Empathy and extraterrestrial life

From what I've seen and heard so far, most empaths say that they do not detect the presence of life outside of Earth. Does this mean that we most likely are indeed alone in the universe?

Not at all. It just means that the mystery remains with no way of knowing. It is likely there is other life in the universe, but it may not be too interested in us or not know we are here.

Or other life forms could be so different from us that we can't really "relate" to each other in the physical form. Since we are all part of the same energy field though, we should be able to relate on a very very deep level. One that deep empaths may be aware of but the vibe is so unfamiliar that it is not readily recognizable..

Nucky wrote:From what I've seen and heard so far, most empaths say that they do not detect the presence of life outside of Earth. Does this mean that we most likely are indeed alone in the universe?

Most empaths are absolutely right for their reality and absolutely wrong for all others realities. Remember, their is no objective reality.

You make a distinction 'outside of Earth' - why ? I mean how do you view the Earth-side 'visitations' ?

To clarify Blue Topaz' direction - is this query only about the physical ?

Most empaths are absolutely right for their reality and absolutely wrong for all others realities.

this is an excellent idea. I'm not sure I agree, but I think it is a matter of perception and/or that our understanding or belief systems may differ. In other words, how do you know that this statement is accurate?

As a 'feeler' I have to say I don't agree. As has been stated that being deeply 'aware' of our reality or presence... or perhaps more thouroughly...what we feel as truths to us 'here' seems to be of most imporatance because it stands out firstly. However, that said, perhaps it may as well be a hindrance to our minds or conceptual visions also.
To assume that 'we' are alone in the universe seems harder to comprehend than knowing that the odds are greater that there is much more to learn about this...both universally and dimensionally.
I have always been aware that there are entities and beings about us that we cannot view nor quite connect with... not that THAT has been a particular 'priority' in this current [ahem] existence.
Should that matter to us 'now'? Do we have to search for some sort of cosmic 'redemption' for our souls? Or...do we just try to live our lil 'blinks' here in the knowing that this will all eventially happen anyway. And...if I'm wrong from this point of my 'view' and it doesn't...does that matter either?
Perhaps all of my 'feeling' about 'other forms' is just some strange 'sinapse' firing off in my head! [lol!] I would bet it ain't though!
Hmm...now what would a 'cosmic bet' cost? hmmm....
would that be a 'nothing' also? Hmmm....

You know, Dan, I tend to go along with your thoughts. It's like I've always been aware of so much more physically unseen entities around me, too. And there is life all over the Universe. Read some of Gregg Braden's works, he takes much of what I sense and then because his background is very scientific, ties it all together. And when I see astronomy pictures, I know there is life everywhere. The physical walls are what confine us here but life, life is everywhere.

BlueTopaz wrote:

Most empaths are absolutely right for their reality and absolutely wrong for all others realities.

this is an excellent idea. I'm not sure I agree, but I think it is a matter of perception and/or that our understanding or belief systems may differ. In other words, how do you know that this statement is accurate?

I haven't disproved it yet ...

Said better than I could -

Tom: "When you get a data stream from anywhere, you have to interpret it in terms of your own experience base. There is no other option. The data may be objective, but what you make of it is necessarily subjective – that is the same everywhere, including PMR."

I suspect those in disagreement don't consider their 'reality experiencing' a 'data stream'. To understand why it is a data stream one needs to understand the concept of Virtual Reality (VR)

Here's a post from the same BB regarding Brian Whitworth's paper on VR:

This paper explores the idea that the universe is a virtual reality created by information processing, and relates this strange idea to the findings of modern physics about the physical world. The virtual reality concept is familiar to us from online worlds, but our world as a virtual reality is usually a subject for science fiction rather than science. Yet the world could be an information simulation running on a multi-dimensional space-time screen. Indeed, if the essence of the universe is information, matter, charge, energy and movement could be aspects of information, and the many conservation laws could reduce to a single law of information conservation. If the universe were a virtual reality, its creation at the big bang would no longer be paradoxical, as every virtual system must be booted up. Ultimately, whether the world is an objective reality or a virtual reality is a matter for science to resolve.

Ahh, interesting, but I would classify what you are saying as a belief system.

BlueTopaz wrote:Ahh, interesting, but I would classify what you are saying as a belief system.

Well Blue, that would indicate there is still more for you to learn, just like me, but different !! Ain't that great to know there' s more out there to learn about ?

Since you don't specify particulars; in other words, a 'belief system' can be proved false. Once open minded skepticism is applied, indicating truth, it becomes knowledge and is no longer a 'belief system' In the above case regarding VR's, for example, the VR theory is consistent with the experimental data,

I have found Randy Rhodes' site, elucidating:

Physics generally, and quantum mechanics in particular, is so odd that it screams philosophy. "Counter-intuitive" is the usual description of the laboratory results, which means that the world behaves in ways that we would not expect, and that, frankly, don't make sense. Confronted with real results that appear to contradict our assumptions, we are burdened with the task of reevaluating our assumptions. That is philosophy, is it not?

These pages attempt, first, to report the laboratory results. Nevermind that they don't make any intuitive sense. Those are the results. You should know how nature behaves. Second, we attempt to make sense of the results -- cavalierly disregarding the advice of many a learned sage counseling that we would do better just to forget about it. The focus is on information, as has been recommended by many physicists. The conclusion here is that the universe is both information and information processing. The universe is the manifestation of a computer and its programming.

If the universe is a computer running along conventional programming lines, then who are we? And who programmed this virtual reality simulation? And why? That is philosophy, certainly. And it is religion. And it is still science.

But really, you be the judge: Physics, Metaphysics & the Consciousness Connection

Very interesting and thank you for the link. These are things that I love to read and ponder. OMG, I have so much to learn and I love learning! Unfortunately, atm I have very little time to do so. (Which is one reason why I haven't responded to your very interesting posts before now) But I will endeavour.

That is philosophy, certainly. And it is religion. And it is still science.

This sentence especially is quite exciting because it is something that resonates with me and always has, even if most of my professors and the other PhDs I've worked with would absolutely scream.

I can only infer (since I can't talk to you and get it cleared up "real time") that you are not understanding my term "belief system" the same way that I am, in that it refers to something that cannot be empirically tested and disproved. For instance, and referring to super-string theory, in calculus I can mathematically demonstrate that there are infinite dimensions. However, being the physical beings that we are, evolved to perceive only a limited amount of the "reality" around us, we cannot set up a test that would fail to disprove the hypothesis that there are "infinite dimensions". Therefore, it cannot be a part of "science" in the formal sense and thus is delegated to the realm of "belief system". I understand that many "classical" physicists scream at a lot of the quantum physics because there is no way to "test" and replicate much of the super-string and other theories other than to try to make sense of experiments that go "counter-intuitive" or give results that are unexpected. How do you directly test the existence of a string? If you have come across this in the literature, please let me know.

This all being said, does that make it "untrue" or nonexistent or not science? I don't think so. It only shows that in the physical realm in which we currently reside, we creatures are quite limited.

As far as the "VR" of the universe... interesting idea. In that I think our brains are computers of a complex nature employing both electrical and chemical energy to work, the idea that the intelligence that guides the universe away from entropy is also a computer is not a far stretch.
I, however, think that there is more to the universal intelligence than simply information processing. But, then again, that, to me, is a belief system.

Ahhh, so you are a 'scientific materialist' (SM), but not a closed minded one ;-) - No wonder you asked about the SM definition elsewhere on the board.

BlueTopaz wrote:I can only infer (since I can't talk to you and get it cleared up "real time") that you are not understanding my term "belief system" the same way that I am, in that it refers to something that cannot be empirically tested and disproved.

OK, your definition is quite common among the scientific orthodoxy - so, yes, I got it.

Consider the definition of empirical:

The word "empirical" denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.[1]

There are 3 elements stated.

I understand that many "classical" physicists scream at a lot of the quantum physics because there is no way to "test" and replicate much of the super-string and other theories other than to try to make sense of experiments that go "counter-intuitive" or give results that are unexpected. How do you directly test the existence of a string? If you have come across this in the literature, please let me know.

Super-string is a bad analogy to use cause of experimental limitations; need LHC's.

Implicitly a limited definition of empirical is all that is acceptable by those that 'scream'. There is more going on with the screamers than just issues of testing, as suggested by reference to the definition of empirical.

The Rhodes link above on QM discusses this aspect from the work of the double slit experiments (don't need a LHC). He points out the 'counter-intuitive' nature of data - so, is the data wrong or in the intuition wrong ?

This all being said, does that make it "untrue" or nonexistent or not science? I don't think so. It only shows that in the physical realm in which we currently reside, we creatures are quite limited.

Actually we aren't quite limited. There are two factors at play in the above statements - human knowledge and physical matter reality (PMR) rule set (physics).

Related -
See Slide # 4 for: One Cannot Define The System In Terms Of The Sub System. To define the system one must experience it

I may well be a scientific materialist. I have a hard time defining myself objectively. However, I think that you and I are on the same page about a lot of things. I reject the idea that existence is defined only by what can be empirically tested.
I am empathic and also a 2nd degree Reiki practitioner. (Both things the "screamers" would scream at, LOL ) I also have had many "paranormal experiences" in that I have seen and sensed energy/beings from somewhere outside of the boundaries of what physical science can explain. So I know there is more to us and to the universe than what I learned in science class. I am very much with you there, my friend.

I sincerely wish that I could talk to you. I know you and I could have a great time. It is wonderful to meet with someone as intellectually stimulating as yourself.
Again, thank you for the links-- I will enjoy delving into them and send more please. Anything on this subject is welcome. PM me the links if you wish.

I'd have to say, it looks to me like SM is solidly in your past given the details you've just shared :-))

RBM wrote:

Nucky wrote:From what I've seen and heard so far, most empaths say that they do not detect the presence of life outside of Earth. Does this mean that we most likely are indeed alone in the universe?

Most empaths are absolutely right for their reality and absolutely wrong for all others realities. Remember, their is no objective reality.

You make a distinction 'outside of Earth' - why ? I mean how do you view the Earth-side 'visitations' ?

To clarify Blue Topaz' direction - is this query only about the physical ?

I guess I made that distinction because I've never seen any convincing evidence of extraterrestrial visitations, and personally I don't believe that they've ever happened.

Nucky wrote:I guess I made that distinction because I've never seen any convincing evidence of extraterrestrial visitations, and personally I don't believe that they've ever happened.

That statement has the makings of a good policy - believe only what you have first hand experience of. Of course a casual observation of actual people's behavior would show that most people don't have such a rigorous hold on that policy. I know I don't.

Whether you have a good personal policy in place or 'just a belief system' is unclear from the OP but thanks for the follow up.

Nucky wrote:From what I've seen and heard so far, most empaths say that they do not detect the presence of life outside of Earth. Does this mean that we most likely are indeed alone in the universe?

I find the framing of this query interesting.

Why is the empath the type who is deemed credible on this topic ? I had a UfO experience in '72.

I don't consider myself an empath for two reasons: first, there is the baggage of the historical definition. Secondly recent works of many individuals in the last view decades make the term irrelevant - everyone has such a potential.

I use to term as a practical matter elsewhere and on this board and because it is a good starting point for communication. I ask the credibility question as doorway for other perspectives.

Nucky wrote:I guess I made that distinction because I've never seen any convincing evidence of extraterrestrial visitations, and personally I don't believe that they've ever happened.

The subject of UFO's pops up every so often at the MBT forum and in one such recent post was the late Dr. John Mack's Wiki liink

is approach to the topic was different:

[quote]His interest in the spiritual or transformational aspects of people's alien encounters, and his suggestion that the experience of alien contact itself may be more spiritual than physical in nature—yet nonetheless real—set him apart from many of his contemporaries, such as Budd Hopkins, who advocated the physical reality of aliens.

I saw the late Dr. John Mack on a Psychotronics conference panel (with Dannion Brinkley and others) in '95. He didn't speak much but my impression of him was positive. He seemed to be approaching the topic as a true 'truth seeker' of with the concomitant level of integrity . He was a Harvard professor, and as one might deduce, his work, at least initially, set him apart from his peers. I didn't keep up with his work, but the following doesn't surprise me:

[url=His later research broadened into the general consideration of the merits of an expanded notion of reality, one which allows for experiences that may not fit the Western materialist paradigm, yet deeply affect people's lives. His second (and final) book on the alien encounter experience, Passport to the Cosmos: Human Transformation and Alien Encounters (1999), was as much a philosophical treatise connecting the themes of spirituality and modern worldviews as it was the culmination of his work with the "experiencers" of alien encounters, to whom the book is dedicated.]

Nucky, the best convincing is first hand experience. If you desire to be convinced, may you have such an experience.

I am a Christian. I have Christians beliefs of course. So, you may find my response odd here. I find it completely possible for there to be other life out there. God created the Heavens & the Earth remember? If He created us, why couldn't he have created others. Also, there is text in the Bible where the Land of Nod is mentioned.

Hi jaded,

That's certainly a different perspective, but it's one I have heard before on this topic, many moons ago.

Just so you understand my position on religion: it is a manmade construct. Thus it is a 'belief system' and belief systems are challenges to meet in the quest for spiritual growth/advancement.

It's important to keep in mind when looking at belief systems that they generally have a piece of grain of truth, deep, down in the bowels of any such system. If one ferrets out that piece of grain, one will find it leads in a different direction than the belief system and to another opportunity for spiritual growth

As a sensetive with a high level of empathic ability I would suggest that an empaths "ability" works only with that which is in the emapth's enviroment.
The sensing of alien life is more dependant on one's ability to travel between dimensions through the medative or contemplative process.
@ Jaded and RBM if I may comment... RBM is 100% correct in his view of religion and for more reasons than stated, and Jaded you may find this an odd thing to say from a man who's teacher is Jesus, but I have studied theology & the historical growth of Christianity, even been in ministry lol, but I see nothing of Jesus in the religion formed around him.
Ever considered his teachings were meant for us not the "toxics" lol...
Was that controversial enough?

Mystical Garden wrote:but I see nothing of Jesus in the religion formed around him.

I use to find the descriptive phase of 'Christ Consciousness' more accurate but have recently discarded that as a result of what I have learned within Consciousness research.

RBM wrote:
I use to find the descriptive phase of 'Christ Consciousness' more accurate but have recently discarded that as a result of what I have learned within Consciousness research.

Please tell me more

MG, you may find it illuminating to look at some of the threads RBM has begun. Given your interests and background, you will find them absolutely fascinating.

Mystical Garden wrote: I see nothing of Jesus in the religion formed around him.

yes, I absolutely agree!
His teachings are extraordinary, but I think he would be appalled if he knew people were worshiping him as a god.

This is not to be critical of anyone or their beliefs. I do not judge anyone for the truth they see inside of themselves. We are all on different stepping stones on our spiritual paths.

BTW, welcome MG.

after re-reading the thread (quite a treat ) I came across this statement by RBM

Actually we aren't quite limited. There are two factors at play in the above statements - human knowledge and physical matter reality (PMR) rule set (physics).

thank you for stimulating my thinking and making me be more precise in my words.
You are absolutely correct. We-- our true selves-- are UN-limited beings. As you stated, it is empiricism that is limited.

BTW Welcome Mystical Garden.

I am prone to forgetting introductions and such, and jumping into the subject at hand, especially when the issue is one of extreme interest to me.

BlueTopaz wrote:As you stated, it is empiricism that is limited.

To dig deeper and into the definition of empiricism:

emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas (except in so far as these might be inferred from empirical reasoning, as in the case of genetic predisposition).[1]

It seems to be the only shortcoming of the above revolves around innate ideas, which has some ramifications. More often, I see individuals using an abbreviated form of other parts of the above definition.

Dismissal of innate ideas I would argue is the inherent failure of empricisim:

Innatism is a philosophical doctrine that holds that the mind is born with ideas/knowledge, and that therefore the mind is not a 'blank slate' at birth,

This will take the dialog further afield so I will be brief. Innate ideas can be sourced to the incarnation cycle. AKA reincarnation.

BlueTopaz wrote:

Mystical Garden wrote: I see nothing of Jesus in the religion formed around him.

yes, I absolutely agree!
His teachings are extraordinary, but I think he would be appalled if he knew people were worshiping him as a god.

This is not to be critical of anyone or their beliefs. I do not judge anyone for the truth they see inside of themselves. We are all on different stepping stones on our spiritual paths.

BTW, welcome MG.

I do not believe Jesus is God at all. I actually do not attend my church anymore and this is one reason for me. I think it is blasphemous to call Jesus Christ God. I believe he is the son of God....the Messiah, sacrificial lamb but no not God at all. I have never understood the Trinity theory & have actually questioned it in church as do my children.

I also think it is sad that "Christians" twist & manipulate others under the guise of religion. I do not do that either. Jesus was a peace loving MAN who tried to bring love & kindness into the world.

I actually used to lose sleep at night trying to find the "true" religion. Now I just trust in my beliefs & have faith. I fail miserably at being Christ like. That is something that bothers me. But hey, I am human.