DWQA Questions › Tag: scientific dogma
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
A former intelligence agent started a business coaching people in spy techniques and insights that he believed could be applied to everyday life to help people be more effective in accomplishing whatever it is they set out to do. Like most things in life, these techniques and understandings can be used for good or evil. A match can light a birthday candle or start a forest fire. To the extent that others might use these teachings for harm, how much karmic liability attaches to the teacher? Is this a reason why dangerous knowledge was historically reserved for initiates? And even that would seem to have karmic polarity in that it safeguards the innocent and immature on the one hand, but can also be a means to hoard and deny access to resources that one can argue should be more widely shared. What is Creator’s perspective on the “safe handling” and/or dissemination and sharing of material that is potentially helpful but equally dangerous?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
183 views0 answers0 votes
Intelligence agencies are in the business of gathering intelligence—information that is difficult to attain through ordinary means; information that people are hesitant and resistant to give up or share. The successful intelligence agent will employ the tools of motivation and manipulation to get this information. These tools are matched to particular means with which to motivate and/or manipulate people to get them to do what you want them to do. These approaches are referred to with the acronym “R.I.C.E.” Reward, Ideology, Coercion, and Ego. Of these four, appealing to ideology is seen as the most effective, and coercion the least. If you successfully appeal to ideology, the “target” will trust you and share almost anything. Coercion is the weakest as, contrary to Hollywood, it may work the first time you use it, but then you destroy trust and will have fewer opportunities for future success with the target. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
115 views0 answers0 votes
While being trained as an intelligence officer, this individual learned he was an ideal candidate because he was special (clearly an appeal to ego), or at least that is what he thought. But, in fact, he learned he was special because he had been algorithmically identified as psychologically damaged and traumatized in particular ways that were useful for intelligence gathering. These are people one would rarely label “well adjusted” by society’s standards. The agency was ruthlessly honest in telling him they intended to leverage that dysfunction, give him a vocabulary for understanding the nuances of human motivation and manipulation, and techniques for achieving goals and agendas with targets. In this undertaking, the overall wellbeing of the target is not a top consideration and moral flexibility was a prized capacity for successful agents. What is Creator’s perspective on the moral flexibility so highly prized by intelligence agencies?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
112 views0 answers0 votes
This former intelligence officer shared that if you need a target’s cooperation, and there is no means by which to positively and transparently motivate them, then that gives you the green light to manipulate them. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
115 views0 answers0 votes
This former intelligence officer warned that the typical person has no idea just how much and on what scale advanced motivation and manipulation techniques are being deployed against them. It’s not a conspiracy theory. Creator has affirmed this as well on multiple occasions. When confronted with this reality, two questions come to mind. Can I avoid it? And if I can’t avoid it, can I successfully resist it? Is there even an answer outside of divine partnership? What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
125 views0 answers0 votes
The former intelligence officer shared that he was taught about the difference between perception and perspective. Perception is what you sense with your five senses (and maybe your sixth). But its range is narrow and its reliability poor. It operates on instinct and emotion, so you twitch when someone you don’t expect touches you, or you see a dark shadow and jump thinking it’s a rat when it’s really dirty laundry on the floor. Perspective is your knowing that you’ve never encountered a rat in your room and that the odds of it being a rat are tiny. He claims he was taught to favor perspective over perception. We know that past life trauma resonates and could be why you reacted as you did, and that in a past life that dark shape on the floor WAS a rat. But even if that is true, it is not true in the current place and timeframe. “Don’t trust your gut” was his message and to always question, if not doubt outright, your first emotional reaction to anything. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
115 views0 answers0 votes
The former intelligence officer shared that it is accepted as an operating fact that 90% of people are trapped in their own perception. In other words, 90% of people think and respond emotionally, not rationally. In fact, those 90% do not even know there is a difference. This is the fundamental difference between trained and untrained people according to this former intelligence officer. And that it’s the most important skill an intelligence officer needs to learn and master, to think from perspective. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
108 views0 answers0 votes
The former intelligence officer said the human condition is extremely predictable. People want to feel heard, they want to feel listened to, and they want to feel validated. He says feeding these desires can be automated, and the result will be people willingly selling out themselves, often without any awareness that they are doing so. Everything we’ve learned so far about influencing people seems to be fundamental tradecraft in how to motivate (by positive reinforcement) or manipulate (by negative reinforcement). For someone who wants to safeguard themselves from falling victim to this kind of influence, how helpful is it to learn and understand how one’s own emotions and human needs can be leveraged against them? What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
100 views0 answers0 votes
When someone confronts the fact that there is manipulation all around, is there any way to protect themselves from it? Are people trapped in their perception and their emotions more vulnerable to manipulation than people who exercise more perspective? Or are both hopelessly vulnerable and there is no genuine protection outside of divine intervention? What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
112 views0 answers0 votes
From an atheistic perspective, the situation seems pretty hopeless. But there is another perspective to consider—the DIVINE perspective, that protection from being manipulated can come from the divine realm in response to prayer work. Can Creator share with us how Empowered Prayer, the Lightworker Healing Protocol, Deep Subconscious Mind Reset, and Divine Life Support can provide protection from manipulation that may not be possible through any other means known to humanity?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
133 views0 answers0 votes
In an earlier show, Creator agreed with the statement, “You will learn more about reality by studying the extraordinary, than the ordinary.” Yet the ordinary is the focus of the skeptics in their attempts to prove that the paranormal is make-believe. In fact, skeptics have elevated this proclivity to have the force of law. In the volume, The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case against Life after Death, behavioral geneticist Jene Mercer writes, “The law of parsimony, a guiding rule for scientists for hundreds of years, states that given two equally well-supported explanations for a phenomena, we are best advised to choose the simpler one rather than multiplying entities unnecessarily.” Skeptics routinely “choose the simpler” by ignoring and throwing out exceptions and outliers in their data, all the while congratulating themselves for being scientific. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 3 years ago • 
216 views0 answers0 votes
The assertions Creator is being asked to address in this episode come from the volume, The Myth of an Afterlife: The Case Against Life After Death. The author, Matt McCormick, wrote, “The physical structures of the brain are causally responsible for consciousness and its capacities. A neuroscientist examining scans of a stroke victim’s brain can now predict, sometimes with remarkable accuracy (down to the millimeter), exactly what sorts of cognitive, conceptual, emotional, or psychological problems that the patient will experience as a result of his or her brain damage. The connection is too great, too pervasive, too immediate, and too strong to be ignored. The physical foundations of mental functions shows that the alleged separation of mind from brain posited by the dualistic survival hypothesis … will not occur.” What can Creator tell us about this skeptic’s conclusion?
ClosedNicola asked 3 years ago • 
245 views0 answers0 votes
Matt McCormick wrote this in his contribution to the collection titled Dead as a Doornail: “While most of us would acknowledge some connection between mental function and the brain, we may have failed to see just how deep the connection runs. Even the most abstract mental faculties—and the most specific features and contents of our private mental states—can be mapped directly onto brain functions. … People who suffer from Anton-Babinski syndrome are cortically blind, but they don’t believe they’re blind or consciously blind. They will adamantly insist they can see even in the face of clear evidence of their blindness, dismissing their inability to perform visual tasks by confabulating explanations for their poor performance. … The syndrome results from a specific sort of damage to the occipital lobe of the brain.” Is this wholly a result of brain damage, as the skeptics assert, or is this a clue about the underlying origins and actions of consciousness? What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 3 years ago • 
248 views0 answers0 votes
Matt McCormick wrote, “Capgras syndrome results from lesions in the occipital, temporal, and frontal lobes of the brain. Afflicted patients have the powerful sense that someone they know, particularly a loved one, has been replaced by an imposter. Vilayanur Ramachandran postulates that the problem arises from a failure of the temporal regions responsible for face recognition to communicate with the limbic system regions responsible for emotional responses.” What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 3 years ago • 
259 views0 answers0 votes
Matt McCormick wrote, “Cotard’s syndrome, or the delusional belief that you are dead, that you don’t exist, or that you have lost your organs or blood, results from damage to the channels of interaction between the fusiform face area and the limbic system.” What can Creator tell us about this? Are the researchers over-attributing causality to the brain damage alone? Would the same symptoms and delusions inevitably result in any person that suffered similar brain damage?
ClosedNicola asked 3 years ago • 
219 views0 answers0 votes
12Next »
Ask Question