This is a two part series on how subcontractors hired from the Department of Defense are experimenting on 3500 or more civilians in the United States. You will have to wait for the technical discussion on the technologies employed along with a refutation of the medical communities refusal of accepting the claims of targeted individuals. The first part is to set the stage of mind control by providing a brief history. I have also included a chapter from Dr. Hall’s book titled Guinea Pigs. Dr. Hall is an anesthesiologist who is a targeted individual and has interviewed thousands of others. I will refine this post with more citations and information as time goes on.

All truth passes through three phases.
First it is ridiculed. Secondly, it is violently opposed.  Third, it is accepted as being self evident.
– Arthur Schopenhauer

A Silent Crime

Introduction

Freethoughtblog’s themes include science, atheism, equality, and human rights. This topic involves an abuse of human rights; it is about how individuals across the globe have become targets for electronic harassment. If that is not enough, the medical community destroys the reputation of TI’s (Targeted Individuals) by concluding that they have a mental illness. It is unconscionable how practitioners arrogantly jump to a medical conclusion without considering other causes. The practice of jumping to your favorite conclusion, which is what you were trained on, reminds me of the adage “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

I have found two posts by a psychotherapist, Kim Whiting, who has read over 400 letters from victims and posted her conclusions here. What these TI’s all have in common is that that they have been harassed by similar tactics, especially one in particular, directed energy (no, this is not science fiction!). Whiting, however, has concluded that 80% of the TI’s have mental illnesses. It is not clear to her whether or not the 20% are being intentionally harmed. In any case, she admits that directed energy technology exists.

Unfortunately, psychotherapists are not explicitly trained in the realm of critical thinking. Even if the therapist is a clinical psychologist or had a focus in quantitative research within their program, this is a topic that is not formally touched upon [i]. Coursework will teach them how to differentiate between pathologies but not to distinguish between good and bad reasoning. If Whiting was a cognitive scientist or a philosophy major trained in logic, perhaps her conclusions would have been different. Unfortunately, this is not so.

The reported experiences of TI’s can be hypothesized to be caused by either a mental illness or being electronically harassed through the DoD’s mind control technologies. Of course they could be mistaken or liars, both unlikely.

My conclusion is that subcontractors hired by the department of defense have been experimenting on civilians with directed energy and remote neural monitoring. This governmental agency is experimenting on us to help determine how effective their technologies can manipulate and control the mind. These technologies were developed by universities and private industry decades ago and have now become weaponized. Cognitive warfare appears to be where the military industrial complex is headed. There is good reason to believe that the experiments are for the life-time of the individual to test for the chronic exposure to microwaves[]. Dr. Hall, a former targeted individual, has conducted over 1,000 interviews with people who all experience the same symptoms. Robert Duncan, a researcher who has worked on these technologies, has interviewed over 2,500 targeted individuals who also have the same symptoms []. A shared symptomatology that in many respects does not resemble a mental illness along with their similar testimony constitutes as strong evidence in favor of them being targeted individuals []. The fact that the DoD has a long history of experimenting with mind control tactics, drugs, and technologies makes this event more than plausible.

Probability and Conspiracies

I find it troubling that many call themselves skeptics and do so because they like the image. Moreover, skepticism does not mean to adapt obstinance when there are unusual claims. Unfortunately, we will be “unmoved” if we are not educated on a topic. When we do not posses the knowledge, then our intuition will make us believe that an event is implausible. And unless we have either experienced it ourselves or have the knowledge we will never be moved by the evidence. Furthermore, to be moved, we must possess the frames to do so. Frames allow us to make sense out of facts. We will build the necessary framework to interpret the facts here. Lastly, we cannot use motivated reasoning. This means that we start with a conclusion and then reason our way with only the facts that support our conclusion. We must look at all conclusions (i.e., causes) as well as account for all of the evidence!No, we cannot explain evidence away if it does not fit our conclusion. That is an indication that something has gone awry.

These are not the only errors that people commit. When we reason with probabilities, then we seem to rely on what we know, which is high school probability theory. This is when each event is equally probable to occur. Equally probable is not always a good model. We cannot simply divide 2500 interviewed people in US with symptoms with 300,000,000 total people in the US and say that we have a negligible chance of being targeted. These people were probably not selected at random which would bias the selection process to make any particular individual more likely to be chosen than some other individual. We need to be thinking Bayesian here, and Bayesian’s clash with frequentists. A Bayesian approach is arguably superior when dealing with these types of claims.

When people say that this is an improbable event, then they are thinking of the prior probability! We could use that ratio above as our prior probability despite it being unrealistic, but there is another probability in Bayesian terms. This is the likelihood! The prior probability is the model assigned before we see the data, while the likelihood is the probability assigned after seeing the data. The event becomes arguably very probable once we see it in terms of the evidence. The likelihood is how expected is the evidence if the hypothesis is true. In short, there are always two probabilities. Be weary if someone says that the probability is a simple ratio.

We are conditioned to believe that government conspiracies are, well, “conspiracies”. And we think conspiracies are for “crazy” people. Saying that something is a “conspiracy theory” works in the favor of the conspirators. And saying that something is a conspiracy theory out of misbelief is only discouraging institutional analysis. Homo sapiens are the most manipulative species on the planet bar none. Do not ever think for a second that people can’t harm, deceive, and manipulate others. When it is a concerted effort, then we call it a conspiracy. This does not mean we can’t give some the benefit of the doubt since people can also be trustworthy when their reputations are on the line. We are a complicated species with inner contradictions and many tensions.

End-Game of DoD

What are they up to? The answer is kind of disappointing. Everyone thinks their lives are the most important but that isn’t true to the war machine.  TIs are just a data point amongst 10s of thousands. The short answer is data collection of mind control, practice, improve the victory of all possible outcomes, plausible deniable assassinations, false flag terrorism, and to incite wars.

Targeted individuals are experiencing a form of experimentation that follows a progression of phases that include selection, surveillance, stalking, defamation, attack, and monitoring. These six phases may have some overlap; however, they are distinct enough to separate them into phases. The time spent on each phase may vary from individual to individual and is probably a reflection of the desires of the perpetrator of the experimentation.

Before we get into mind control and evidence, I will cut to the chase. Here is what Dr. Duncan has concluded what the DoD is doing. The above quote discusses objectives while below shows the protocol for the electronic harassment and mind control. Below shows the actual algorithm of the DoD. Remember that most of these programs are classified.

Confuse -> Terrorize, Torture, and Scare

• Psychoanalysis of personality, Interrogation, Memory Retrieval
  • Program Tactics (dream manipulation, depattering, neural linguistic programming, and behavior modification)

Goals and Outcome -> Act Irrationally in public, get locked up in mental health hospital, create track record of mental illness

• Assign targets to Tis who are programmed as assassins and terrorists
  • Tis will Kill specific targets OR kill themselves (dispose of target)

History of Mind Control

Goals of mind control by the DoD: get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature. [3]

Let us establish that the DoD has a track record and interest in mind control as a weapon since 1950. This is taken from Renee Pitmann’s book titled “Remote Brain Targeting – Evolution of Mind Control in U.S.A.” who is not only a victim of experimentation but unintentionally contributed to mind control technology. In each one of these snippets below, research was inevitably conducted on the civilian population [3].

1950: As CIA’s Project BLUEBIRD expands, the CIA-contracted psychiatrists’ experimental purposes and activities include inducing amnesia, inserting hypnotic access codes in subjects’ minds, controlling behavior from remote transmitters with brain electrodes, administering LSD to children, and using electroshock to erase memories.

1951: CIA’s Project BLUEBIRD evolves into Project ARTICHOKE, with goals such as “get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature.”

1953: CIA Director Allen Dulles authorizes a new expanded mind-control program, MK-ULTRA, brainchild of Richard Helms, a high-ranking member of CIA’s Clandestine Services.

1958: U.S. corporations, including Westinghouse, General Electric, and Bell Telephone have begun telepathy research.

1960’s: Neurophone – A device that converts sound to electrical impulses; allowing information to be transmitted to the brain by means of radio waves directed at any part of the body (skin). In other words, recorded or live messages, noise, music can be directed at an individual and, through the nerves, the signal will be carried (involuntarily) to the brain, bypassing the inner ear, the cochlea, and the 8th cranial nerve. In its original form electrodes were placed on the skin but with defense department developments, the signals can be delivered via satellite.

1961: The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is created in the Department of Defense (DOD) by DOD Directive 5105.21, August 1, 1961. [NOTE: After the 1971-1972 creation of the CIA-initiated remote viewing program, its administration later gets transferred, at least in part, to DIA as one action of the remote viewing shell-game of secrecy that goes on for decades.]

1962: A book published in the Soviet Union, “Biological Radio Communication,” claims “experimental confirmation of the fact that communication between two people separated by long distances can be carried out through water, over air and across metal barrier by means of cerebral radiation in the course of thinking, and without conventional communication facilities.”[

1963: CIA’s Richard Helms attempts to defend CIA drug operations like Midnight Climax by telling CIA Inspector General John Earman that such testing has been necessary “to keep up with the Soviets.”

1965: Psychiatrist Jose Delgado gives a mind control demonstration in Spain with a bull: he presses a button on a radio transmitter and the bull brakes to a halt. He presses another button and the bull turns to the right and trots away, obeying commands being delivered through radio signals to brain regions in which fine wires had been planted the day before.

1965: working under the auspices of CIA’s MK-ULTRA, prepares a review article entitled “Extrasensory Perception.” It says ESP has been demonstrated, but is not understood or controllable.

1966: Harold “Hal” Puthoff from NSA and Ingo Swann from the UN enroll in Scientology, supposedly unknown to each other. Within five years they will be at the highest levels of Scientology and under secret contract with CIA to developremote viewing for military intelligence.

1971: In one of a series of long-distance remote viewing experiments at ASPR, OT VII Ingo Swann suggests calling the experiments “remote sensing” or “remote viewing.”[

1972: “The Soviet Union is well aware of the benefits and applications of parapsychology research. The term parapsychology denotes a multi-disciplinary field consisting of the sciences of bionics, biophysics, psychophysics, psychology, physiology and neuropsychology.

Robert Duncan’s Summary of Mind Control

Many of the discovered government mind control programs use trauma based conditioning.  Here is a short list of revealed programs.  Project Bluebird, initiated in 1949, was the first CIA behavior modification program.  Bluebird morphed into Project Artichoke to create programmed assassins and split personality spies.  Then the CIA added to the goals of the program into its most famous mind control program, MKultra, for espionage, counter-espionage, and clandestine manipulation of global politics. Thousands of pages were declassified on this program during the 70’s Church hearings.  These programs were followed by many others under new names and budgets such as MKdelta, MKsearch, Chatter, Spell Binder, MkNaomi, etc.  The current programs are classified but MKultra continues in new forms and under new names and budgets.  Another common program is a trauma induced form of mind control call Monarch programming. Project Stargate was a cover story of psychic spying however it used very advanced remote sensing and influencing technologies on human beings which has become global. The leaked newer programs follow Disney themes.

Targeted Individuals (Taken from Guinea Pigs by Dr. John Hall [2])

This is not to infer that the individuals suffering at the hands of current technological experimentation fit in the category of separatists. In most cases they do not appear to be separatists, radicals or anti-government. I am merely attempting to explain, from a governmental viewpoint, their plausible need to develop more sophisticated means of controlling the population. The governments from every industrialized nation no longer seek to merely govern their people. The emphasis has changed from governing populations to controlling populations with the United Nations helping pave the way through a myriad of programs.

The group, feeling the brunt of this slow conversion from representative to mental totalitarianism refers to themselves as target individuals or “T.I.s.” This rapidly growing group of individuals is the one voicing the complaints of exposure to electromagnetic technologies meant to alter cognition and physiology. While many of these accounts could’ve been written off as mental illness a decade ago the frequency and similarity of the complaints being vocalized currently point toward a much different etiology. The lack of legislation against nonconsensual experimentation, the willingness of the government to participate in nonconsensual experimentation and the known research and development of electromagnetic weapons validate these claims as probable covert experimentation. I have interviewed thousands of the people voicing these complaints both alone and through Freedom from Covert Surveillance and Harassment, an advocacy organization offering support to the victims. My descriptions of the experiences of these “targeted individuals” are based upon my interviews as well as statistical data provided by FFCHS through extensive surveys that they regularly conduct. Of note, FFCHS is not the only support group that has formed. Many other support groups have developed to handle the exponentially growing number of complaints that are being voiced.

After several thousand interviews and many hours of mulling over questionnaires filled out by victims, I have pieced together an explanation of their experiences. The reader has probably noticed that I do not refer to the victims with descriptive terms like “alleged” or “probable.” After completing this book the reader will be equally convinced that this is a real phenomenon that is destroying the lives of thousands of individuals and their families. Undoubtedly, many victims and non-victims alike will disagree with some of my findings and descriptions of this phenomenon. However, while some victims may have circumstances that differ slightly from my template, the overwhelming majority are experiencing a very methodical progression of experimentation that fits well into the template that I am hypothesizing. Targeted individuals are experiencing a form of experimentation that follows a progression of phases that include selection, surveillance, stalking, defamation, attack, and monitoring. These six phases may have some overlap; however, they are distinct enough to separate them into phases. The time spent on each phase may vary from individual to individual and is probably a reflection of the desires of the perpetrator of the experimentation. Again, the description is based upon a compilation of data and counter-intelligence gathered from surveillance of a perpetrator group identified in San Antonio, Texas. The group in Texas that was counter-surveilled has been independently identified by four unrelated victims from four different geographic areas of Texas.

Selection of a target may be for a myriad of reasons at the local level. One must remember this technology is not available to the average person. The groups perpetrating this type of experimentation are given access to the technology as covert, independent contractors of the government agencies responsible for its development. This research is a continuation of earlier behavioral control operations which were mostly done through front companies. The current experimentation is no different. The groups given access to the technology are allowed to choose victims for any reason they deem necessary. The agencies behind the technology are merely interested in collecting the data on its successes or failures. Therefore, as the data is collected at the top from each of the many perpetrator groups, the selection of victims probably appears random. The selection demographics look very different at the local level.

While a small number of victims have come forward with convincing evidence of direct harassment from various government agencies, these are mostly whistle-blowers employed by the same agencies and comprised the minority. Most victims are everyday people who would be considered “common” by most standards. Through interviews and questionnaires, we have found some trends among the victim population. A large percentage of the victims are female. Most of these female victims have reported drug facilitated rape and sexual assault. This is probably not a part of the experimentation as much as a representation of the criminal nature of the perpetrator group. Technology that allows for complete surveillance, stalking, and subliminal control makes sexual assault a very easy crime to accomplish. While rape has been used in the past as a part of mental programming through trauma, it appears that it is seen more as a “perk” among the current experimental perpetrators. Nonetheless, it is no less physically traumatic and psychologically damaging to the victim. One group of victims in Palm Springs, California does appear to be targeted sexually. This group of mostly gay men is being audibly harassed by the same female voice through the microwave auditory effect as well as being victimized through drug assisted sexual assault. Obviously this represents a psychological hatred on the part of the group perpetuating these crimes in that area. However, to summarize, the selection of targets for inclusion into this experimental protocol may be specific at the local level with some aspect of particular traits that are sought out by the perpetrators. At the agency level, where the data is ultimately compiled, each perpetrator group’s inclusion criteria probably average out to give the target population a random appearance.

Surveillance of the chosen target closely follows selection. The surveillance phase differs from the stalking phase in that during the surveillance phase the target is unaware that it is occurring. Once selected, the target is extensively surveilled through multiple means which include background checks, credit checks, mail tampering, email hacking and direct observation, both physically and electronically. Surveillance accomplishes several important goals that are integral to the success of the remainder of the operation. It allows the perpetrator to accurately determine the target’s daily living activities. Most importantly, where they live, work, bank and how they spend their leisure time are quickly assessed. The people they spend the majority of their time with are identified and scaled in order of importance. For instance, highly valued circumferential targets would include the target’s close family members, supervisors, physicians, clergy and anyone else that they may spend substantial time communicating with. This allows the perpetrators to know with reasonable certainty who the target will confide in once they are aware of their targeting. During this phase the target’s social status is ascertained with regard to their relationships with loved ones, neighbors, co-workers, supervisors, and others. Any participation in taboo behavior such as drug use, excessive alcohol intake, domestic violence, infidelity or pornography are especially noted and followed up on very closely. All the data collected during this phase will be used to control, mislead, defame, and isolate the target. Also, during this phase the perpetrators will often have neighbors, co-workers and relatives assisting them with the surveillance. This is usually accomplished by misleading those individuals into thinking they are assisting with a legitimate law enforcement investigation. In one instance the private investigative agency perpetuating the surveillance identified themselves to a target’s neighbor as FBI agents, complete with fraudulent identification badges. One would be very surprised at the number of people who fall for this ploy without even asking for appropriate identification or contacting the alleged agency to inquire if the surveillance is legitimate. Ignorance of the laws, both nationally and at the state level, regarding surveillance and right to privacy, make this a very effective ploy. The successful application of this technique by the perpetrators will later legitimize the defamation phase and protect them from possible arrest during the stalking phase. With the neighbors believing that they are assisting with an investigation by a legitimate agency, they are more apt to believe the defamatory remarks they are told about the target. Moreover, they are less likely to call the police and report the vehicles they see parked in front of the target’s home throughout the night.

Stalking of the target is a natural extension of the surveillance phase. These phases differ in that the surveillance phase is usually unknown to the target while the stalking phase is done with full awareness of the target. In current literature, the stalking phase of this type of victimization is usually described as gang stalking, organized stalking, or cause-stalking. Gang stalking and cause-stalking are inaccurate descriptions in that they imply either street gang involvement or some grandiose reasoning behind the stalking. Organized stalking is probably the most accurate description, reflecting the highly organized and methodically planned out form of stalking that these victims experience. The methods involved are directly adapted from the COINTELPRO operations ran by the FBI in the 1950’s and 1960’s against groups seen as radical elements. The tactics include total inundation of the target at home and wherever they may go, breaking and entering of their domicile and physical harassment and intimidation. Electronic harassment is used during this phase with regard to email tampering, computer hacking, cell phone spoofing and cyber-bullying. More exotic forms of electronic harassment are covered as part of the attack phase but may be present in any phase of this type of victimization. The stalking phase serves several important functions for the group perpetuating the operation to insure that the target is totally enveloped in the operation with minimal chance of escape. It places the victim in a victim-mind state of hopelessness, especially once the victim has been ignored by police agencies through which the victim has sought help. Stalking is very difficult for police agencies to prosecute under normal circumstances. Police assistance in cases of organized stalking where the victim’s everyday actions have been studied through surveillance for months or years is nearly futile. In addition, the stalkers are highly trained, often with federal or local law enforcement backgrounds themselves, in pushing the envelope just short of giving the police a reason to investigate. The hopelessness that ensues from the feeling that all backs have been turned from believing or assisting the victim is integral to the success of the operation. After repeated police complaints of break-ins where nothing is stolen and personal belongings have been rifled through, the victim is labeled mentally unsound and further police complaints are ignored. Only felony burglary will be investigated by law enforcement agencies. Criminal trespassing will only result in a report that is filed away without an investigation. At worst, multiple complaints of stalking and criminal trespassing will result in a psychiatric referral or mandatory twenty-four hour psychiatric evaluation. The inability of the victim to get appropriate law enforcement assistance helps instill the belief that law enforcement is complicit in their victimization and limits them from further complaints. Once this level of hopelessness is achieved, the perpetrators feel confident in escalating their stalking to more frequent breaking and entering as well as physical and sexual assault with less risk of arrest. The victim mind state often causes the target to go into an extreme state of reclusion which furthers their chance of a psychiatric diagnosis once a psychiatric exam is requested or mandated. This part of the operation has been brilliantly designed with assistance from psychiatric professionals and is a scenario that continues to play out to perfection in almost every case.

The stalking phase serves another purpose. The victim must be located through GPS in order for the constellation of other modalities to be used on them. This can be accomplished in several different ways. Stalking may be a way of performing constant 24/7 GPS location through GPS enabled devices in the hands of the stalkers. This obviates the need for tracking chips in the victim and explains why the stalking phase almost always comes to an abrupt end with only the electronic harassment remaining. At one time chipping the target, much like GPS chipping of animals to study migratory patterns, was probably the more common scenario. However, this exposes the perpetrator group to the possibility of arrest for physical assault if caught and provides evidence of assault to the victim if the chip is found. A less risky alternative to stalking the victim close enough to remotely GPS them until their EEG can be catalogued and used through remote neural monitoring for the remainder of the operation. Our research has reinforced this fact. We have frequency scanned thousands of victims for covertly placed micro-chips with very few found on x-ray or MRI. To add to the confusion, part of the operation is apparently to convince the target that they have been chipped. This causes them to exhaust their finances looking for an embedded device that doesn’t exist with such fervor that it contributes to their psychiatric diagnosis. Essentially, while chipping was once integral to the operation, it is now part of the psychological victimization. However, because many people have been complaining of this targeting for a decade or more, scanning for a tracking chip should probably be part of their work-up. Most recently, Bob Boyce, an inventor from Georgia, was allegedly chipped by an agent involved with the NSA. His chip was found on x-ray and removed by a surgeon. It was a Verichip brand chip that was covertly placed in the tissue of his lateral shoulder where it underwent malignant changes. This case is still in litigation. For the record, in an email correspondence with the makers of Verichip, they assured me that they do not condone covert chipping with their product nor will it function as a GPS tracking chip. The serial number on Boyce’s chip allegedly was traced back to a lot of chips sold to the United States government. I will allow the reader to make their own decision regarding the sincerity and the reply I received from Verichip. Nonetheless, the fact that we are not routinely finding chips in the multitude of victims and the targeting continues in those with chips removed tells me that it’s being done through other means with chipping or stalking being used strictly as a method of location. Dr. Robert Duncan, in Soul Catcher: Secrets of Cybernetic Warfare Revealed puts forth this same assumption.

The stalking phase takes place hand-in-hand with the defamation phase. Inevitably, the stalkers are occasionally caught and questioned by neighbors, onlookers, or possibly local law enforcement officials. The excuse most often given to those who question the stalking is that the target is under official investigation for a drug, sex, or criminal crime. Since most of this type of stalking is usually done by private investigative groups, they often have former officers on their payroll or close enough relationships with local municipalities that the police question them no further. Neighbors that have noticed the 24/7 stalking are usually receptive of the drug or sex crime excuse for the simple reason that only a legitimate agency would spend the money necessary to surveil someone “really dangerous” for twenty four hours per day. The PI groups in San Antonio, Texas would present themselves as FBI agents since their company’s owner is former FBI. Neighbors or others who notice the organized stalking will almost always believe this excuse. The defamation eventually leads the target to extreme measures to deny the allegations made against them which in turn make them look that much guiltier. The defamation is much worse for licensed professionals such as doctors, lawyers, teachers, nurses or any state licensed professional. The “drug addiction” scenario is most often used in these cases where the mere mention of a drug problem will usually mandate that they undergo drug screening. Illicit drugs are usually placed in the victim’s food or drinks that they are known to consume frequently through months of surveillance. Once their appropriate licensing agency is notified of their possible drug problem, the stalkers ensure that they will test positively for the drug that they are accused of abusing. This scenario works with near 100% effectiveness in destroying the career of the victim. The ultimate goal of the stalking and defamation phase is to get the target diagnosed as mentally ill or drug addicted to ensure job loss where they will be more apt to remain home where the rest of the operation can be accomplished. Incidentally, the stalking and defamation phases are also the two easiest points in this operation to intervene successfully and bring it to a halt. Unfortunately, most victims, out of fear or suspicion that they are being targeted by a legitimate investigative agency, do not pursue this. Moreover, until recently most states have had very weak anti-stalking laws that are not easily enforced. Texas has taken the lead in 2011 with a bill written by state legislator Jane Nelson and Judith Zaffirini that was passed into law. The bill was written after a young woman who complained of stalking to the Bexar County Sheriff’s Department was written off as mentally ill. Her stalker had held her at gunpoint while forcing her to slit her own wrists and write a suicide letter. She survived but was largely ignored by the appropriate agencies she entrusted to help her. Several months later her stalker followed her to work and murdered her in the parking lot. According to the new law, a restraining order can be issued now against an alleged stalker without first proving bodily injury by that person or persons. Furthermore, the definition of stalking has been changed to make the charge much easier to put forth. Unfortunately, this charge did not come in time for Kristi Appleby for whom the law was changed. An organized effort should be undertaken to force every state to follow suit in altering their stalking rules. This will make defending against organized stalking much easier. Currently, the perpetrators of this type of stalking take full advantage of the lack of legislation against it.

While it appears that I am solely placing blame on independent private investigative agencies for the stalking, I am not excluding participation by corrupt individuals that are active duty law enforcement at federal and local levels. This does occur, as I will illustrate. One must remember that the technology being used to commit these crimes originates at the federal government level. Hence, it is seen being used most often by private investigative agencies that are owned and operated by former FBI agents. These individuals maintain contacts with the agency who work with them in a reciprocal relationship. These relationships are imperative to the defamation phase. The majority of the public, dumbed down by years in the American public school system, will believe the defamatory lies told about a target by the private investigators. However, the more educated members of society, who see private investigators as nothing more than licensed criminals, will question the legitimacy of what they are being told about a family member, friend, or co-worker. An active duty police officer or FBI agent spreading this same misinformation is seen as much more credible by the people being subjected to it. My own experience with defamation serves as a good example of active duty FBI employees taking part in this phase. A close friend of mine received a call on her cell phone from someone claiming to be an FBI agent, asking her to come in for questioning. The term, “asking”, I am using loosely. She was actually told that she would be formally requested to come in and if she did not come in voluntarily. Fearful from the threat, she reported as instructed to the FBI office in San Antonio, Texas. After going through their metal detectors and having a copy of her driver’s license made, she was greeted by an FBI agent. Special Agent J.A. questioned her extensively about my first book. A New Breed: Satellite Terrorism in America. Of course, he downplayed the existence of the technology mentioned in the book. In finishing the interview, he told her not to believe anything I talk about, that I was a “piece of shit” and she would do well to stop communicating with me. He added that I was not under any type of official investigation, inadvertently admitting that this was strictly harassment. This occurrence is my first experience with active duty FBI personnel taking part in the defamation phase. I assume that this is probably going on in other cases as well. As of the writing of this book I have yet to be questioned by this agent directly. One would surmise that questioning the author of the book would serve them better than harassing the author’s friends who have only read the book. Again, the fact that they have not directly questioned me leads me to believe that their goal was purely harassment, defamation and an attempt to prevent this book from being released.

The best defense against defamation is to know your neighbors well and live a good life. Despite the stalking and attacks, one should do their best to function normally. Continue to work, attend church, children’s activities or whatever social activities you would ordinarily be expected to attend. Reclusive behavior will lead people to believe the lies being told about you. Moreover, stick to victim’s forums or organizations that handle victims of this type of crime to vent frustrations or talk about your experiences. Repeated attempts to convince nonbelievers of what you are going through will further align their belief with the doubts about your sanity that they’re being told. Moreover, if you are using illicit drugs, STOP! Illicit drug use can and will be used against you, not only to defame you but the entire crime will be blamed on drug induced psychosis. The government has specifically targeted drug abusers for mind control experimentation ever since the early MKULTRA subprojects, solely for the reason that they are easily discredited. In conclusion, visibility in your community and normal societal interactions are key in defeating the defamation phase. This is a lesson learned from the perpetrators themselves. The perpetrator groups in the San Antonio area have ingrained themselves so well in their community as good Methodist, wholesome people, that I wager no one that knows them would suspect or believe the atrocities they have committed. Victims must do the same. Living your life as a recluse, placing foil in the windows and constantly talking about this issue to people who are uniformed will worsen your plight.

The attack phase is characterized by directed-energy attacks meant to disrupt normal physiologic functioning. It may occur at any time during a victim’s targeting but is most noticeable as a distinct phase late in the targeting. Early attacks, prior to the victim’s awareness of stalking or defamation, may be perceived as ordinary physiological medical issues. Often the victim has multiple physician visits with complaints of muscle twitching, headaches, heart palpitations, skin burning and other more obscure complaints with nothing medically abnormal found. Later in their targeting the attacks are accompanied with voice to skull transmissions that make it very obvious to the victim that their ailments are not the result of medical pathology. Once the perpetrators are certain the victim is hearing their transmissions and have noticed the stalking, the attacks will escalate. During the attack phase, the victim can expect to be assailed almost twenty-four hours per day. If the victim is lucky enough to still be employed by the time this phase begins, attacks will be used as their key weapons to sleep deprive the victim. Often, the attacks will subside just long enough for the victim to fall asleep with hopes that they will sleep through their alarm and be tardy or absent to work. Remember, the goal of this phase is complete annihilation of the victim’s personal and professional life. This phase will continue until these goals are met or the perpetrator group is diverted or hired to target someone else. Manpower constraints within the perpetrator group will often result in abrupt cessation of attack as they focus their attention on another target that they’ve been directed or paid to attack. However, the victim will still usually have the infrequent attacks as a reminder that they are still being watched and are not entirely free from the program.

According to Dr. Robert Duncan PhD, in his book “Soul Catcher: secrets of cybernetic warfare revealed, the attacks are the result of central nervous system manipulation. In effect, the brain is being manipulated to manifest the physical symptoms of twitching, burning, spasms and other symptoms.” While this may be true, almost all of the victims also report electrical disturbances within their homes. It is my belief that some of the attacks are secondary to directed energy attacks at specifically targeted peripheral nerves, muscles and organs and not strictly through the central nervous centers controlling them. In effect, the same directed energy modalities being used to open and close garage doors, turn lights on and off and disrupt computer screens in the victim’s home may also be used to physically attack the victim at targeted sites other than the brain. This may explain why neuro programming to alter the EEG in most victims does stop some, but not all, of the attacks. It would stand to reason that with the myriad of weapons within the electromagnetic spectrum at their disposal, the mode of attack would be variable in nature and not dependent solely upon central nervous system manipulation.

The weapons used in the attack phase include microwave, millimeter wave, radio-frequency, laser and probably scalar modalities. All of these modalities have been researched extensively and weaponized for military use as mentioned earlier in the book. While they have all been identified under the heading of “non-lethal” weapons, non-lethality in the research setting was not based on 24/7 exposure. Moreover, the exact effect of their exposure long term on the human body is not known, at least not in official research. The victims of the current experimentation may be the guinea pigs of some type of long term exposure protocol that is too unethical to be done under a legitimate Institutional Review Board with consenting volunteers.

The attack phase is followed by the monitoring phase. Having worked with multiple victims that have been victimized for varying lengths of time, it is clear that the victims have been chosen for experimentation for the duration of their lifetime. Dr. Duncan and I are in agreement that the targeting is done for the life of the individual. However, once the goals of the perpetrators have been met, namely, social, personal and occupational destruction, the attack phase often lessens. As mentioned earlier, this victim will experience the occasional attack as a reminder to them that they are still being watched. Apparently, one of the rules of this experimental protocol is that once a victim is chosen, he or she must be monitored until their natural death occurs. Many victims are drawn to suicide by their respective perpetrators. This may be an attempt by the perpetrator groups to prematurely end the monitoring phase of one particular victim so manpower can be focused on other victims. The psychological resilience of the victim to the stress of the experimentation obviously plays a factor as well. From a medical perspective, the monitoring phase is probably to denote any immune problems, cancers, psychiatric problems or diseases that may result from the long term exposure to the electromagnetic weapons used in the experimentation. These issues will need to be elucidated before those modalities are released on the population as a whole for psycho-social control. In 1971 Dr. Jose Delgado, and MKULTRA researcher, published “Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society.” His research required implanting the brain with a micro-chip to acquire the desired results. The development of directed energy has allowed for more efficient delivery with even better results without the need for brain implantation.

Credibility and Background

I must mention a trend I see in those who have already made up their mind. Time and time again individuals will target the credibility and background of the researchers. I realize that having advanced degrees is correlated with motivation and intelligence, but no advanced degrees are required to understand how something works. It takes interest and motivation to understand these types of mechanisms with a descent background in computers, physics, chemistry, and biology. As far as having someone qualified enough to assess whether or not these technologies are possible realities, it takes a person within that specific industry to come forward. Every individual that is listed as a source has either been a targeted individual, has a medical degree, or is intimate and passionate about the technology and some even involved in the industry of mind control weaponry. Ability and backgrounds are non issues.

What about liars or those with ulterior motives? Every now and then we can find an outright liar who has motives to advance their image at any cost, even the truthfulness of their content or background may be suspect. But this is rare. Most people, especially those who spend their life in an industry or academia, value and guard their reputation. Every source that I have used has been personally affected by their experiences with this technology. At worst, a researcher may frame their educational background in a self-serving way which may mislead us. This does not mean that they are liars always and everywhere, but instead may indicate the outside pressure to meet the harsh opinions of others. Each source that I have picked strikes me as genuinely concerned about the use of mind control weaponry such that we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

Notes

More about Renee Pittman

My work at the time was involved with an AI database for paranormal references (Project Parafile). A second paper was also presented at the Omniversal Symposium, California State College at Sonoma, (September 29, 1973). This was titled “Embryonic Holography,” and was an application of “The Holographic Concept of Reality” model. It dealt with biogenesis and neurological regeneration, and included speculation on the origins of cancer, faith healing, psychic surgery and more technical aspects of mind-body energetics. One week after the delivery of that paper, four men came into my place of business, two in suits and two in full Army dress. The two suits held me under close arrest, while the two Army personnel went through my files, pulling anything related to “Embryonic Holography.” The paper was rewritten from old notes and memory, but it was not the same. What got this paper classified “top secret” for almost 20 years was that it was critical for the use of Allan Frey’s study, and its possible application to mind control. I never was able to draw what was so important in that initial paper until I began researching this paper, more than 24 years later. I will discuss those aspects further into this document.

References

[1] Duncan, Dr. Robert . How to Tame a Demon: A short practical guide to organized intimidation stalking, electronic torture, and mind control . CreateSpace Independent Publishing. Kindle Edition.

[2] Hall, Dr. John. Guinea Pigs: Technologies of Control

[3] Pittman, Renee. Remote Brain Targeting: Evolution of Mind Control in USA – A Compilation of Historical Information Derived from Various Sources (Mind Control Technology Book Series 1)

Is it exclusionary to say I hope all Freethinkers are doing well? [I was actually asked that question by a ‘clever’ detractor.] I am doing well despite that my last post did not do so well. I think the stomach of many could not digest the word “spritiual”. That is OK. I will get right to a new one. [RIght to it? Yep, 4 months later, but I can never be appreciative enough that I am allowed on here.]

From advice often being half-truths, lacking necessary caveats, or just plain wrong, many therapists disguise incompetence through misleading professionalism and, at best, occasional wit. Alright, that sounded kind of mean. But I truly mean it for the sample of therapists used. I have seen them fool many with how they “say it” (watch out for those pithy expressions!) and how they present themselves. Truth and critical thinking are really important to me—especially important when applied to a topic like mental health.

The following has been compiled from friends, family, and some from myself over a ten year span. I will post what could have or, perhaps, should have been said instead in the next post. Like most of health care, including doctors and nurses, they are largely unaccountable entities. Who monitors the advice that they give? Do we think that a popular therapist means that they are more likely to give us good results, or do they just make us feel good? What about solving problems or mood disorders? Most patients don’t understand medicine or psychology, and therapists do their best to come across as professional, affable, and even intellectual.

They can decieve, and they do deceive, but intentionally?  No, I do not think so. I think they fall prey to bad reasoning and stick to what they think works or what must to be true; after all, it is what everyone else believes. But they really haven’t thought this stuff all the way through. I know of very few that have. The few that I come across that do I cherish, and I am always running ideas by them.

1. “Self-esteem is always without doubt an ‘inside job’.”
2. “Depression is mismanaged stress.”
3. “You know what {your_name}’s “problem” always was?”
4. “I know what makes me happy,” says the patient. Therapist: “No, you were not happy.”
5. “Were you not ‘enough’?” [Said with glee in hopes of triggering a response.]
6. “You know what your problem is?” What? “You are not successful.”
7. “Stereotypes are always wrong. That is why they are stereotypes.”
8. Personal or Emotional ‘growth’ (which is poorly defined) cannot come from reading research.”  “‘Growth’ can also not come from taking time away from society.”
9. “If you are still looking for validation, then you are in trouble.”
10. “The only way to recovery from an addiction is a 12-step approach.”
11. “Can you get your parents to pay for this?”
12. “The only thing that matters is how you feel. This is my barometer for determining a successful outcome.”
13. “You model your behavior [presumably all] from your parents.”
14. “Your parents [“family dynamics”] are the cause of your problems.”
15. “You are coming across as a “victim” [said with sharp disapproval and mockery].
16. “Save yourself first.”

To be clear, this does not mean that all therapists can’t help or don’t know what they are doing. I never said “all” or “always”. I said here are some things that some therapists got wrong, partially wrong, or could have given caveats.

For another topic, if you dive into the research, you willl see how outcomes are measured. The methods used should not give, not to me at least, us much confidence in the results. In fact, the results themselves seem problematic. For example, psychotherapy cannot distinguish efficacy and effectiveness between therapies. This means that any method used to treat a patient is as effective as any other method used. That is not all that worries me though.. for another post.

What is the purpose of life?  It is to find meaning.  [Viktor Frank]

The title is not a misprint.  Everyone, including atheists, should be spiritual.  It doesn’t matter if we agree or not because we are all spiritual to a certain extent.  The alternative to spirituality is hedonism.  In reality, we seek both.  But the proportion matters.

The way that I mean spirituality has nothing to do with New Age spirituality, mysticism, religion, spirits, ghosts, God, or souls!

Spiritual means when we use our imagination to transcend the here and now and worldly (materialism, praise, etc.) things.

To be sure, this post is about the study of happiness.  Happiness is about getting what we want.  Although happiness and experiencing meaningful things are different things, meaning-making contributes to our happiness in the long run.  We do many meaningful things, such as believing that atheism is accurate, having relationships with others, and pursuing our long-term goals in life.  These all contribute to happiness.  That said, the kind of happiness that fulfills our immediate needs and wants, such as food or getting praise from others, is fleeting.  This is where spirituality comes into the picture.  Spirituality is about obtaining meaning out of life in a certain kind of way—in a way that transcends our immediate needs and wants.  An example of a spiritual activity is realizing our deep connection to nature or that we all originated from the plains of Africa so we derive meaning and satisfaction from this.

Above, when I say the alternative to spirituality is hedonism, this means that if we are not spiritual—deriving meaning from things that transcend our immediate needs and wants—then we are only making ourselves happy by gratification.  I would argue that this is a shallow life indeed.  Atheists, however, do not have the luxury of having religion.  They must seek their own meaning out of life.

At Its Core, Spirituality Isn’t About God

Spiritual is used often without most taking the time to ask what it means.  I have heard many in an attempt to not appear one-dimensional claim that they are spiritual but not religious.  Presumably, this means they ponder the deeper questions but don’t follow strict rules.  If we are materialists and do not believe in the soul or the spirit, we are free to throw out any references to the immaterial.  Religion has a restricted view of spirituality because it must include belief in God.  Here is a Catholic’s view:

Spirituality is living the mystery of Christ, becoming like him, being filled with grace and the Holy Spirit. It applies the Gospel to Christian Life. A spiritual person will attempt to make every action and interior thought align with the Gospel.

This definition is problematic if we are materialists and do not believe in the divinity of Christ.  Astute observers, however, have noted that there is something common in all forms of spirituality, which exists within every culture. Spirituality is anything that transcends the ordinary and brings meaning to our lives.  This is more inclusive.  Atheists, like everyone else, have a yearning for things beyond themselves.  This is important because happiness in itself is not enough to live a satisfying life.  Although we can conclude this for ourselves, we need some evidence.  We can turn to researchers who shed new light on old concepts.

Meaning Can Help with Happiness 

Transcendence is the highest and most inclusive or holistic levels of consciousness, behaving and relating, as ends rather than means, to oneself, to significant others, to others in general, to other species, to nature, and to the cosmos. [Abraham Maslow]

The definition of spirituality has two parts to it: transcendent and meaning.  When we say something is transcendent, we mean that it goes beyond worldly things like status attainment, materialism, and self.  When we transcend normal awareness, we are not in a judgmental or adversarial state of mind but rather see others for what we have in common with them.  Transcendence means that we recognize that we are a smaller part of a greater whole, say part of a community or the human race.  It gives us that sense of awe and oneness when contemplating our relationship to nature or recognizing that we all ultimately came from, say stardust.

Whatever we do to be spiritual, it must be meaningful to us.  Meaning is derived from doing, thinking, or belonging to things greater than ourselves and often reflects our identity and values (i). Values are about how we should behave.  If we think about it, values mostly serve our own interests.  In order for meaning to transcend the self, then we need virtues.  Virtues are values that serve humanity. The virtues that are found in all cultures include gratitude, humility, forgiveness, hope, wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance. If we follow these virtues, we experience meaningful life events by connecting with and helping others.

Happiness without meaning characterizes a relatively shallow, self-absorbed or even selfish life, in which things go well, needs and desires are easily satisfied, and difficult or taxing entanglements are avoided. [Roy Baumeister]

Notice how the ego is absent from virtue.  The ego wants to advance, satisfy its needs and wants, and seek praise.  Happiness can fuel the ego because it is about getting what we want.  When researchers study happiness, it is broken down into the presence of positive feelings, a lack of negative feelings, and life satisfaction.  Short-term happiness is often in conflict with meaning-making. For example, suffering hinders happiness, but we reflect afterward and make meaning out of it.  We learn from suffering, can assist others with our experience, and it becomes part of “our story”.  In the long run, meaning can bring us happiness and satisfaction.

Acquiring Truth Is a Spiritual Pursuit

According to Maslow, self-transcendence brings the individual what he termed “peak experiences” in which they transcend their own personal concerns and see from a higher perspective. These experiences often bring strong positive emotions like joy, peace, and a well-developed sense of awareness (Messerly, 2017).

Hopefully, we are thinking about what we do that goes beyond our careers and satisfying our needs and wants.  I am satisfied with doing what I enjoy for its own sake, which is pursuing truth and knowledge.  This may seem like a selfish activity, but it is not entirely. Thinking and feeling, which is what we do when we acquire, share, and reflect upon truth, are verbs.  Although our society believes that we have to produce to be of any use, there is much benefit to oneself and others when we acquire truth and knowledge (ii).

If we read about the human condition, for example, then we will gain knowledge that can serve a purpose.  When we learn how human nature works, then we will develop realistic expectations towards others and ourselves.  We can show acceptance and understanding instead of fear and judgment.  Part of engaging in meaningful activities is to connect with others, which is only possible if we show empathy.  We further connect with others when we share our knowledge, which can inspire and enlighten us.

But does the pursuit of truth and knowledge qualify as being spiritual?  I certainly transcend the here and now and become deeply satisfied, even moved, when I gain insight.  Whenever I obtain insight, I make sure it integrates nicely with my background knowledge.  If it does not, then it is ad hoc.  I may have to alter my framework to get a fit, but when it fits, eureka!  I recall time periods when radical insights caused shifts in how I view myself, others, and the cosmos.  Through time I have refined those ideas, always vigilant for a more accurate model to make sense out of the world.  For me, these insights often occurred after misfortune.

For many, suffering can entail failure, rejection, or depression.  I have obtained satisfactory answers for why these things have happened to me and why they happen to us in general.  When we understand how things work, this allows us to more easily accept suffering or to mitigate it.  When we suffer, we create meaning from it.  We do this by understanding how it ensues, making it purposeful, and then weaving a narrative out of it.  For example, depression is the body retreating from a failure to get what we want.  It occurs when attempts made to advance or to be sufficiently valued are thwarted; our endeavors become a “failed struggle”. The body withdraws until we get on a more fruitful path.  This explanation is meaningful, and it gives purpose to our suffering.

Are We Missing Something Without God?

Yes, I think we are.  I think God, amongst other things, helps us to cope when we are powerless and to face death.  I, however, explained earlier that truth and knowledge are virtuous to me.  As far as I can tell, a personal God is a human creation, who acts as a sort of father-like attachment figure.  Until there is evidence or good reasoning for his existence, I cannot compromise my virtues (iii).  I cannot get myself to believe in something that is likely untrue.  As Bertrand Russell said, “Either something is true or it isn’t. If we cannot tell if something is true, then we should suspend judgment.  If it is true, then we should believe it.”  Psychologists have known for decades that we function best when we approach life realistically.  For some, God is still needed to help them cope.

My Grandfather became an atheist when he asked why would a benevolent God allow his daughter to suffer from a terminal disease.  But in his last days, he became religious, especially after my grandmother died.  If we can imagine aging to the point where people who we love and miss disappear, where we would do anything to hear their voices one last time, knowing that they exist in heaven must be comforting.  I do not know how I will cope when loved ones perish, or when I find myself alone in assisted living with strangers.  In these events, I don’t fault people for seeking support from God who supposedly has their best interests.

There is no place, however, for the atheist to go, no refuge for when life is nearing the end.  When we belong to a religion, we share values, which bind us in a significant way.  We can admire religion for creating a sense of belonging while catering to the sick and paying tributes to the dead.  On the other hand, religion claims to provide the why while science provides the how (v).  It touts to provide meaning and answers to why we are here and what happens after death.  Their answers turn out to be unsatisfying and wrong. There is no evidence for an afterlife and the why question is poorly construed.  We have no ultimate cosmic purpose.

Thus, it is our responsibility to create meaning out of life.  If we are going to make meaning, then why not find meaningful pursuits that society holds in high regard.  This will not only increase our happiness, but if we act virtuous, we can focus on maximizing the flourishing of everyone.  We need only ask ourselves how we want to be remembered, smug and self-centered or altruistic and purposeful.  Since atheists do not have an extensive network of non-believers—no central “church”—it is dire for them to be spiritual.

Addendum & Notes

Here’s an example of creating meaning out of death.  If we reflect on the fact that we, the people that we love, and the meaning we’ve created will cease to exist one day, this can bring suffering.  Tyson has made meaning out of this by giving death a purpose. Its purpose is to make us have gratitude for life, to create a sense of urgency for moral behavior, and to live a satisfying life.

It is the knowledge that I’m going to die that creates the focus that I bring to being alive; the urgency of accomplishment; the need to express love; now, not later. If we live forever, why ever even get out of bed in the morning? Cause you always have tomorrow. That’s not the kind of life I want to lead. [Neil deGrasse Tyson]

i). Researchers view meaning as two separate parts—a motivational part or purposeful and a cognitive part which allows us to make sense of what we do and integrate it into the past, present, and future.

Years of research on the psychology of well-being have demonstrated that often human beings are happiest when they are engaged in meaningful pursuits and virtuous activities.” Indeed, when we are deeply engaged in an activity that is in accordance with our best self, we often report the highest levels of life satisfaction. [Todd Kashdan]

Meaningful pursuits are done for a purpose say to pursue our long-term goals.  These goals are best chosen to be what society chooses as noble to assist it in becoming a source of pride.  We can still gain meaning from activities that have value to us, which often occur when we do them for their own sake and not for the outcome.  But it can also be about derived meaning in which we make something purposeful.  I gave an example of how we by understanding how things work, say experiencing depression, give it a purpose and no longer make it feel like we suffered for no reason at all.  Tyson derived meaning as well from above.

ii). Be warned though since when we acquire knowledge, there is a risk of us becoming smug, as in we know something that others don’t.  We must approach gaining knowledge with humility because the job is never done.

iii) My bookshelf and Kindle are filled with dozens upon dozens of theist and atheist arguments for or against God.  If we view the evidence neutrally and suspend our own biases, it is difficult to come to any conclusion other than non-existence.  Over seventy percent of philosophers are atheists.  I am inclined to think that they know the stock arguments all too well.  Seventy percent is a huge number considering the population purports atheism to be around 10%.  A proportion of seventy percent of a sub-population of people who devote themselves to truth and knowledge all reaching the conclusion that God doesn’t exist is quite telling.

iv) I have other personal reasons for not liking the idea of a God.  For example, bringing God into the universe as an explanation seems to make a mockery out of truth and knowledge.  Belief in God also trivializes, as well as makes it inexplicable, why there is unnecessary suffering amongst many people (even animals) across the globe.  I am not talking about suffering from failure, rejection, or depression.  If these issues are not pervasive and grave, then they are tolerable, and we grow from them.  On the other hand, there are many people that get inflicted with diseases that cut their lives short and they never get to recover and weave meaning out of their experiences.

v) Theology and science have traditionally been thought of as different spheres of knowledge, each answering their own questions.  They have their own epistemology—how we know what we know—and constitute different metaphysics—what is the ultimate nature of the cosmos.  The problem is that they overlap and the claims that theology makes can be tested through the scientific method.  Prayer, for example, is about God changing the course of affairs in the universe.  This represents a valid domain for science.  Repeatedly, however, prayer has yielded statistically insignificant results, which means that any observed effect in the prayer group compared to the control group was due to chance and did not represent a real effect.

I want to show the logic behind why speculating that an intelligent agent created the universe is not an argument from ignorance or the god of the gaps fallacy.  It just turns out that intelligent designers have an additional premise that qualifies it as an argument to the best explanation.  Physicists do the same when they posit an entity to explain observed phenomena.  This does not mean that I believe this hypothesis to be true.  Why is this important then?  Because we will want to be informed when arguing with an ID.  And for those who think that I may be giving credence to Intelligent Designer’s arguments, I would not be threatened by any of this.

Abductive Reasoning

We have only two ways of determining what is true or not, by reasoning or observation.  What about the scientific method?  It obviously involves both reasoning and observation as well as experimentation, hypotheses, verification, and predictions.  There are different types of reasoning that we use when we try to establish something as true or likely to be true, such as deductive and inductive reasoning.  But what if we cannot directly observe something?  If we cannot directly observe something, then we are using abductive reasoning to determine the probability of something being true or not.  Detectives who work a murder case use this type of reasoning as well as archeologists and many others.  But everything is circumstantial because we cannot directly observe what we are hypothesizing.  Here is some abductive reasoning that was used, probably often used, for a suspect that murdered his wife.

• Observations (Evidence): We notice that the suspect’s house was cleaned meticulously in a possible effort to hide evidence.
• Expectation (Prediction): If someone was concealing a murder, then we would expect them to attempt to hide the evidence.
• Conclusion (Hypothesis): There is reason to suspect that this individual murdered his wife.

This evidence of course is neither strong nor conclusive.  But that’s the best we can do with abductive reasoning.  If we had more evidence to corroborate our hypothesis, then it becomes stronger.  To make it even stronger, we can compare it to the explanatory power of other competing hypotheses.  When the best one wins, then we call this enhancement argument to the best explanation. The best hypothesis must be sufficient to cause the phenomena of interest compared to other hypotheses and have causal adequacy.  The phenomenon of interest for the murder is not the evidence of a coverup but what can be inferred from it.  That is, hiding evidence in itself does not cause a murder but from our everyday experiences, we know that people hide things for a reason.

Scientists’ Reasoning

Stephen Meyer gives a few examples of scientists using this type of reasoning before giving his argument.  Here is how Richard Dawkin’s evidence and others would look when formalizing it to fit abductive reasoning.  We should “get” the logic after this.

Richard Dawkins:

• “Logic: If “blind, pitiless” matter and energy rather than a Mind is the prime reality from which all else originated, then we would expect no evidence of intelligent design in life and the universe, rather only evidence of apparent design”
• “Data: Life and the universe do not exhibit evidence of actual design, only apparent design.
• Conclusion: We have reason to believe that life and the universe are the product of blind materialistic forces.

Cosmologists:

• Observations (Evidence): There is background radiation and a value of the mass density of the universe.
• Expectation (Prediction): If there was a beginning, like the big bang, then we would expect to see that evidence.
• Conclusion (Hypothesis): There is reason to suspect that the big bang started the universe.
• Competing Hypotheses: In light of this evidence, the steady-state and oscillating-universe models lack causal adequacy.

Charles Darwin:

• Observations (Evidence): There are homologous structures, transitional fossils, evolution recapitulating itself, etc.
• Expectation (Prediction):  If life evolved, then we would expect to see evidence of this in the fossil record, embryology, etc.
• Conclusion (Hypothesis): All life forms came from a common descendent.
• Competing Hypotheses: God, Lakmarck’s theory, etc.

Intelligent Designers’ Reasoning 1

Intelligent designers are essentially doing, in one limited respect, what Charles Darwin did.  Darwin looked at his everyday experiences and deduced that since artificial selection can rapidly produce changes in a species, then natural selection with random mutation can do much more.  Obviously, natural selection needs time, so this reasoning is convincing considering the millions of years it has to work with.  Meyer says that within our everyday experiences we know that it takes an intelligent agent to make the sophisticated things that we come across, snowflakes aside.  This mode of thought makes up the first premise, and this is why it is not a God of the gaps fallacy.  So far I do not disagree with Meyer.  This still does not mean that an intelligent agent is behind it all.

• Premise 1: Our everyday uniform experiences teach us that any system that has a function requires design inputs, such as digital code and boundary conditions, from an intelligent agent.  Since this is true, then we would expect to find a universe that requires fine-tuning (boundary conditions) and life forms requiring a digital code (DNA base pairs) to exist and function.
• Premise 2:  We observe that the world is finely tuned with physical laws, constants, and parameters, and all of life requires digital code in the form of DNA base pairs.
• Conclusion:  We have reason to think that an intelligent agent acted to design the universe and life forms.

A God of the gaps fallacy would preclude premise one and jump from premise two to the conclusion. Does this additional premise prevent ID from being a God of the gaps fallacy?  In the framework of arguments, it does.  This is why I said the argument is not that bad because it obeys a certain logic.  But for all practical purposes, they are still invoking a designer into the argument which resembles a God of the gaps fallacy in every other respect. Although an intelligent agent could be the cause, we would have to compare this causal hypothesis to others.  It cannot, however, be a theist God, namely the Judeo-Christian version because that worldview is false through and through.  I am obviously not going to debunk Christianity here; others have done it for us.

My purpose is not to critique ID’s argument but to explain it.  What makes this argument strong, according to Meyer, is that it is an argument to the best explanation because it has causal adequacy.  It is only an argument to the best explanation because the competing hypotheses from science have failed to be causally adequate. That is, they fail to be likely candidates for the causes of how the information in DNA formed along with an explanation for why the universe appears to be finely tuned with parameters.  Meyer brings up the point that all of the RNA experiments, which could show the origin of information in DNA, thus far are plagued with their setups requiring input from an intelligent agent, such as artificial conditions, etc.  He also brings up that information, which is what DNA conveys, cannot in principle be described by physics or chemistry.  I would need to hear what biologists say about this.

Can’t Get Something from Nothing

The argument above dealt with the creation of lifeform and the appearance of the fine-tuning of the universe.  What about the beginning of the universe?  If there was a beginning, then how could something come from nothing?  The problem that science faces is that it defines naturalism as a closed system of cause and effect that prevents the supernatural from intervening.  This was never a problem of course and turns out to be a very real and natural metaphysics.  According to Stephen Meyer, it became a problem when atheists realized that there is more evidence in favor of the universe having a beginning than it just always being there.  Meyer says that there must be a cause for the beginning of the universe, but naturalism is not adequate to explain what it is.

What caused the whole of nature or the physical universe itself to come into existence?  All materialistic theories of the origin of the material universe face a fundamental problem given the evidence we have of a cosmic beginning. Before matter and energy exist, they cannot cause, or be invoked to explain, the origin of the material universe. Instead, positing a materialistic process to explain the origin of matter and energy assumes the existence of the very entities—matter and energy—the origin of which materialists need to explain. No truly materialistic explanation can close this particular causal discontinuity or gap—the gap between either nothing or a preexisting immaterial or mathematical reality, on the one hand, and a material universe, on the other. [1]

Sean Carrol, a professor of natural philosophy who is an atheist, says that “naturalism can offer no cause of the universe, but it may ‘just be'”, that is, require no causal explanation.  But this would violate the scientific assumption that “whatever begins to exist must have a cause.”  I do not pretend to even speculate as to how something can come from nothing.  That is not my aim in the post.  It is to show the logic behind ID’s hypothesis.  There is more to their logic too.  For example, Meyer brings up how the current hypotheses offered by atheists, such as the physicist Laurance Krauss, are contrived because they gerrymander the results.  What this means is that the models that they use to explain the origin of the universe require initial conditions and assumptions in order to work.  In other words, they know what fudge factors are required to get the results they would like.  I haven’t explored Krauss’s theory in depth, but I know how models work and don’t doubt it (3).  Perhaps this is the best science can do right now, which is OK.

Notes

1) I am intentionally not including intelligent designers’ reasoning under the science category because they don’t really do science.  Making a hypothesis from an armchair may qualify as abductive reasoning, which science uses, but in every other respect, Intelligent Design is not science and only hinders science.  We also know that their ultimate goal is to sneak a theist God in, namely a Judeo-Christian God.  In other words, I am doing my best to be neutral when analyzing their arguments, but I cannot qualify intelligent design as science.  Stephen Meyer would say that this is because of my bias towards metaphysical naturalism.  And I would partly agree.  To this, I would say, naturalism as a worldview is true and works.  Theism as a worldview, especially the Judeo-Christian version, fails on multiple accounts.  No, I don’t have time for a detailed explanation.  I leave this task to other experts.

2) I always thought of metaphysics to be an abstract philosophical concept with no overlap with science.  But science deals with metaphysical questions all the time.  Metaphysics literally means what is real and deals with questions about “being” and “existence”.  An example of a metaphysical question is if a copper wire conducts an accelerating charge that produces an electromagnetic field, how do we know the field is real?  We use abductive reasoning to say that if it were real, we would expect it to have x, y, and z effects.  Metaphysics may take this further and ask if the EM field qualifies as being “real”.  For our purposes, we can adopt an instrumentalist approach and say that if we can predict its behavior, then it is real.  We will use this fact later on.

3) This does not mean that they are not doing science.  Problems require assumptions to be made and conditions to be set.  We do not even have to be cosmologists to realize that replicating a time period billions of years ago will inevitably require some assumptions to be made.  If they make the model unrealistic, then so be it because they may still provide insight into the nature of the problem.   As more knowledge is gained, then the better our models will be.

References

[1] Return of the God Hypothesis.  Stephen Meyer.

Back from the dead folks.  Somehow someone found out who I was, and this prevented me from a job opportunity.  I feel persecuted.  I think I will eventually be open about my beliefs.  Not an easy thing living where I do.  Here is a post that is old news.  I think it is noteworthy because it is the latest attempt by apologists to keep God alive.  It is actually not that bad of an argument.

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.  Richard Dawkins

I was in discussion with a believer who referred to Stephen Meyer, the intelligent designer.  Meyer believes that Dawkin’s quote actually makes his case for him.  Here is a quote from his new book.  Yes, I own a copy of his book on Kindle.  Why? Because I committed to myself to understanding all arguments.  Arguments are fun to analyze, especially if they are most likely wrong.

They have argued, as Richard Dawkins has done, that “the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose . . . nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”  But the evidence examined so far suggests the need to reassess such claims. That the universe had a beginning, that it was finely tuned from the beginning, and that our planet has experienced dramatic discontinuous increases in biological form and information since the beginning are not at all what proponents of a naturalistic worldview would most “naturally” expect. [Return of the God Hypothesis by Meyer]

I agree with Meyer that if framed like this, then Dawkin’s quote works for him and not against him.  But that is only if we accept his premises.  I think Dawkins was mainly referring to the problem of suffering anyhow.  Meyer says that if the cosmos had a beginning, then we can’t use physical explanations to describe how something came out of nothing.  In other words, physics can only explain how matter and energy interact but not how they came into existence.  It must, according to Meyer, be something transcendent. Atheists at one point could claim that the cosmos was all eternal—that is, had probably always existed.  But most evidence now suggests that the cosmos had a beginning.  Of course, we do not have a detailed explanation of the origin of the cosmos.

Laws of nature describe how nature operates and how different parts of nature interact with one another; they don’t cause the natural world to come into existence in the first place. This suggests the futility of waiting for the discovery of some new law of nature or a “theory of everything.” No law of nature can close the causal discontinuity between nothing and the origin of nature itself. [Return of the God Hypothesis by Meyer]

Does this mean that Meyer is using the God of the gap fallacy?  He claims he is not since he uses abductive reasoning, like all of science, to form a hypothesis that explains the evidence.  I think he is correct, and I explain why here.  Besides Meyer claiming that science can’t explain how the universe came into existence, he also complains how science cannot figure out where the information in DNA came from nor explain the appearance of design when it comes to fine-tuning.  The biggest challenge I face as an atheist, however, is explaining to others how the universe came from nothing.  I don’t even attempt it because we don’t know.

What I can attempt to explain is that saying that a transcendental (supernatural) force is behind it all is unwarranted.  I mean you can do it.  Meyer did.  But how does Meyer come to the conclusion that the cause of the universe must be transcendental?  He uses a priori reasoning, not evidence [1].  This does not exclude something from being correct, but it is not as convincing as evidence.  If I suspend my bias and look at the problem squarely, I do not understand why we must think something came from nothing.  The barebones parts to form the universe as it is today, whatever they turn out to be, must have always been there in the first place.

If it turns out that the universe did come from nothing, or appears that way, does this mean that there is a transcendental force behind it?  Maybe.  But we could figure out what that above-and-beyond force is.  But the believers would say that the supernatural is unknowable through direct means.  In fact, my son asked his religious leader, “Who created God?”  His retort was God has no beginning or end.  To me, the supernatural is a mental construct that humans created, in addition to counter-arguments to keep Him being viable as a God.  This is exactly what Meyer is doing here.  We will look at his hypothesis in detail next.  

Notes

[1] To be fair, Meyer did use some evidence.  Not much though.  He observed that the world has a beginning, that the origin of DNA has yet to be explained empirically, and that the world may be finely tuned.  He then makes an inference to the best explanation based on these observations.  He says that this is not what we would expect to find if we believed in cause and effect and that there was no intelligent designer behind it all.  Meyer asks where did the informational power of DNA come from, and how did the cosmos become finely tuned?  The answer to these questions is probably found in Meyer’s poor formulation of these problems along with his self-serving premises.  Many others have addressed this elsewhere.  This post is not meant to be exhaustive by any means.

[2]. How do I know God is a mental construct used for multiple purposes?  I cannot address this entirely here, but it should be obvious given the imagination of the mind and how prone it is to anthropomorphism.  The problem with God, or whatever name we choose to use, is that this model cannot make predictions.  We have no idea how the supernatural behaves if we give it x, y, or z inputs.  He is whatever we choose Him to be, and does whatever we want him to do—the bible notwithstanding.

Trump and Desantis

Title’s Interpretation: You don’t have values, but if you did, mine are better.

Today I want to bring up a politically-charged conversation that I had with a friend of mine and analyze how it turned into tit-for-tat.  It is not anyone’s job to criticize another person.  But as writers, it is our job to entertain and inform by pointing out faults, usually with sarcasm, ridicule, or mockery.  I won’t be doing any of that today because I like this person.  I will gently, however, point out faults of theirs.  Perhaps I should be tough on them because they are loud and proud about their values and are amused at how sensitive and serious I can get.  In fact, I think they enjoy ruffling my feathers.  To me, she was belligerent and crossed my boundaries.

This is meant to be instructive and not retribution for a gripe.  But, honestly, what do we do when we find out that a friend likes DeSantis or Trump?  Maybe for many, it is not even an issue although doubtful.  What do we do when we find out that Jesus is more important to a loved one than we are?  The former is particularly tough if we think Jesus is a father-like attachment figure who has been passed down as a meme.  This is why I think it is important to be mindful of our speech and tone when conversing with others that have opposing values and viewpoints.  The conversation I had is below, followed up by how I think we should relate to others.

---

The Conversation (text message)

---

Melinda: I like DeSantis because he has strong values and military background.  We have many threats abroad and need a strong military presence to protect us.

[People vote on how a candidate makes them feel, which inevitably entails them having similar values, and then back it up with rational reasons so they can appear informed.  This is just how the mind works.  Moreover, conservatives’ values revolve around “strength”, responsibility, self-reliance, order, and authority.  It permeates all of their beliefs and reasoning.  So I can understand why a conservative may be preferred over a liberal as commander in chief.  It is not that liberals do not exercise these values but rather they do not give it the same priority.  For a detailed analysis of all harmful entailments of conservative values, see here.

It may, however, be naive for us to think that other nation-leaders share liberal values which prioritize such things as empathy, equality, self-awareness, and empowering others through assistance.  I like to think that liberals, certainly not all of them, are enlightened thinkers.  They formed at a time during the Enlightenment when there was a realization that conflicting values and beliefs will always exist and that we should do what maximizes the happiness of everyone.  This requires that others have the same political outlook since self-interest and our own values seem to take precedence.  But, in sum, it is natural to like DeSantis for war.

And there are legitimate threats out there.  But conservatives have more of a history of hyping threats, warmongering, and flagrant violations against human rights.  Those who do not think so do not know the history of United States’ foreign policy.  The irony is that those who balk at the idea of us being self-critical are the same people who worship Jesus.  The same Jesus whose writers had him say from Matthew 7 15, “How can you take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye if you can’t take the log out of your own?”  If we value human life, then we must be self-critical of our past as well as resist the urge to engage in preemptive strategies.  This pre-condition that I impose would be less likely to be followed by a conservative leader versus a liberal one.]

Musings:  I once was a conservative and shared some of the same beliefs as you do.  I don’t think you are wrong to share DeSantis’ values, but I do feel there is a lot of American history that I can share with you that may cause you to rethink your position.

[Notice that this is an indirect criticism.  I am saying that she doesn’t know a revisionist’s history of America’s foreign policy.  This probably got her upset, which I wasn’t even conscious of until now.  Criticism, implicit or not, is a sure way to get someone defensive and throw the conversation into a tit-for-tat match. ]

Melinda: you irritate me, lol

[Notice the “lol’ which is meant to cushion the blow of me receiving the message that I am “irritating” her.  In text messages, there isn’t body language and we can’t pick up on “vibes” to interpret the intention of the individual.  I interpreted it in a way that annoyed me.  I got annoyed because I am sharing something of value to me that irritates her.  How dare her.  But I let this go and gave her the benefit of the doubt.]

Musings: Promise me that you will read this post because it explains how often our foreign policy is not for human rights, disrespects sound international law, and how often America does anything they want, which is called American exceptionalism.  The post shows how we cloak our military presence in the name of freedom and democracy, which are ideals meant to rally our tribal instincts.  But as history shows, it is always the most dominant country that does most of the killing and damage.

[I was trying to get her to rethink her position on a preemptive foreign policy or “tough on evil” or however a conservative chooses to market their terror on Others.  I don’t think I was being aggressive or obnoxious, but it resulted in the following response.  She probably interpreted it as intense and intrusive because I kept peddling “my truth”. ]

Melinda: blah, blah, blah

[At this point, I took this personally because she is clearly being obtuse and dismissive of my earnest attempt to share something that was important to me.  I then proceeded to share my feelings and ask why she is being dismissive.  My mistake was that I described her responses akin to a teenager who receives information that is over their head.]

The Right Way to Converse

Curtail the Use of Criticism

We all want to be heard, seen, and understood.  We want to be seen as contributing to a conversation with worthwhile points.  This is a facet of what it is to be human.  When someone criticizes or dismisses us or our points, then we will either feel hurt feelings or anger.  Research shows that most interpersonal interactions go awry when we criticize, get defensive, use contempt (mockery or name-calling), or stonewall.  Of course, if we are in a relaxed mood and not too serious, then there is a reduced chance of us getting upset.  But that is just it.  We cannot predict what mood someone is in, so the rule of thumb should be to be polite and mindful of our speech and tone.  If we must point out a flaw, then the best way to approach it is to subdue the criticism with the preface of “I feel”.

It Is Not “Tiptoeing Around”

A common retort is why should I tiptoe around people since I am proud of my values.  If you are offended, then too bad.  This reflects a misunderstanding of our evolutionary past as tribal beings.  For most of our existence as homo sapiens, we existed in tight-niched tribes of no more than 100.  We all shared similar beliefs, values, and interests.  Sharing values makes us bind together, become self-righteous and blind to other values, and have hate for the Other.  So it is not religion or politics in themselves that cause conflict; otherwise, how could we explain similar behavior of different nations or people with different preferences in sports teams.

Think about what happens when we proudly display a “Fuck Biden” or “Trump” banner or bumper sticker.  The former banner right away will instill some aversive emotions in some, while the latter has a history of aggressive rallies which will do much the same. Saying that we should not tiptoe around is the same thing as Donald Trump saying that he doesn’t have time for political correctness, which is absurd.  If we value a relationship, then why would we not want to use respectful speech and tone?  Knowing how tribal and threatened we can get by the values of others, we are playing with fire when we are obnoxious about our values.

The Righteous Mind.  By Jonathan Haidt

[Read more…]