Tom Campbell's OBE Verifications (in the lab) + other verifications

[Summerlander]

Be careful, blueremi. Don't start getting personal here. Remember that you have said, in your own words, that Thomas Campbell shot himself in the foot. Your little "hypocritical" comment may bite you back...

[bluremi]

If you don't see the difference between what I said and what you said we probably shouldn't have an argument about it.

[Summerlander]

No need for arguments. Enlighten me. I'd like to think that I'm a reasonable man. What's the problem?

[bluremi]

No need for arguments. Enlighten me. I'd like to think that I'm a reasonable man. What's the problem?

I'm criticizing a logical problem with his argument, while you're deriding all of physics and their tangible results (including the computer you're using) as nothing but "little pictures" complete with 

[Xanth]

I'm criticizing a logical problem with his argument, while you're deriding all of physics and their tangible results (including the computer you're using) as nothing but "little pictures" complete with 

For me personally I'm not following what the logical problem with it is. 

[Stookie_]

...Thomas Campbell shot himself in the foot...

Please don't tell me he shot off his big toe.

[Summerlander]

Please don't tell me he shot off his big toe.

LMAO!

Hypothetically...yes.

I'm criticizing a logical problem with his argument, while you're deriding all of physics and their tangible results (including the computer you're using) as nothing but "little pictures" complete with 

Deriding all of physics? No, not really. I acknowledge that some things work but others remain unexplained and require some answers and that's where their little picture fails. Little here implies the need to grow. It needs development. And you seem to be confusing the little picture scenario with the physical world around us when the little picture that we (and Campbell) talk about is the mainstream scientific view of reality. Trust me, if I derided all of physics I wouldn't have subscribed to Newscientist and Focus. Also, I wouldn't get along with my scientifically minded friends...

Ok, going by what you said, here's a few questions then:

1-What is the logical problem you have with Campbell's theory?
2-Could you describe to me the "tangible results" in full detail from the double-slit experiment and how/why observation seems to play a role?
3-At what point do the classical rules cease to apply and why?
4-Why does quantum entanglement happen and what will that do for quantum computing?
5-What's the deal with superposition?
6-Where does the matter in our universe come from and what happened to antimatter?
7-Why can't scientists find the Higgs boson?
8-If OOBEs are nothing but the product of brain chemistry...how does it happen?
9-Why are there NO traces of memory or thoughts found in the brain?
10-The self is not tangible...and yet, it appears to exist...explain that.

I eargerly await your enlightening response...

[bluremi]

I have a few problems with his theory, the main one having to do with the internally imposed rule set on his AUO cellular automata, which seems to be a logical contradiction.

The PUP also makes me uneasy because it backs away from a basic requirement of a scientific hypothesis, mainly that it can be experimentally proven false. Tom says a person can collect data and experimentally prove the existence of psi phenomena, but due to the PUP it doesn't work the other way around. While I accept this may be true since he's saying the basic tenets of the scientific method aren't valid in this case, it would be easier to swallow if he bothered to keep any of this huge volume of experimental data he claims to have amassed during his time at the Monroe Institute.

Sure, if he correctly guessed at a number written on a blackboard one time I'd not accept it as evidence, but if he did it twice that would be a different story. So far this concept of "evidence is only useful to the individual" is just turning a blind eye to human being's ingrained tendency towards confirmation bias and cherry picking of evidence.

[Xanth]

I honestly can't give an answer to those questions, bluremi.
But I can point you in the direction to find the answer: http://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/index.php

The folks over on his forum are more than well equipped to provide the answers to the questions regarding Tom's TOE that you might have.

What I do know is that his AUO is one of two "mystical" assumptions that *MUST* exist in order for a connection between the physical and metaphysical can exist.  And it's really the bigger of the two assumptions.

[bluremi]

He's got some circular logic there:

- I've noticed what appears to be evidence for psi phenomena
- It's REALLY, REALLY convincing. I have tons of evidence and it convinced my scientific and skeptical mind.
- I didn't keep the evidence because it wouldn't be convincing to anyone but myself.
- Because I've demonstrated psi-phenomena to be real, the AUO has to be real.
- From the AUO and other assumptions I can extrapolate the existence of the PUP which explains why evidence of psi phenomena is so hard to create.
- If you try to discover your own evidence, you will find it.
- It's REALLY, REALLY convincing evidence.
- It won't convince anyone but yourself....

etc, etc... Xanth you may have noticed that I've been in some discussions on his forums but the people there strike me as being either very defensive or tending to regurgitate concepts and sound bites from his book without displaying any deeper understanding of what they're talking about.

[Xanth]

I find them highly detailed and knowledgeable about MBT theories.  Guys like Ted and Bette have Tom's full support.

There *ARE* answers to your questions...
You might have to email Tom directly to get them from the horses mouth, sort-to-speak.

I've generally found that (and please don't take this personally because it applies to myself as well) that any "problems" found with his Theory of Everything usually relates to something not understood about it.  You should provide that same list to Tom directly and see what he has to say.   

What I can tell you is that he didn't write his book to convince anyone.  He wrote it so that hopefully, one day, you'll convince yourself through pure experience. 

[Summerlander]

Hmmm...blueremi has raised some good points though. Also, his "evidence"...could be a gimmick. He's got an interesting theory going...sure...which so far hasn't been proven. How can he claim to know that something is a fact without any real proof. I suspect portions of his book are there to keep us enthralled too. I've had some interesting Phase experiences...but I don't claim that they are proof of telepathy, precognition or contact with the dead, because I am aware of other possible explanations more rooted in the mundane.

He claims he has a sceptical and scientific mind and yet he embraces the mystical and the paranormal as real occurrences without question and claims that his theoretical model of reality - which is analogous to a computer system - must be true because apparently it explains everything. Even though he says he's not forcing his view on anyone, he is selling it while alluding it to be the absolute truth.

[bluremi]

I've had some interesting Phase experiences...but I don't claim that they are proof of telepathy, precognition or contact with the dead, because I am aware of other possible explanations more rooted in the mundane.

I wonder if we could do some kind of poll on several categories of well-defined phase experiences and correlate them to each reporter's interpretation. The majority of people who post about them online are the opposite of Summerlander, but maybe that's selection bias at work?

[Xanth]

Hmmm...blueremi has raised some good points though. Also, his "evidence"...could be a gimmick. He's got an interesting theory going...sure...which so far hasn't been proven. How can he claim to know that something is a fact without any real proof. I suspect portions of his book are there to keep us enthralled too.

That's just it, he doesn't claim any of it is fact. 

What he does ask is that you retain an open mind while reading it... then go off using the tools he's given you to try and figure it out for yourself.

In any case, his claims are true to only himself.  His entire TOE is based upon his many decades of direct experience in the non-physical.
He asks that you find what rings true to you.  What you find might agree or contradict his... he's fine with that, because at the end of the day even he doesn't "believe" his own theories.  Actually, he doesn't disbelieve them either... he's the living embodiment of his own opinion that you should remain skeptically open.  Otherwise, your "theories" will never grow and change as required when new 'data' is brought to light.

[Summerlander]

You make a good point too, Xanth. There is no point in us arguing about any of this because it is very much elusive. I'm still reading his third book but I will get round to reading the first two.