Messages

Another question: what drives a nonbeliever to join an astral projection forum, I'm just curious?

i've been into OBEs/NDEs for many years, even did a monroe institute course on it. i'm pretty confident i've had OBEs, it's happened ~30 times, have found myself floating over my bed etc etc.
LOL i know it sounds lame for me to come to YOUR home but even when i was a believer i always wanted to post about this. my problem is basically this: people here (just as i previously did) are justifying their spiritual claims by pointing to AP as undeniable PROOF, yet are unwilling to submit AP to the rigours of the scientific method. in several of his books robert monroe makes mention how important it is to convert "belief" about life after death into "knowing". but that AP "feels real" isn't enough, because our feelings are susceptible to self-deception etc. the human brain is the most complex technology in the known universe, it seems perfectly feasible for it to generate these phenomena without appealing to the astral plane. so although science is a religion it still can be useful  

i appreciate that numbers are hard, i guess you could do objects but then say you had a diagram of a bicycle, would you then accept the answer motorbike? not to sound facetious but how about someone saying "two circles with spokes connected by several lines" etc etc. by allowing one and only one answer you make your criteria more strict, thus avoiding any ambiguity.

the biggest shortcoming of the new-age movement is it's disinterest in scientific verification. the claim by many is that science and spirituality don't conflict, that they'll fit nicely because they approach the same thing but in different ways. ok cool, well here's one quite reasonable way to do it. people like james randi are pseudo-sceptic because they'll never consider the evidence, but without evidence, it's quite easy to be swept way by belief systems that sound really cool but haven't got an iota of veracity.

hi guys,
first post here but i feel impelled to offer my opinion on the matter surrounding verification of OBEs. i guess i should come up front and say it: i'm agnostic and i'm sceptical about the reality of OBE, astral projection etc. before you get your limbic systems all excited, i just wanna say that i for many years i was completely convinced that AP is true. i'd always had difficulty accepting religion and i so desperately wanted evidence, some firm basis upon which to support the claim that there's life after death. so experiencing OBEs seemed such a fantastic method for verification. but enough sentimental ranting....

i've experienced the vibrations, i've felt the floating, i've flown away, left my body etc. so one might conclude that this is enough "proof" of the reality of AP? well, no it ain't. these experiences can all be very easily encompassed within the concept of lucid dreaming. there is no need to conclude that one has really "left their body" or that these experiences are "real". the pseudo-profound "what's real?" is a favourite of new-agers (and once myself) but lets not play this game.

a lot of people here are complaining that no amount of evidence will convince society at large that OBEs are real, and i can sympathise. but you also have to accept: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. and no, i don't think the strength of your convictions have sufficient persuasion in this respect.

now in terms of the card trick, i like that i really do. i think that you're on the right track in terms of obtaining objective support for your beliefs. if i were adept at AP then i'd make this my primary goal. but now here's my criticism: the chances of you having attained that result were only 1/50. that you "really saw" the card and didn't just guess is of no consequence, the fact remains that the odds are 1/52. other people have suggested using drawings, descriptions etc -- i think this is one of the WORST things to do as you can always be criticised for your criteria re obtaining a hit versus a miss. it needs to be more objective. i know that this is beyond the scope of most people's abilities don't think it's right to lower the criteria for evidence to accommodate people's abilities.

so more convincing experiment i thought up a while ago goes something like this:

have a friend at a different location randomly generate on a computer numbers ranging from 1-1000. numbers are printed and stuck on the wall or whatever. testing involves synchronising your clocks, so every, say 15 mins, a tone sounds signaling to both you and your friend that a new number's been generated. you then have 15 mins to submit ONE response on a tape recorder, and this continues until you've done say 10 trials. responses need to be clear and close, multiple or no responses are considered wrong. lets assume that you just do 5 trials, the odds of you being correct purely by chance are (hoping my maths is right!) 1 in 1000^5, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. now i dig those odds!  

although the only thing you could claim is that you can access information through (as yet) unknown means, if anyone could pull this experiment off -- or even come close -- i'd be willing to entertain the existence of AP. in the end, all i wanna say is you need to be doubly sceptical, doubly strict about your beliefs, because its so easy to get carried away and jump to unwarranted conclusions. strip away your beliefs, look at them closely and you may find that they rest on shaky foundations.

you may now commence nailing me to the wall