Article I read called "Astral Projection, a Trip to Nowhere"

[deepspace]

I read a science-based article recently about AP and you can probably guess by the title what it was about. You know the routine: no evidence that anyone went anywhere, not reproducible, not scientific, blah blah blah... So everyone can start denying there own experiences now, right

But anyway, it really got me thinking about the whole idea of what it means to actually go somewhere and the concept of location. I am of the opinion that our whole concept of location is just an illusion and that in our entire physical existence here on Earth, we never really go anywhere. So maybe it's more like Human Life: a Trip to Nowhere.

So then what does it mean to say in AP we never really go anywhere? So what. If there is no location, then we don't actually need to go anywhere. Maybe there is no somewhere. I think it's more like more like tuning into something then actually moving to a physical location.

Something to think about. Wondering what your thoughts are on this subject.

[Xanth]

My thoughts...

Consciousness is all that there is.  It's undefinable...
There are no boundaries... there are, if I may be so bold, unlimited boundaries. 

Everything we experience is a perspective of that consciousness.  Location isn't so much where you are, but where your consciousness is focused towards.  You don't go anywhere because, it's exactly as you said, there is no anywhere to go to.  Everything is a perspective away.

[deepspace]

My thoughts...

Consciousness is all that there is.  It's undefinable...

You know I agree with that. I think our physical reality is basically just a "black box" with a certain set arbitrary rules that govern it. As far as "where" we are, there is really only one place to be, and we are always there so there's nowhere to "go". And yes, the perspective is what changes, that is our relationship. Brings me back to the idea of tuning into something rather than going somewhere.

[Volgerle]

It's probably an 'article' written by a reductionist-materialist, scientist or not does not matter here. They move only within their reductionist narrow parameters, it's a little closed box with not outlets, only allows for reductionist viewpoints and arguments in the first place. Trapped in their own mindset-trap. so to speak.

[CFTraveler]

I'd like to explore this a little further.

I think our physical reality is basically just a "black box" with a certain set arbitrary rules that govern it.

So what are the rules and why are there arbitrary?

[deepspace]

I'd like to explore this a little further. So what are the rules and why are there arbitrary?

I subscribe to Stephen Hawking's concept of model-dependent realism which he explains in his book "The Grand Design"

Here's a quote: "According to the idea of model-dependent realism ..., our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the outside world. We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own."

So what I think he is saying is that reality itself is kind of like a black box, we have built a model based on the rules of what we have discovered through the scientific method. The model however, is not the reality itself.

Let's suppose we have a box and let's say that it provides a mathematical function of some kind, but we don't know what it is. It has an 2 inputs and one output. So do experiments by putting in numbers and see what comes out. We start by putting in a 2 and another 2 as inputs. We get a 4 as an output. Well, that could be an adder or a multiplier, so we put in a 2 and a 3. Now we get a 6, so we say that now we have a multiplier, changing our model depending on the results of the experiments. However, we still don't know what's in the box. All we have is our model which just proves what happens when we put inputs into the box which allows us to make predictions about what is going to come out. This is very useful of course, and we depend on this to help us navigate through the physical world. But it doesn't tell us what is in that box.

So what if inside of that box we had a device that doesn't have any computing power at all, just a memory array that's simply programmed for every possible combination of numbers you put in? How would you know? The model says it's a multiplier, but it is really something else. You could never know based on the limited number of experiments you do.

Just something to think about.

[CFTraveler]

we have built a model based on the rules of what we have discovered

This doesn't answer the question I asked- why are the rules arbitrary?  If we've 'discovered' them, then they are what they are.  If they are arbitrary, it would mean someone decided what they were going to be.  Who would be the arbiter?

[MonaLon]

@deepspace I know this might be an unpopular opinion, but I can see where the scientists are coming from. I'm rather skeptical for someone who takes astral projection seriously, and I believe that the scientific method is a really good way of figuring things out. Unfortunately, when you come across something like astral projection, those methods of deduction don't work so well. A lot of things that happen in the NPR are pretty hard to reproduce and prove scientifically...so most of the evidence that scientists have right now is against the possibility of astral projection. Even the results that do point towards astral projection are ridiculed because they come from "disreputable sources", mostly researchers from parapsychology.

Don't get me wrong; I believe that astral projection is a real phenomenon. I'm just saying that I can also see why scientists aren't very quick to say that it's real.

[Xanth]

This doesn't answer the question I asked- why are the rules arbitrary?  If we've 'discovered' them, then they are what they are.  If they are arbitrary, it would mean someone decided what they were going to be.  Who would be the arbiter?

I wouldn't say that someone else had to decide... evolution could have been the deciding factor in that things are the way they are because that's just how they developed.
Is it "random"?  Or "arbitrary"?  Who knows... as I said, I do recognize that different realities seem, to me at least, to have different rules.

[deepspace]

I can also see where scientists are coming from, they have a protocol to follow when determining whether something is real or not and that's useful for a lot of things, but not everything. To prove that AP is real with science, not only would you have to be able to it consistently with about 95% success rate, you would also have to have a theory that describes the mechanism by which it works.

I definitely don't limit what I believe based on scientifically proven "facts". Just because something can't be proven with science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think a certain amount of skepticism is a good thing, but repeated denial of something you experience at some point becomes ignorance. I think it's important to keep an open mind and search for the truth, that's what it's all about.

Anyway, the thread kind of got sidetracked from what I originally wanted to talk about which the whole idea of location and the relationship with AP and physical reality space. Maybe we could get back to that?  

[Lionheart]

 Scientists are limited to proving everything they know/see based solely on their observations in this Physical Realm. For that reason alone they can't prove or disprove AP or any other non physical phenomenon. This does bind them because to be a Scientific fact, it must be proven by Scientific methods, then proven again and again, thousands of times over.

We can open Pandora's Box, so can they, they just can't prove what's in it right now. Neither can we for that fact. 

A circumstance shows up once in awhile where a Neurologist has a NDE themselves. They try to understand it through conventional Science, but sooner or later they just disappear into the abyss. They get attacked so much by their peers, that they just drop the subject altogether or alter their conclusions to make it seem more plausible to the Scientific Community in general.

[deepspace]

I wouldn't say that someone else had to decide... evolution could have been the deciding factor in that things are the way they are because that's just how they developed.
Is it "random"?  Or "arbitrary"?  Who knows... as I said, I do recognize that different realities seem, to me at least, to have different rules.

The rules seem arbitrary from our perspective since we didn't make them or at least are not aware of it. The rules that govern the physical world could have been different than they are, in fact many physicists think there may be parallel universes with different rules altogether. Who knows. Just because we understand the rules here and have learned to accept them, doesn't mean they have some sort of absolute quality to them. And it also doesn't mean we understand reality, just because we understand the rules.

If you look at the recent experiments in quantum mechanics, photons (and who knows what else) do not even have inherent properties that are independent of whatever is measuring them. It's called realism and it doesn't seem to exist in quantum mechanics.