Consious energy

[New-ideas]

As human beings, we are born with consiousness, we have intention and attention etc, a physical awareness of the world around us. So my question is, what happens to that energy when we die? I have seen many different words used for this question and questions like it, like "lifeforce" or religously it could be described as "the soul".

 

I may have misunderstood or something, but if someone has any idea about this subject, I'd like your opinions.

Thanks!

[jungjedi]

ive seen kirliean photography prove there is a concious aura to life.showing leaves in there entirty that had been cut in half before the experement.i wonder something about conciousness.if matter and energy can curve spacetime,could it be possible that conciousness could do the same?

[clapstyx]

Its a good question but it may well be impossible to know. My theory is this.

Lets say a living person does something which expands consciousness to include a completely new concept..a strand of thought that is original and then that person dies. If that strand of thought or consciousness is then expanded upon at a later time and the original "soul" is in perfect harmony with that then it comes back into the "body" that took that concept to another level. Its very difficult to test but lets say someone in our time pursued the exact same ultimate goal as Christ for instance and understood that mindset from that persons perspective..understood the logic of what he was doing and why he was doing it that way..theoretically that person would be in sync with that soul and so that consciousness would be alive again. Now that probably wouldnt happen unless in that living time there was a person that thought like Judas and a person that thought like Mary so that the three of them could be as themselves if you like in the sense that they could relate to each other on that dimensional level and be in harmony with how they used to be and then mutually advance the concepts as they understood them previously. Like I said I doubt you could actually prove it to be true one way or the other but it must be considered that Christ when he was here seemed to talk mostly in parable so what was the reason for that ? Was he trying to lead thinking in a certain direction? My personal feeling was that he was being a bit devious because what I think he was doing was setting up situations before anyone else became conscious of them and then he was creating a kind of play out on a kind of script that only the closest around him had knowledge of. For instance lets say he deliberately created the possibility of his own crucifixion for some reason..knew that this future event was certain to occur nad then said "Ok if thats certain to happen what can I do in advance of that moment to make the most of it while I have still got the freedom to manipulate the situation without anyone knowing that I am doing it" Its not beyond the bounds of possibility that he and Judas were on the same wavelength.

 

There is also the other side of it. If you presume there is a Heaven and that when you die in one place you are born into it you may not be fully conscious straight off as to your own past identity and so the soul is then in catch up mode..when you then meet the people whe were Judas and Mary..maybe its a sense of inate harmony that triggers a realisation process..a sense that "Hey Im on the same wavelength as these people" even though I shouldnt be unless its the truth. A sense of we understand each other on this dynamic.

 

I guess for clarification lets say as a person living on Earth right now you decided to try and save the planet and create symbiotic harmony. If there were another soul (living or dead) that also pursued this they would probably try and connect with you to continue their own journey and take it to another level.

 

I dont know if there actually are any souls out there that actually literally try to evolve the concept of symbiotic harmony and expand it to a universal level but in theory they would connect if it were possible.

[CraigD]

As human beings, we are born with consiousness, we have intention and attention etc, a physical awareness of the world around us. So my question is, what happens to that energy when we die?

It’s very important, I think, to understand that the word “energy”, “force”, etc. have very precise definitions (eg: [math]E=F \Delta d[/math], [math]E=m c^2[/math], [math]F=m a[/math], “force is carried by bosons”) in the various disciplines of physics, but only very vague, essentially metaphorical ones as their commonly used in disciplines such as new age spiritualism (eg: “our energy-bodies”, “negative” and “positive energy”, “the life-force”), where they are often treated as synonyms of themselves or other physics terms (eg: “will power”)

 

Scientifically, there is no evidence of any force or energy associated with human or animal consciousness that is not due to the same interaction that explain well-defined mechanical, chemical, and biological processes – that is, a human being is defined as a very complex machine. “Consciousness” is a term used to describe a quality of how this machine functions – a very open-to-widened definition and redefinition quality that includes essential attributes such as reaction to external stimuli, remembering past stimuli/reaction/consequential effect combinations, and planning future actions based on these recollections. Many cognitive theorists agree that consciousness is related to implementing – realizing “in the neurological flesh” – a model of your immediate and extended surrounding in which you yourself are an object in the model.

 

Although speculation and science fiction abounds in which consciousness involves interactions with unique fields or particles (eg: “the Force”, “the universal mind”) – typically with these unique interactions not being subject to the usual laws of physics, such as the relativistic restriction of signal speed to the speed of light in vacuum (eg: instantaneous telepathic communication across interstellar distances), there’s no real, credible scientific theory, or objective scientific evidence, that such fields or particles exist, and widely accepted, compelling evidence that they neither do nor can not.

 

In the idiom of systems and chaos theory, consciousness is an “emergent phenomenon”, a complex, difficult or impossible to predict phenomenon directly caused by simpler, predictable phenomena, such as atomic interactions. All the evidence we have now suggests that for the phenomena of consciousness to emerge, something like a human nervous system must exists, although there are numerous intelligent and interesting opinions (many of them discussed in previous hypography threads) as to whether it can exists in other media, such as digital computers.

 

The idea that consciousness is due to a simple, easily described fundamental quantities, such as the fundamental physical quantities of mass, time, and position, is IMHO a non or pre-scientific one, and also an unnecessary one. Although a tremendously difficult problem, there appears to be in principle no reason why consciousness cannot be explained using well-supported present-day scientific theories, and these explanations tested with rigorous, independently reproducible experiments.

 

So, let’s return to the original question

So my question is, what happens to that energy when we die?

If I’ve been successful in my descriptions above, it should be clear that the question is based on a false analogy between “energy” used in a mystical sense, and its use in physics. In physics, energy (or, more precisely, mass-energy) cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed (and, more precisely, most probably cannot be). Emergent phenomena are created and destroyed often. A similar question, then is “when a pencil-on-paper drawing (of, say, a circle) is burned, and the ashes scattered, what happens to its image?” Science tells us the image was an emergent phenomena, involving both the arrangement of carbon atoms upon carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms, and a very complex optical and neurochemical process in which a viewer perceived it. When the atoms of the drawing are rearranged – C, H and O atoms into H2O vapor, CO2, CO gas and solid C (the ash), the image is destroyed – except for the part of the emergent phenomena of it that went on in the viewers neurons. More, the physical paper and pencil graphite need not have existed at all – from reading the previous sentences, your brain now contains an arrangement of neurons and neurochemicals that allows you to imagine a piece of paper with a circle drawn on it in many ways indistingushable from one you’ve actually seen. In time – especially if repeated suggestions are made to that effect - you may even remember the described drawing and burning as having actually occurred.

 

The “circleness” in the above example existed for all practical purposes as an emergent phenomenon. Although in principle, using super-scientifically precise instruments, one might be able to reconstruct the drawing from the atoms of its ashes, practically, your memory of it is all that exists “after it died”.

 

:QuestionM Discussions of these sorts are heavy with philosophical implications. As it seems pretty unlikely that anyone will be assigned these sorts of questions for science homework, or be making a science fair project on the emergence of consciousness, would anyone object to this thread being moved to the Philosophy forum?

[Queso]

We are made up of vibrations.

These vibrations die down and drop in frequency when the body turns off, harmonizing with the slow groan of dirt and rot, rather than the lightning speed conscious orgasm experienced with neural electricity.

Aura's don't even need to be seen, you can feel them.

Someone vibing at a high frequency stands out, and radiates further into space than someone who feels...Dead tired.

 

It's all in the spine :doh:

[CraigD]

We are made up of vibrations.

These vibrations die down and drop in frequency when the body turns off, harmonizing with the slow groan of dirt and rot, rather than the lightning speed conscious orgasm experienced with neural electricity.

…

Someone vibing at a high frequency stands out, and radiates further into space than someone who feels...Dead tired.

Orby, can you substantiate this claim with an objective, reproducible experiment? To the best of my knowledge, no one ever has.

 

Certainly, nearly all atomic matter vibrates. This vibration can result in electrons (and, rarely, nucleons) emitting photons of electromagnetic radiation into space. Human beings emit a lot of photons, most in the infrared band (frequencies 3[math]\times[/math]10[math]^{11}[/math] to 4[math]\times[/math]13[math]^{11}[/math], a bit more than 10 octaves). A warm human being emits more photons of a slightly higher frequency than a cold one, though this doesn’t depend on why it’s warm – a cadaver heated to 500° K in an oven radiates more than one heated to 310° K by his normal life functions. A burning human body has a temperature of about 1200° K, and a decaying one can become very hot, perhaps 400° K, so in real physical terms, most of us do our highest energy vibrating and radiating after we’re dead.

 

Despite much science fiction and claims in the field of parapsychology to the contrary, living humans don’t emit radio or other frequency photons as a result of changes in the our bodies’ many measurable magnetic fields (which are associated with virtual photons) – we’re simply not like radio transmitters (though theoretically, might be capable of being receivers).

Aura's don't even need to be seen, you can feel them.

Ah, auras! Again, orby, can you back this claim up? Again, nobody ever has.

 

There are, to my knowledge, basically two sources of data underlying the belief that human beings, animals, plants, or practically anything, have auras related to life, consciousness, soul, etc.

 

One is Kirlian photography. It’s important to note that, unlike ordinary photography, which records reflected photons in the visible range, and infra-red photography, which records emitted photons in the infrared range, Kirlian photography records visible light caused by small electrical discharges around the edge of an object connected to a high-voltage, low-amperage electric power supply. Without this power supply, the outline of the object doesn’t appear on the photographic plate.

 

The other is aura sensing – perceiving colors around objects with your eyes, your hands, etc. Although the simple experiment of rubbing your closed eyes demonstrates that they can produce the sensation of colors unrelated to the normal optics of vision, no credible theory explains how one could see them around a living creature. Although controlled tests have been conducted, no one has ever demonstrated the ability to see or feel auras.

[Queso]

We are not radio transmitters, but we are like.

There are other spectrums, even dimensions in which we weave in and out of at all times.

Please don't take anything I say seriously.

I understand that there is mystery here. Be barely understand anything.

 

Someone who loves emits a loving aura...you can feel it. It's not hard.

It's a feeling. A sense.

 

How is that not proof? I prove it every day.

 

And if rotting vibrates our cells more rapdily than neuroelectrical magic then that is beautiful.

[Queso]

How can you say "no one has demonstrated the ability to see or feel auras"

 

Havn't you noticed the way you harmonize with certain people like notes in a chord?

 

How dissonant certain relationships are?

 

Have you ever gotten "bad vibes" from someone?

 

The aura is the tiny details. The radiance. The feeling.

 

Sit next to someone who's been doing kundalini yoga for two hours, or someone participating in an ayahuasca ritual, or a "saint"

 

then go sit next to a crackhead, if you can. go sit next to a dead body.

 

you'll start to "feel auras" if you didn't already.

[CraigD]

How can you say "no one has demonstrated the ability to see or feel auras"

I can say it because, in every well-controlled experiment where a person claiming to be able to do something even as simple as distinguish a mixture of realistic manikin and ordinary human beings from one another has attempted to demonstrate this ability in a properly controlled setting, they have failed. This is one of the standing challenges of the Randy Foundation $1,000,000 challenge, and despite aura-reading being a fairly commonplace claim among folk in the psychic fair scene (one I frequented quite a bit, out of an interest in the use of traditional fortune-telling as a psychotherapeutic tool, and because a lot of the folk there are wonderful to hang out with), nobody has shown the least ability to pass even simple, objective tests of it.

Havn't you noticed the way you harmonize with certain people like notes in a chord? …

Of course I have, all of the things you mention – though I’ve occasionally misread people pretty badly, too.

 

I’m not denying that we’re unable to judge character, or that imagining sounds, colors, wind, or many other sensations isn’t a useful, metaphorical way to work through this often subtle, hard-to-define process. But if you look carefully at what scientific data tells us, the idea that we really feel some sort of physically real force giving direct indications of life, health, or any other trait of a live or dead human being, other than the ordinary ones our eyes, ears, and noses provide, just isn’t supported.

 

The belief that it is – that we literally have third-eye organs or other ways of directly sensing abstractions like health, good, and bad – is, I think, largely due to a lack of appreciation of how good we are at taking the raw data of our senses, and quickly making very intuitive, but often very accurate analyses and conclusions that we express in abstract terms. That hardly anyone can explain objectively how they do this is not evidence of the lack of an objective explanation – although such an explanation may be terribly long and complicated. Some people, such as stage magicians and professional interviewers, actually can explain much of the process in simple, objective terms.

 

Another refutation of the claim to be able to distinguish yogis from crackheads is that nearly any competent actor who’s mastered a fair degree of the physical disciplines of yoga, been provided with adequate character background, costume, and makeup, can fool nearly anyone into believing they’re either a master yogi or a crackhead. If, orb, you believe otherwise, you’d be advised to take the Randy challenge – if paranormal abilities really exist, and you have them, it’s an easy way to get $1,000,000, which can come in handy whether you’re a yogi, crackhead, scientist, artist, or any combination of the four.

[TZK]

How can you say "no one has demonstrated the ability to see or feel auras"

 

Havn't you noticed the way you harmonize with certain people like notes in a chord?

 

How dissonant certain relationships are?

 

Have you ever gotten "bad vibes" from someone?

 

The aura is the tiny details. The radiance. The feeling.

 

Sit next to someone who's been doing kundalini yoga for two hours, or someone participating in an ayahuasca ritual, or a "saint"

 

then go sit next to a crackhead, if you can. go sit next to a dead body.

 

you'll start to "feel auras" if you didn't already.

 

These are simply your subconsious mind providing emotional feedback after comparing perceptions to past experiences. If a salesman smiles at you during a sales pitch but there is a specific difference in his facial features (his brow doesn't move or something) in relation to all the other people you saw smiling before, then your mind is going to send up a red flag in the form of a feeling of suspicion...

[Queso]

These are simply your subconsious mind providing emotional feedback after comparing perceptions to past experiences. If a salesman smiles at you during a sales pitch but there is a specific difference in his facial features (his brow doesn't move or something) in relation to all the other people you saw smiling before, then your mind is going to send up a red flag in the form of a feeling of suspicion...

 

I disagree.

I know what you're talking about. It's called body language.

That is only a portion of the aura.

[CraigD]

These are simply your subconsious mind providing emotional feedback after comparing perceptions to past experiences. If a salesman smiles at you during a sales pitch but there is a specific difference in his facial features (his brow doesn't move or something) in relation to all the other people you saw smiling before, then your mind is going to send up a red flag in the form of a feeling of suspicion...

I disagree.

I know what you're talking about. It's called body language.

I think this disagreement exemplifies the difference between people with naturalistic and supernaturalistic worldviews: People with a naturalistic wordview assume that things they can’t explain with scientific rigor are due to unexplained behaviors of things that have been explained, while people with supernaturalistic worldviews assume that things they can’t explain with scientific rigor either can’t be explained with scientific rigor at all, or can be explained only in terms of behaviors of things that have not been explained. In more aphoristic terms, naturalists believe the weird to be unexplained behavior of ordinary things, supernaturalists believe the weird to be ordinary behavior of unexplained things.

 

I have a naturalistic worldview – I’m pretty confident that weird phenomena are ordinary things behaving weirdly. I believe people with supernatural worldviews have a poor appreciation for how weirdly ordinary things can behave, born of a lack of deep familiarity with ordinary things. Becoming deeply familiar with ordinary things is, IMHO, as emotionally consuming a pursuit as any religious or spiritual tradition.

 

So, oft times when I’m confronted with claims of the existence of the supernatural, usually accompanied by the qualification that the claim can neither be show true nor false by any objective technique, I feel the person making the claim is not looking deeply enough at the natural world. The natural world is deep, the supernatural like a thin skin offering easy but shallow explanations of it.

That is only a portion of the aura.

From my perspective, this aura – which has been convincingly shown to have no objective existence detectable by scientific or paranormal means – is an example of such an easy, shallow, supernatural idea. The significant qualities of a human being are claimed to manifest as visible shapes and colors – a simple, easy to intuitively comprehend explanation. The naturalistic explanation is that human nervous systems can perform complicated analysis of sensory data in ways that are poorly understood – a complicated explanation requiring more than paranormal knowledge to comprehend, but one superior to the supernatural explanation in that its underlying mechanism can be shown to actually, objectively exists.

 

PS: This thread is clearly neither a science project nor homework. I’ve moved it to the philosophy forum.

[Queso]

I don't see colors and shapes, man.

I'm a musician!

I feel vibrations. That's it. It's like... all I do.

Call me a "supernaturalist"

but when I am near a living being

I FEEL IT.

Living things radiate what I call an aura.

Auras have variable proximities.

If you can't feel it then you havn't spent enough time naked in the woods making music or something...?

 

Sorry I can't provide any "evidence"

except for the fact that

I feel it

Unlike I feel a car.

Unlike I feel a stapler.

Unlike a bottle of paint.

Unlike a dead shark in formaldehyde.

 

We are a song within a song within a song

and things that are alive

are vibrant to the touch.

 

Sit under a tree and imagine what it would be like if you perceived it in fast forward.

Every plant sounds different...

I can hear them. [time delineated]

 

Probably sounds pretty weird but this is life from my perspective.

 

You really can't feel nature breathing...?

 

Try falling into a deeper state of consciousness before you try and attune to these vibrations.

 

They are hard to feel in Beta.

Try Alpha.

[Victor_Wrath]

I have spent time among many faiths and religions in my quest to understand the truth of spirit and souls. One of them was the Wiccan faiths and there I learned a bit of something about Aura’s. At first I took this as one of the first real signs of spirituality that I had ever perceived, because I was able to interact with my own aura and electromagnetic field in a very real and tangible way. I was elated thinking perhaps I had finally found something that could enlighten me to some hidden truths of the soul.

 

When quiet, and concentrating, I can place my hands as though I were holding a ball. Moving them slightly toward and away from each other as though testing the boundaries of this imaginary ball, I was able to fill the space between my hands with a flow of my own electromagnetic aura, and after a few moments it becomes very tangible and real. It is like there are magnets in the palms of your hands and you can feel them repel one another. It’s all very convincing and I think it’s the foundation of many very devout Wiccans.

 

However, after some experimentation I began to question this phenomena. While I could feel the tangible essence of this in a very real way, I could not make this field interact with anything else. It could not interrupt even the most fragile balance or system, not push a flame, not nock over a precariously balanced playing card… nothing. I concluded that this like all things was merely a magnetic energy field that moves through all things, but if not properly aligned, cannot effect anything.

 

Eventually I even began to fear that it was only in my mind, that it was a physical sensation created by my mind. Yet other experiments convinced me that I could actually feel it, and I can make my own magnetic energy field, or aura, interact with itself, but not with anything else.

 

I do believe such fields exist, and I think it would be and probably has been pretty easily scientifically explained. Though why I can feel it, and seem to be able to influence it to some small degree, that I am unsure of.

 

And all of this aside, even if the energy field does exist and is very tangible and scientific proven, there is no evidence what so ever that this energy field does anything more than break apart when the structure which supported it does likewise. Even if we can learn to use our auras to achieve enlightenment and move objects with our minds, it doesn’t mean that those energy fields can sustain themselves when the body dies.

 

Believe me, I want to believe otherwise, but I just don’t see that particular aspect of energy, or aura being proof of anything spiritual. Its just energy. If the body has a soul and of there is a realm of conciseness and concept than it must be completely beyond our ability to tangibly interact with.

 

I want to believe there is such a thing, but the mere fact that such an idea came into existence only to address the fear of mortality leads me to believe that it does not. If it did, I think it would be a fantastic coincidence.

 

Victor Wrath

____________________________________

 

-To see the unseen

-To know the unknown

-To find the unfound

 

-All absolutes are lies.

[Michaelangelica]

What do you think of this new invention?

 

Company Background

Gamma Power Systems Pty Limited is an Australian owned company, which was set up in March 2003 to investigate power production from different sources.

The company to date has been pure research and development and we have made advances in solar energy collection design, so that we can now bring a unique power generation design to the world as an alternative to existing thermal production techniques.

 

Existing Technology

Existing green energy systems are a good adjunct to conventional thermal power generation and a step in the right direction. Wind Power and Wave Power use the natural effects on the earth in an attempt to harness energy, however, these only produce power when the waves are running or the wind is blowing. Solar power using conventional Solar Power Panels is very restricted since it only allows power to be collected whilst the sun is shining. Hydroelectricity only works when excess water is available, in fact, most green energy systems apart from Hot Rock (Geothermal) technology are intermittent and therefore only marginally useful in today’s preplanned electricity distribution systems as they don’t provide consistent base load power. The cost to produce power using conventional green energy methodology is very expensive. This causes governments to have to subsidize the green component of power production to endeavor to cut our carbon emissions so that we may be good world citizens.

Some governments have been looking at nuclear power, but this is because they see no other viable solution, however nuclear is also expensive compared to coal powered generation and introduces waste disposal problems.

Scientists are currently trying to collect energy from zero point energy and cold fusion with billions of dollars being directed towards these endeavors. This energy is sub-atomic, difficult for most to understand, expensive and hard to get at, otherwise they would have already conquered this method of power production.

StatCounter - Free Web Tracker and Counter

 

New Technology

 

What is needed is a green alternative that operates twenty-four hours a day and is cost effective, so that it can compete on a level playing field with all existing polluting, thermal technologies. We have spent many thousands of hours in research, testing many different apparatus to endeavor to find a solution. The technology that we have been researching has been the collection of solar energy, not based on light emissions from the sun but based on the collection of electrical energy that is released when the solar wind interacts with the upper levels of the atmosphere. We have made a major breakthrough that has allowed us to design a method of utilizing power from the sun whether it is day or night at the location of the power collection device. The energy available is almost incalculable, as inexhaustible as the sun and readily convertible for conventional usage.

Gamma Power Systems

[CraigD]

What do you think of this new invention?

…

Gamma Power Systems

The website presents some factually solid discussion of Earth's atmosphere and charge, and a fascinating bit of obscure history of technologies over the last couple of centuries that sought to get useful power from it - particularly the work of Hermann Plauson in the 1920s and Oleg Jefimenco in the 1970s.

 

This basic description and the simple claim that goes with it - that there is a lot of energy for the taking - seems clear and valid. The difficulty is in how to get at it (“it” being an excess of free electrons), when it's at least 10000 m (possibly many time more) above ground level. As the website points out, previous systems based on tethered, conductive balloons, presented daunting and expensive-to-solve engineering challenges.

 

The site's authors claim to have a method of obtaining these free electrons, or more precisely, power from them, that doesn't require a physical wire. However, they offer not even a hint of what this method is, only a claim that it is fantastically inexpensive (and “patent pending”) making it impossible to comment on it, other than offering guesses as to what it is. My guesses are, either a scheme to ionize a column of air between the ground and the high-altitude charge – essentially, create an artificial lightning bolt – or something that gets light energy from it – essentially a polar lights photoelectric generator – but I could be completely wrong in my guesses.

 

Searching for the patent they describe reveals only an Australian provisional patent application in 2003 for a “generator”. I don’t know enough about Australian patents to know the significance of that, only that there’s no detailed information easily accessible.

 

It’s also possible they don’t actually have a sound method, but are engaging in a scam. Their website appears to be an effort to collect email addresses of interested persons, a common trick of investment scammers.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

History has shown many times that there have been ideas that have been proved right and wrong, and then wrong and right again. Science is always evolving, but we must remeber that science is no more than the relation of one entity to another entity. Withtout comparison, we would not be able to detemine anything.

 

All things are made of energy that is only transitional. To say that there is no change in the status of energy in a person between the two instances of dying (still containing "life") and death is absurd. Consciousness can certainly be proved as caused and able to cause, but can one prove that it is created biologically, and do so without claiming that it must be biological simply because we are biological? It can not be said that dying only means the end of some energy in the body, but a change in that energy.

 

As for auras, this is an issue strictly for belief. Although I do believe in an ability to get a "feeling" about someone, I do not believe that it is an aspect of the person you are judging but rather it is a characteristic of yourself. Psycologically you are projecting an image on that person without actually knowing anything about them. And the tendancy of a person to be more jovial towards you is highly dependant upon your attitude towards them, so that we have the ability to manifest good feelings toward others, but that is not the only variable to consider.

 

But auras can not be proved or proven wrong. If it succeeds it can be attributed to many things other than ability. If it does not succeed, again, its failure can be proved dependant on other issues. For example, lets say we decide to test the idea. If the participants are aware of what we are doing, then that knowledge could actually disrupt the natural ability to do so; and if the particapants were unaware, then the lack of knowledge might have the same effect. Not to mention the inability to know the state of mind of the individuals being tested, which would have an effect on the outcome.

 

In short, an arguement can made either way. As was stated earlier, it depends on the view of reality. But it should be stated that someone could be a realist and an idealist, the idea being that all ideas contain some form of truth, and that all ideologies reflect the same themes of reality and existance, only translated differently.

 

Keep in mind that many things that are now known to be true were once considered proposterous, and only time will tell what we discover in the future. I do not consider myself a supernaturalist, even though I know some things to hold true that are believed to be absurd. I can prove them through the laws of energy and with relation to other things, and that would make me a naturalist. The choice is personal, and defendable either way.