE it found results that don't fit in with the dogma of The Science.

So while I can't answer the questions, my research suggests that Mainstream Science has no grounds to say anything about it, because Mainstream Science hasn't looked to answer the question, rather, they quite purposefully direct us away from any inquiry.

Makes you think.

who are we, who/how were we created, and does this journey continue beyond the flesh?

This has been my focus for the past year or so, digging into the origins and the scholarship surrounding these topics. Digging into the origins of the scholarship as well, because that can be just as telling.

does this journey continue beyond the flesh

This has proven to be a very interesting investigation. I certainly can't give a definitive answer, but I can point to a fair bit of scholarship (scientific inquiry) that suggests in some cases that the mind is not tied to the body, and in other cases that there is much more to "the physical universe" than the "scientific consensus." Our very ideas of what it means to be physical have no evidential support in science, yet we cling to them and preach physicalism with an "Enlightenment" (16th century) view of what that means.

Since I was a teenager, when I began to question my Christian upbringing, I have considered myself "agnostic," which is to say "I don't know the answer." After I began to question, I studied science, and worked in science or related fields (engineering). I retained that "I don't know" attitude, but I looked for answers everywhere and found none. I assumed that because there was no scholarship on the topic outside of philosophy (no scientific inquiry) that there was simply nothing there to look for. I was "on the fence," but definitely leaning towards the side of "this is all there is." I remained in that leaning position for most of my adult life. I have more recently changed my lean because of what I have found.

After my more resent investigation (now that I know better how to look for evidence), I am still in the "I don't know" camp, in that I certainly can't answer any of these questions to anyone's satisfaction, even my own (especially my own), but I can give some much more interesting answers now than I could a couple years ago.

My research suggests that we do not look to answer any of these questions using science, especially the last question. The first couple we ask (who are we, who/how were we created), but all of our inquiries are strictly confined to a box that was created by Rockefeller's school system and it's conditional funding. It isn't that "too few people think outside the box," it's that you can't think outside the box, because you can't get funding, or published, or even have a career at all if you look.

Despite this, quite a few have looked over the years. British Intelligence looked in the early 20th century. The Nazis looks afterwards (with connections between those organizations and this particular topic of inquiry), the C_A looked after the Nazis (some of the same exact people were involved, because the C_A was (are) the Nazis). But there are also quite a few academic investigations as well, they just aren't all that easy to find. Now that I've actually read some of those reports, it is obvious that they followed the scientific process perfectly fine. More interestingly perhaps, is that these reports of scientific inquiry produced some very interesting positive results (Eureka!).

That doesn't make their results true, that's not what science does, but it does show that it is a topic worth further exploration. Other than follow ups by the same researchers, there is no corroboration or repeat experiments. There can't be because of conditional funding, not to mention brainwashing ("everyone knows there's nothing there"), and training ("this over here is proper science, don't look over there, that's quackery"), and calling it "pseudoscience" even though these experiments followed the process of science perfectly. It is "pseudoscience" ONLY BECAUSE it found results that don't fit in with the dogma of The Science.

So while I can't answer the questions, my research suggests that Mainstream Science can't say anything about it really, because Mainstream Science hasn't looked to answer the question at all, rather, they quite purposefully direct us away from any inquiry.

Makes you think.

who are we, who/how were we created, and does this journey continue beyond the flesh?

This has been my focus for the past year or so, digging into the origins and the scholarship surrounding these topics. Digging into the origins of the scholarship as well, because that can be just as telling.

does this journey continue beyond the flesh

This has proven to be a very interesting investigation. I certainly can't give a definitive answer, but I can point to a fair bit of scholarship (scientific inquiry) that suggests in some cases that the mind is not tied to the body, and in other cases that there is much more to "the physical universe" than the "scientific consensus." Our very ideas of what it means to be physical have no evidential support in science, yet we cling to them and preach physicalism with an "Enlightenment" (16th century) view of what that means.

Since I was a teenager, when I began to question my Christian upbringing, I have considered myself "agnostic," which is to say "I don't know the answer." After I began to question, I studied science, and worked in science or related fields (engineering). I retained that "I don't know" attitude, but I looked for answers everywhere and found none. I assumed that because there was no scholarship on the topic outside of philosophy (no scientific inquiry) that there was simply nothing there to look for. I was "on the fence," but definitely leaning towards the side of "this is all there is."

After my more resent investigation (now that I know better how to look for evidence), I am still in the "I don't know" camp, in that I certainly can't answer any of these questions to anyone's satisfaction, even my own (especially my own), but I can give some much more interesting answers now than I could a couple years ago.

My research suggests that we do not look to answer any of these questions using science, especially the last question. The first couple we ask (who are we, who/how were we created), but all of our inquiries are strictly confined to a box that was created by Rockefeller's school system and it's conditional funding. It isn't that "too few people think outside the box," it's that you can't think outside the box, because you can't get funding, or published, or even have a career at all if you look.

Despite this, quite a few have looked over the years. British Intelligence looked in the early 20th century. The Nazis looks afterwards (with connections between those organizations and this particular topic of inquiry), the C_A looked after the Nazis (some of the same exact people were involved, because the C_A was (are) the Nazis). But there are also quite a few academic investigations as well, they just aren't all that easy to find. Now that I've actually read some of those reports, it is obvious that they followed the scientific process perfectly fine. More interestingly perhaps, is that these reports of scientific inquiry produced some very interesting positive results (Eureka!).

That doesn't make their results true, that's not what science does, but it does show that it is a topic worth further exploration. Other than follow ups by the same researchers, there is no corroboration or repeat experiments. There can't be because of conditional funding, not to mention brainwashing ("everyone knows there's nothing there"), and training ("this over here is proper science, don't look over there, that's quackery"), and calling it "pseudoscience" even though these experiments followed the process of science perfectly. It is "pseudoscience" ONLY BECAUSE it found results that don't fit in with the dogma of The Science.

So while I can't answer the questions, my research suggests that Mainstream Science can't say anything about it really, because Mainstream Science hasn't looked to answer the question at all, rather, they quite purposefully direct us away from any inquiry.

Makes you think.