-- from above --

Now in the real world when two claims contradict we may perform an experiment were we take meausrements/observations (these measurement can also be independently verified by a third party) to determine which (if any) is correct. But you can't do that here because the measuring procedure is dependent on a human mind which cannot be not independently scrutinized. So for the above example if I sat under the tree and meditated and didn't die then I can claim that I've disproved your claim. However, you can counterclaim that you have no proof that I actually did any meditating and I've no way to refute your counterclaim.

However, once people make claims about real events or real phenomena (ie: stuff we can actually measure) we can then do proper investigations with determinable facts. For example: in the case of Josephus claims about human longevity all the evidence to date, accumulated via archeological techniques and also via modern molecular biology observations in the lab, lead us to the conclusion that they are completely unsupported. There is no evidence that any people, deep past or present, anywhere in the world have ever lived longer than about 120 years. We've never dug up a single skeleton that indicates such ages and our knowledge of cellular senescence (eg: the Hayflick limit- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayflick_limit ) contradicts such claims. He is the one making the claim so until he can provide some hard real (physical/tangible) evidence his claims should be treated as speculative BS.

Thank you THINKABIT.

I feel deeply indebted to you for your persistence to insist on rationality and then conducting long rational explorations.

It reminds me so much of my long entrapment in my rationality, of my nearly always 'chattering' mind that insists on controlling my consciousness and which hates to go silent for even a minute.

https://startsat60.com/stories/opinion/how-did-we-lose-the-plot

Because when I manage to silence it, magic happens.

As if the turbulent thought waves which muddy the waters of my mind ceased and as the surface became smooth I could see deep down and get at least some glimpses of truth that my chattering surface mind is so good in preventing me from seeing.

So thanks again THINKABIT.

Please keep it up. I have much to learn from you.

We have all learned of living things that have lived for hundreds of years and it is common knowlege, but we fail the realise change has occurred that limits cell life. We can accept a tree being 1500 years old even live today, and they are limited to the soil and environment they exist in .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-living_organisms

Andris, I think you've got it a bit the wrong way round. My mind isn't always chattering about these issues- because any claims about spirituality are for me vacuous until proven otherwise. In my world view, the burden of proof for any claim is on those making any claims- not me. I spend hardly any time worrying about spiritually and the like in my spare time. But I do suspect that you do spend a lot of time devoted to such matters.

The only time I get interested in them is when someone else makes claims about such subjects because I'm curious to know how they backup their claims. And so far each time I've pressed people for explanations of exactly how they know anything about such things they've always fallen well short of giving sensible explanations. To date every time they I have investigated such a claim it turns out to either involve meaningless/undefined concepts or the claim doesn't entail any observable effect* on the real world. I'm getting on towards 50 years old, and over that fifty years I've never heard any claim that at is worth getting excited about.

*: the perfect example of this are claims that use the word "supernatural". By definition it is that which doesn't have a natural existence- ie. it is not of the physical world. This means that if something like a ghost or a spirit, which are typically considered to be supernatural entities, ever was verified to exist by some undeniable observation, then it would no longer be supernatural. Instead it would just another thing among the gazillion of others that has a real world existence. For me, the observation of a ghost wouldn't be a mind blowing event that fundamentally changes how I determine truths about the world. It would just be another thing that exists, just like say a tree or an animal or a rock. But what its physical existence does mean is that we can do experiments/take measurements to determine its properties.

-- continued below --

-- from above --

For example, we could see if it in reacts with light, if it has mass, etc.. And this scientific exploration is what would actually be interesting. It could lead to new a understanding of nature (eg: new physics). But not only that, after the scientists have had a go at poking, prodding and zapping it and they have determined some of its properties then the entrepreneurs and engineers can figure out if any of those properties could be used to produce something useful that can be sold. eg: can we use it to make faster computers, improve transport, make better toothpaste, or whatever.

Thank you THINKABIT.

Quantum science has verified that creation is about something emerging from the nothing of no-thing which the ancients' perennial wisdom has always claimed.

The non-locality of consciousness to the brain has been empirically proven by hundreds of near death findings.

Two scientific books for your attention which give lots of empirical evidence for the existence and primal causal nature of the spiritual substratum from which material reality emerges and returns to are:

Ervin Laszlo: 'What is reality; The New Map of Cosmos and Consciousness'

and another book based on vigorous scentific evidence:

Dean Radin: Supernormal

(Science, Yoga and the evidence for extraordinary psychic abilities.)

You say THINKABIT that you are nearing 50.

My experiences of expansion of consciousness began gradually when I started Yoga 45 years ago.

I am now over seventy and I say with Socrates:

'I know nothing.

All I know is love.'

It sounds to me that Socrates knew what is perennially important.