Materialist does not see "auras"

[tvaeli]

On topics I discuss, the most critical example is the materialist claim:

Quote

Humans are not evolved to directly sense "good" and "bad" against themselves; deciding factor was not biological survival, but rather physical correspondence, where actual physical event must be behind sense experiences. Evolutionarly, direct senses of good and bad are wrong: that our brain influences color and other perceptions, like beauty, must cause hallucinations of physical entities rather than survival as living species.

There were wrong claims, such as that visual experience must come from light: rather, the claim was initially made by scientists; most uneducated sensitive girls, for example, in my life, have not claimed it *directly*, but only as basis of their scientific education.

Physically, I rather doubt in this: there is no physical evidence that mental states and content must have, or always has external physical correspondence: light or sound in your imagination might not have correspondence of light and sound in physics, and without this correspondence you are not always having a hallucination - we might perceive wisdom as light or person as dark at moment of their betrayal, but we do not have *a single evidence* of light or darkness in our psychology.

• Materialist, without my statement, said that my perception must stop me from properly seeing - no evidence and no my claim that those happen *at the same channel*. Years pass, they invent claims like this: without having them, but by their perverse "logic". It's perverse to state this about me:
  • I have constantly failed to bring the evidence to same group: my "aura seeing" is based on noticing patterns in human mind, which provide light-encoded information; normal patterns *I had before* became stronger and more visible, but *in same parts of brain*, *not using actual visual encode and inferring perceptions of cognitive process.
  • Materialists, who reach introverted, internal claims about others, are typical: running out with some "information" about people, who were sitting still and observing their minds; when you say observation is base science of any mind which exists, and we have this one which thinks, imagines and perceives - it's inherently a very stupid claim that one cannot observe this, or does not evolve based on this specific observation.
    • This claim was based on overly hopeful and spiritual people who made claims; it's not basis to be overly hopeful about your "skepticism", making claims on me.

The spiritual girls mentioned:

• Some became secretaries, some went to business, some became mothers.
• Altough making correct claims about human senses and abilities:
  • They did not become respected scientists in this field, none of them: because such thing does not exist.
  • I can understand these materialists were unable to fix them - rather, people who understand any of spirit are still meant to discuss these topics, even if the girls did not instantly make it to quantum physics and math based on their initial observations.
    • That they were young and did not have deep philosophy does not mean that: any attacker, whose pattern is significant loss of life quality of those girls, and all of us - dedicated users of their products, which do not exist - is the drag that are we living in this "neutral society", where we do not build "countries inside countries" - government church and money controls the other aspect of life; which is not survival, not work, not positions and money - religious freedom provides you the other things, which are left. But are we providing more freedom, to people who are more definite about them - freedom of having others not being stupid for example - rather if we claim to keep the job and money; or rather if we claim: those scientists who were teaching girls by "debunking" them, rather than guiding them to science professionals who are able to use their science (their models are respected psychology and sometimes need analysis; ideas and insights are clear and strong, with real meanings) and all the rest of science and philosophy: to resolve and specify their claims and make them scientific, rather than telling they are "scientists", just to start behaving like stone age monkeys and evil reptiles: this "scientific society" they build, produces the bad speak and insults, not civilized habits such as having decent job and government positions, any other thing - and getting praised for this. The life quality materialist is claiming as "normal", and the insultiveness of speak they call "neutral science", is so outdated that I ask this: why I see them thinking in small box, nearby world; why the people who once claimed meditation does not help us - now they do not lack some mysterious senses or miraculous minds, but the lack of contemplation, lack of awareness of your own throughs, body and emotions, makes it a strong, animal-like evidence of the opposite: rather in simple things like philosophy, science and ability to talk without being irritated, I can see a gap so heavy that it's the one we are not going to explain.