Science is supposed to eliminate subjectivity, but that only happens when the scientific method is rigorously applied across the board and is peer reviewed by other scientists, and even then it sometimes creeps in, most of Puthoffs work has never seen any kind of peer review and that raises some huge red flags right there. Not to mention that just because someone cloaks their beliefs in the mantle of science doesn't make it so. Creationists will tell you that they're doing science, when they're actually doing anything but. I'm certainly not advocating purism, in most cases I couldn't care less what someone believes, I've learned over the years to take wisdom wherever I find it, however, there's something so intolerant, insidious and so blind in the vast majority of the members of the two groups I've named that I feel more than comfortable discounting 99% of what they call science, because it's not science. It's the way they use science to try and cloak their personal beliefs in the mantle of authority while at the same telling everyone who will listen that any part of science that disagrees with their beliefs should be discarded and disregarded, I can't abide it and I refuse to listen to it. I agree with you about people being able to change their minds, perhaps I'm being too harsh on Mr. Puthoff, though from what I've read about him, I think I may be at least partially correct. I'll try to keep an open mind though.
I really know little about what you describe in the text above. I do live in southern California and that might explain it.
But just recently an acquaintance was talking about some in-laws - describing the behavior of one who had 'got' religion and what she was describing was nasty. Yet, another relative who also had 'got religion' was a veritable gift from heaven her presence was so delightful, the impact on her children benign. How to explain it? Human nature. Nothing to do with the religions per se in this case since the religions were simply different denominations of the same religious stream.
I am aware of fussy people being very negative about the merest hiccup - but this is across the board, and no one group has a monopoly on being hyper-vigilant regarding their beliefs. Curious observation - the most rigidity comes from new converts to any religion, be it Christian or Jewish or Muslim - or be it Science.
As for your last point about Puthoff - in the beginning of the video I linked - and in the last few minutes - I definitely caught the whiff of ego. I've known several researchers who more than love their work - they have fallen in love with it to the point of distortion - and it's hard to pry them away from their pet theories [that - in the end - they have laid down their whole professional lives for]. I sensed that in Puthoff. Researchers can sometimes feel that they know so much that a slight 'fudge' in one direction is okay. Happens more often than anyone would be aware. So no - I don't think you are being harsh.
Sorry but I can't agree with you here, this is more of that elevated morality nonsense that I mentioned earlier. First of all, human beings are human beings, I don't care if they think they can move mountains with their minds, they're still human beings and in this world, human beings need money and when you can do supposedly incredible things with your mind, money and the attention of industry should come easily to those who can adequately demonstrate those powers.
'Morality nonsense' - how can you hear the 'answer' if your status is already emotive. You've already shut down. Anyway, ethics/morality is woven through this. If one accepts the principle of karma - cause and effect or action-reaction - there is a knife-edge experience at 'higher' levels. Can't escape it.
And, yes, human nature unravels us - even the greatest fall from the heights. We know those stories well. People on this site rail against religions and it's representatives. People err - yep.
The problem is that you're assuming that these powers would only manifest themselves in guru types,
Nope, not so. 'Guru types' - I assume you mean spiritual teachers. Such is a particular path - not for everyone. Such 'types' have a greater responsibility than to simply model the ideal, it is incumbent upon such 'types' to actually
be the ideal, as a living incarnation of virtue. It is from such a 'condition' that the suprasensory capacities are (safely) developed.
However, the 'powers' manifest in all of us, even those without the teacher dharma (vocation/life task).
but that assumption is completely false given that remote viewers claim that anyone can be taught to remote view. So you can't actually expect me to believe that everyone who learns these things is some kind of elevated master, far above the concerns of us petty human beings, it's just silly.
You're having an argument with yourself - not with anything I said.
Remote viewing has been around for a long time and the only way anyone has ever found to monetize it that I'm aware of are A. writing books and lecturing about remote viewing or B. selling remote viewing classes, correspondence courses and the like. So again, these people are obviously not above survival mode because they're actively engaged in trying to sell us something, they're trying to make money and if they could do some of the things I've mentioned, they would be trying to make money off of that as well, the problem is that they can't actually do all that they claim to do and they know it, so remote viewing classes it is.
Certainly you can find those who choose to 'monetize' their capacities, if that is what they have. This I will say - no genuine teacher will ever accept money for knowledge.
The reason I make these assumptions is because there are so many different claims about the remarkable powers of things like ESP, telepathy, astral travel, remote viewing, whatever you want to call it, and that's part of the problem I mentioned earlier.
You must learn discernment, the ability to discriminate the true from the untrue. It is part of developing your mind, preparing your being for the acquisition of suprasensory capacities. There is no authority - no guru, no teacher - that takes over that task. The teacher merely indicates the way. The student must do the heavy lifting.
Nobody can define exactly how it works or exactly what it does,
Not quite true. Definitions have been given here but some still claim they haven't been given. The definitions are not recognized because there is an absence of experience and consequent concept-building. However, the words used by those who don't understand of course convey muddled impressions - yet the concepts used by a seer are very precise.
that's not science, it's pseudoscience
One cannot apply the same standards of measure to the spiritual as one does to the physical. Different realms.
and given the fact that we've been studying ESP in different forms since the late 1800's, you would think that by now they would have something, maybe not a completely fleshed out theory, but something resembling one that the vast majority of researchers can come to some kind of at least a tentative consensus on, yet as far as I'm aware that hasn't happened.
This is an aspect of humanity that has a lineage across thousands of years. Fully fleshed out theories abound across all cultures, not least in the Western Esoteric Stream.
If I'm wrong about that, I'd appreciate it if you would enlighten me as to exactly what their working theory is, other than "the mind does things we don't understand and can't explain," because that's not a theory and it's not worthy of being called science if that's all they can say.
I don't know who the 'they' is - and even if I did know I wouldn't be the one to explain them to you. Occult knowledge is not mystical - though it embraces the mystical. Start reading an occult text on the organization of the Human Being before you conclude there is no science to this subtle realm.
I'm sorry but you're wrong, I agree that Constance is very insightful and intelligent, but both of you have suggested that because someone doesn't believe in things like ESP or souls or might dare to think of the human brain like a biological computer that they lack humanity and empathy and blah blah blah.
Nope, didn't happen.
I could go through a couple of threads and quote mine you both, but I think you know what I'm talking about
You may have to do just that because I don't know what you're talking about.
and if you're honest with yourself, you'll admit it to yourself.
I admit only to standing up to Ufology's hectoring.
you are two sides of the same coin. Both sides refusing to give an inch, denigrating and mocking each other at different times to make a point.
Sorry you see it that way.
One side with their heels dug in behind their line in the sand, refusing to even consider that there may be nothing paranormal at all about consciousness and the other side dug in just as deep in the other direction.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but for myself I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I speak my truth - I speak about what interests me - about what I know from my own experiences.
Stating that there is 'nothing paranormal' about consciousness is a belief - and one I don't subscribe to. Why is that statement so troubling?
I've been following this thread and the previous thread
If you have been doing that, then you know that Ufology made it clear that he did not want anything 'spiritual' or 'mystical' - of that 'ilk' - to be brought into the discussion on that thread. Hence, some of us moved to another thread where we could explore our ideas in freedom.
I agree that you should be able to freely explore all possibilities
Thank you - and it is after all only one thread amongst so many.
but at the same time, this is a public forum and anyone who wants to can respond to the public threads
That's true - but we had just been shooed off the other thread - and to have the shoo-er start showing up here trying to exert the same kind of control he was exerting on the other thread over the shoo-ees - don't you find that a bit unusal? That's what he was doing - coming on this thread to rail and hector the posters on this thread. Therefore I said directly if the said poster could not maintain a friendly and interested manner on the topic of the thread, he could post on any number of other threads on this site.
if you don't want that to happen perhaps you should either ignore those who you feel are derailing the thread or take it to private conversation.
Yes, I could have ignored it, but then in his enthusiasm - when 'denigrating' a particularly disliked (by him) idea - he sallied forth into the realm of 'nutcases' - something had to be said.
Whether you like Ufology or not, he has every right to post whatever he wants within the bounds of the forum rules and shouldn't be expected to conform to your opinions, just as you shouldn't be expected to conform to his.
I don't expect him to conform to my opinions. All I have ever asked of Ufology is to be friendly and respectful of the pov on this thread - and if he can't do that, find another thread to express himself. I have found that, in general (with a few exceptions) posters on this site are very intolerant of spiritual views - it has been my experience - with the result that that pov is pretty much lacking here. In point of fact, I see esoteric knowledge as being the missing piece of the puzzle. A clear understanding of what occult knowledge has to offer seems to be the much-needed corrective. IMO - and that's all it has ever been.
you know what I mean ). Until then I sincerely hope yours is wonderful and goes well !
T'isn't me, except in my ideals. I do my best......
Now I am sad. It's your presence (and Steve's - and a few others) that make being here interesting for me - so my sadness at what you are saying is totally selfish. I do understand about the toxicity. There are certain posters I brace myself for - knowing there will be a stream of skeptical invective in any text they post. 
