I read the topic about the playing card experiment but it didn't gave me the feeling that it was pretty solid.
There are 52 playing cards in a deck, the chance is too big that the suits will be correct so I figured out something to solve this problem.
I would appreciate it if someone would try this out: Instead of the playing cards, ask someone close to you to write a 6 digit number very clearly on a piece of paper.
If you get all the numbers are correct AP is real, because there is absolutely no way you can guess that.
So, if there's anyone who can try this out please post. :-D
Although I don't remember the individuals involved (weak, I know), I recall people on this site claiming that they can determine five or six digit number pretty much everytime. If you go to Robert Bruce's site, astral dynamics, you can post a question to him on their forum. I disagree with some of his ideas, but he is still a library of information about the phenomenon, and knows dozens of people who can do this with ease; you might even check the question archives, as someone is bound to have asked the same (I asked it way back in the day ;) )
I refer you again to Charles Tart's experiment, where Miss Z apparently does just what you say:
http://www.psywww.com/asc/obe/missz.html (http://www.psywww.com/asc/obe/missz.html)
That's a lot of text lol, I'll read it later, thanks though.
Quote from: Sharpe on September 02, 2007, 15:19:09
I would appreciate it if someone would try this out: Instead of the playing cards, ask someone close to you to write a 6 digit number very clearly on a piece of paper.
If you get all the numbers are correct AP is real, because there is absolutely no way you can guess that.
So, if there's anyone who can try this out please post. :-D
This has been done scientifically I believe. There was a proficient projector called Blue(?) who did this and whilst projecting into the room, he encountered a physical cat whom he stroked. The cat purred like mad. This is documented somewhere or other.
As I said before, the trouble with other's proof is whether you are willing to believe them. I know that before I ever had an OBE, I would have been very dubious of what I read on this website. It is only since I experienced that I can acknowledge.
The other issue is that an experienced projector has already proved it to themselves and finds no need to prove what they can do to disbelievers... for why should we?
From my viewpoint, I have no interest/inclination/desire to 'prove' by reciting a 6-digit number to a friend whether I can/can't project. Personally, I believe I can project - I've proved it to myself (the biggest skeptic) and I'm perfectly content to continue on my own path of projection, whether it be external/internal/a bit of both is neither here nor there to me...
Sarah
Why don't you try this yourself Sharpe as your first big astral challenge...if you can do this, then you should have no doubts...whereas if I come along tomorrow and say "hey, I did this and here is my friend to prove it"... that's no good to you at all.
Yeah but, you might also think about why you're on this forum.
Humans have the need to teach what they have learned, so why shouldn't you?
Hee hee, I'm on this forum to share, not teach. If others find their experiences are similar, then great.
You state that
QuoteHumans have the need to teach what they have learned
Where have you got this from? It sounds like a factual statement. I would argue that
certain humans feel the need to teach... those who think that their beliefs are truth and everyone else is blind. Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that most humans think this, and those who are willing to listen/ accept others' beliefs are in a very small minority.
Sarah
Folk wisdom!
Quote from: Sharpe on September 02, 2007, 16:08:05
Folk wisdom!
*looks confused as to what Sharpe means by this statement*
Awww, you ruined the joke :x, I was talking about "Humans have the need to teach what they have learned"
I believe this was also done (or at least something very similar) in the experiments by Charles Tart. he had people who could project, hooked up to an eeg, and had them project. The cards were in a separate room. He measured the eeg readings for the attempts where the cards were cprrectly read. I find these experiments very interesting because they show that OBEs can occur in REM but don't always occur in REM! meaning.... they can't really be 'just dreams' (though dreams I believe also take place on astral level, but not with full consciousness... another topic entirely) but its a good rebuttle for people who try to say its all in our heads :) Anyway, I mentioned his experiments because of the similarity of using the cards and with a good deal of success.
Well synergy, the reason I think it's in our heads is because selski mentioned that you can bend matter in the astral plane.
And yes, even if I don't believe in it, it is quite exciting :-D
Quote from: Sharpe on September 03, 2007, 03:09:16
selski mentioned that you can bend matter in the astral plane.
Hi Sharpe
Did I? I don't remember mentioning that - where did I say that? :-)
Sarah
hi sharpe, i will try your test if you want. i have no need to prove anything to you, but i think it would be intersting nonetheless! only thing is i dont have anyone that i would feel comfortable doing the test with.. maybe you can pick 6 numbers? and ill try and get them.
That seems pretty hard, wouldn't you know the numbers if I tell them?
Do you know a way how we can do it without you seeing the numbers before doing the test?
"Did I? I don't remember mentioning that - where did I say that? :-)"
Uuuuhm, the part where you said that things in the astral aren't the same as in the physical like an extra door or window. :-D
Sharpe:
Here is a link to some reading about Charles Tart's experiments....
http://www.near-death.com/tart.html
He used 5 digit numbers, one less than you suggested, but astonishing none the less! It would be near impossible to guess a complete 5 digit number at random... about the chances of winning the lottery (lol) anyway he took the experiments further and recorded EEG readings, which are brainwave readings. So not only did he prove that OBEs were real (by the surprising number of times his subject were able to read the 5 digit number correctly) but also proving that OBEs needed to happen in a relaxed state but not in a discrete measurable brainwave state such as REM. Some OBEs did occur in REM but not all of them. Since dreams occur in REM, this means OBEs are not 'dreams' - to take this one further, I researched the NDEs and OBEs happening while under general anesthesia - particularly the ones where people correctly identified instruments etc being used on them that they could not have seen visually. Since general anesthesia SPURESSES REM... OBEs / NDEs must not be dreams.
There IS alot of evidence out there already suggesting OBEs are real... I have no doubts that some part of the brain must trigger it, but ultimately, something DOES leave the physical body. It's NOT in our heads.... I personally can't prove it to you... but I have experienced it for myself, as have many others on here... and we all know the feeling of awe, and we try to help others and teach them but its so frustrating when its so hard to prove :( lol
Anyway the Tart info is a bit of a read but very interesting!
My mom is an editor at a magazine and she gets cool stories about stuff like this all the time. A common theme is along the lines of this really cool story she had: A woman was hospitalized for a severe condition and as her family was in the room she flatlined (i.e. her heart stopped; she died). Her family was heartbroken and each family member reacted differently. Then suddenly her heart began pumping again and she literally came back from the dead. When asked what it was like she said that she left her body and could see from above into the hospital room, and described in minute detail everything her family did or said after she flatlined!
Also, for the 5-digit number, just some math: the probability of guessing the number would be 10^5 (there are ten possible numbers per digit i.e. 0-9, and 5 digits) which is 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10, which is a probability of 1 in 100,000.
Quote from: Sharpe on September 03, 2007, 09:41:25
Uuuuhm, the part where you said that things in the astral aren't the same as in the physical like an extra door or window. :-D
Hi Sharpe :-D
I now see where you are coming from, however you have (mis)interpreted the above example as being able to "bend matter in the astral" which is not what I said/mean.
I'll come back to you on this one too - when I have a chance to think about it. I'm tired at the moment and things won't come out as I wish them to... :lol:
Later...
QuoteHere is a link to some reading about Charles Tart's experiments....
http://www.near-death.com/tart.html (http://www.near-death.com/tart.html)
Beatya' to it ;) ;) ;)
But even though Tart's experiments are among the more commonly known, it simply goes to show that the information
is there for those who really wish to investigate on their own. The more one looks ( I've been at it for 8 years), the more one will find data, anecdotes, and phenomena which seem to defy society's present worldview, and require philosophical re-inquiry into old assumptions.
I can understand when people question the credibility of individual researchers, but when respected universities produce data that correlate from sepparate experiments, it takes claims of nothing less than co-conspiracy to attack the findings; that is the scientific method- when an experiment produces repeatable results, and can performed in other parts of the world, with different teams, to the same result, that result gains the title of "statistical significance", and researchers are forced to either integrate the results into their current theories, or find some explanation the fits the descrepancy.
Just because something may seem unlikely to an individual, that does not give them the right to pick and choose which repeatable experiments are real, and which are mistakes- that sort of bias is the antithesis of what the scientific method represents.
The best bit of reading one can do on this is to read Franks phasing resource! I read it last night and while not overly surprised it gave me a lot of clarity as to what OBES really are...
Focus 1 is what we are in now... its the physical and it is a common consensus reality.
Focus 2 is our subconcious and can only be experienced by us.
Focus 3 however is once again a common consensus reality! Much like the physical world only with no buffer of space or time. Any thought is instantly manifest, people create their own little worlds there in which to hang out. Interacting with any being at this level of conciousness is just like in the physical they react in unpredictable ways.
Focus 4 ... too confusing to understand just yet for me. haha... but i think its the starting point for "Thought = action" which as we all know in the material world is known as the law of attraction.
QuoteFocus 4 ... too confusing to understand just yet for me. haha... but i think its the starting point for "Thought = action" which as we all know in the material world is known as the law of attraction.
Not quite. The concept of thought = action applies to Focus 3. Focus 4 is much more abstract than that. Try and imagine most of what you define as yourself simply melting away so that you exist only as you. And even then, you find yourself both less and more than 'you'. Thoroughly confusing, I know, and I can't think of another way to describe it at the moment. Sorry!
But your comment of thought=action is very much Focus 3.
well thought=action is present in F1/F2 & F3... Frank was talkin bout F4 being an entirely conceptual level... what i mean by that is this is where you become the concept behind the thought... like he says you can become a sound. become a sound? extremely abstract. I believe F4 is the source of it all where all the thoughts are born. if that makes more sense...
I see what you're saying. I misunderstood you. I view the concept of thought = action a bit differently, I think, than from what you mean. To me:
In F1, the only way thought = action is if you allow the physical body to act on the thought. Because of that, I don't view this as thought = action. (just my definition)
In F2 and F3, the physical fades away and the simple act of thinking alone creates the action. For example, in F3, if I think of a tree, one will appear before me. I don't 'do' anything to make the tree beyond the thought of the tree. This is how I view the concept of thought = action.
I've only been to what Frank called F4 a couple of times, but yes, what you describe can take place. That's what I was saying that you shed everything that isn't 'you' and can become things that aren't 'you'.
Novice - do you think that F4 could be considered "the world of archetypes"? Say, the experience of a concept, or archetype, is reality in F4.... oh, wait....
F4 = Concept
F2 & F3 = Thought
F1 = Percept
In F1, our senses percieve "percepts", or the outer world.
At the same time, unconsciously in F4, the concept is accessed (outside of time and space).
In F2 and F3 (both the lower and higher astral/bodies) "thought" links the percept to the concept, creating what we experience as reality in our consciousness.
This would be an example of how we exist in all astral dimensions at the same time and how reality depends upon this system.
I just thew this together based on past teachings, Frank's phasing, and ideas from the Pulse, so anyone, feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.
I'm not the least bit qualified to answer this one, Stookie. Like I said, I've only 'been' there a couple of times. For me, that's not nearly enough experience to begin to describe 'what' it is. And the times I were there, I didn't become anything, like Frank mentioned.
The only thing I can say, is that when you are there, you are more naked than anything imaginable in the physical. I don't know how to describe it. But imagine standing completely naked in front of a group of people. Then multiple that feeling by 100. Essentially, while in that area of awareness, nothing is hidden. Its more than just having people see every part of your physical body, like in the example I gave above. Instead, they see everything about you. All your strengths, weaknesses, faults, virtues, etc. Absolutely nothing is hidden from anyone.
That's all I can explain about it at present. Although, that doesn't really help you much. Sorry!
Quote from: Novice on September 05, 2007, 07:19:31
I see what you're saying. I misunderstood you. I view the concept of thought = action a bit differently, I think, than from what you mean. To me:
In F1, the only way thought = action is if you allow the physical body to act on the thought. Because of that, I don't view this as thought = action. (just my definition)
I agree we do view F1 a bit differently in regards to thought = action. I think your models incomplete... you think thought = action can only come about by physically doing things but this is where i disagree with you. I think thats ONE way things can manifest but its not the only way. Apply some logic to the principle... say you want a can of beer (just an example) you could at this point get up and get it, this is the fastest way of getting it BUT if you creatively visualize someone handing you a beer you're vibrating in harmony with the action of someone handing you a beer and thus attracting that exact circumstance... it probly wont happen then and there but ya never know it may just spontaneously manifest as someone giving you a drink?... I hope you understand where im coming from here.
Quote from: Stookie on September 05, 2007, 16:57:12
F4 = Concept
F2 & F3 = Thought
F1 = Percept
this seems to make good sense.
QuoteApply some logic to the principle... say you want a can of beer (just an example) you could at this point get up and get it, this is the fastest way of getting it BUT if you creatively visualize someone handing you a beer you're vibrating in harmony with the action of someone handing you a beer and thus attracting that exact circumstance... it probly wont happen then and there but ya never know it may just spontaneously manifest as someone giving you a drink?... I hope you understand where im coming from here.
hehe...not sure how much 'logic' plays into your scenario. :wink: What you are describing is more along the lines of the laws of attraction/manifestation, correct? Theoretically you are right. But I don't know of anyone who is actually able to manifest instantly. So, in my mind, it really isn't the same thing. Manifesting someone handing you a beer and have it actually occur several months later falls outside the realm of thought = action in my definition. It isn't an incomplete definition, it simply has a time limit on the manifestation, that's all.
It was reported that they did this experiment at some house at a certain location. But where it was I forgot. But at this location, there was a few people that reported something like what you said, but I can't be sure. :?
:lol:
Quote from: Novice on September 05, 2007, 18:56:34
hehe...not sure how much 'logic' plays into your scenario. :wink: What you are describing is more along the lines of the laws of attraction/manifestation, correct?
Well yes but my point is logic in relation to the principles of the mechanism. Logic being a system of reasoning.
Quote from: Novice on September 05, 2007, 18:56:34
Theoretically you are right. But I don't know of anyone who is actually able to manifest instantly. So, in my mind, it really isn't the same thing. Manifesting someone handing you a beer and have it actually occur several months later falls outside the realm of thought = action in my definition. It isn't an incomplete definition, it simply has a time limit on the manifestation, that's all.
Well yes I agree with you somewhat here. I dont know anybody who is able to manifest things instantly without performing an action themselves to manifest their desire... Although in my personal experience I often see things (not cans of beer) manifesting after about a month or so... im not talking about physical things im talking about circumstances.
As for Thought = Action, I slightly disagree with you.
Going back to the can of beer :)
If i am sitting in the lounge say watching tv with my gf and I suddenly desire a beer at this point there are two things I could do... I could get up and get it myself or I could ask if she would get it for me :P Both the latter to things are actions. Ie the action of getting up and getting a beer.
The ONLY way these actions can manifest is first from thought. The thought of wanting a beer.
Therefore Thought = Action. You cant dispute that.
Some may argue that the above example isnt "manifestation". That is simply incorrect.
man·i·fest (mn-fst)
adj.
Clearly apparent to the sight or understanding; obvious. See Synonyms at apparent.
tr.v. man·i·fest·ed, man·i·fest·ing, man·i·fests
1. To show or demonstrate plainly; reveal: "Mercedes . . . manifested the chaotic abandonment of hysteria" Jack London.
2. To be evidence of; prove.
and manifestation...
man·i·fes·ta·tion (mn-f-stshn)
n.
1.
a. The act of manifesting.
b. The state of being manifested.
2. An indication of the existence, reality, or presence of something:
Thought = Action is universal. It is impossible for something to manifest without first being a thought.
my next argument would be this....
Everything is energy vibrating at different frenqeuncies to make up the world we percieve.
Energy affects energy. This is another principle that cannot be disputed. Take for example your tv. Lets say you are sitting down on your couch and your lounge and your tv is off. You want your tv on... So you get up and turn it on.
The TV is energy, You are energy. You have changed the energetic state of the tv. Energy has affected Energy. This is universal and IMHO undisputable.
On a global scale Thought = Action is difficult to percieve in the way which it us usually thought of. That is "I will think of a new car and it will manifest in my drive way". I agree this type of manifestation is difficult to perceive at times and therefore often difficult for people to believe BUT... it works on exactly the same principles as the other type manifestation. Instant manifestation. IE getting your own damn beer or turning on the tv yourself. Therefore it is definately present and definately real and IMO it definately falls under the definition of Thought = Action.
I hope my argument is clear.
QuoteThought = Action.
I don't think that definition is right.
I would say it's more like "Thought = consequence" Like you said you could think about getting a beer but have the option of not bothering, what ever decision you make has a
consequence not an
action Thought = Action gives the impression that Action is the end consequence of the thought process, when in fact, for us all, the end consequence is death. So you might as well say "Thought = Death"
Your definition of manifestation emplies that we are all manifesting our actions by creating what ever we want just by thought and will power or the lack of it... I think thats a bit vague (sounds like a motivational speech from one of my old Sales Manager)
If someone says they can manifest something in reality, I want to see the God damn car appear in the garage out of thin air there and then! :-P
Quote from: Aquarious on September 15, 2007, 21:49:27
I don't think that definition is right.
I would say it's more like "Thought = consequence" Like you said you could think about getting a beer but have the option of not bothering, what ever decision you make has a consequence not an action Thought = Action gives the impression that Action is the end consequence of the thought process, when in fact, for us all, the end consequence is death. So you might as well say "Thought = Death"
Well you see discarding the thought itself is an action really. Your thoughts simply change from "I want a beer" to "I want one but I dont have the will to get one so I will stay here"... And now your thought translates into the action of staying right where you are :) Action is the result of thought. Reaction is the result of Action.
con·se·quence (kns-kwns, -kwns)
n.
1. Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition. See Synonyms at effect.
2. The relation of a result to its cause.
3. A logical conclusion or inference.
4. Importance in rank or position: scientists of consequence.
5. Significance; importance: an issue of consequence. See Synonyms at importance.
Reaction is your consequence. Your model simply skips out one step... IMO its incomplete.
How can you say the end consequence of thought is death? thats completey illogical... And how do you arrive at such a conclusion? "I think therefore I am"... because we have thoughts we have conciousness. Even if you mean death of the physical body your statement is still illogical because when we "die" we simply leave our physical body and continue existing. So we dont "die" or stop thinking or existing.
Quote from: Aquarious on September 15, 2007, 21:49:27
Your definition of manifestation emplies that we are all manifesting our actions by creating what ever we want just by thought and will power or the lack of it... I think thats a bit vague (sounds like a motivational speech from one of my old Sales Manager)
Yes thats exactly what im implying. Although you seem to be confused as you said "...we are all manifesting our actions...". I must correct you by saying that our thoughts manifest AS actions which is an extremely obvious observation if you observe how it is you do anything that you do. You first think about it then make a desicion to act or not to act. If you decide to act your thoughts manifest as the action. If you decide not to act your original thought doesnt manifest, your new thought manifests as not performing the action.
how the hell is THAT vague? its a simple and obvious observation of instant manifestation.
Quote from: Aquarious on September 15, 2007, 21:49:27
If someone says they can manifest something in reality, I want to see the God damn car appear in the garage out of thin air there and then! :-P
Then go to the astral and do that because thats the only place where you can get INSTANT manifestation of that magnitude and nature. If you want it in the physical you have to understand it takes time.
QuoteHow can you say the end consequence of thought is death? thats completey illogical... And how do you arrive at such a conclusion? "I think therefore I am"... because we have thoughts we have conciousness. Even if you mean death of the physical body your statement is still illogical because when we "die" we simply leave our physical body and continue existing. So we dont "die" or stop thinking or existing.
Why do you keep saying that my statement is illogical?
1. You have no proof that thoguhts = consciousness.
2. No proof that we leave our physical body when we die.
3. No proof that we don't stop thinking or exsisting when we die.
All of the above is based on yor belief which is only that, a belief. Therefore, Anything contrary is not illogical.
As for thought = action... You very kindly provided the meaning to support that consequence follows an action
Quotecon·se·quence (kns-kwns, -kwns)
n.
1. Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition. See Synonyms at effect.
3. A logical conclusion or inference.
So there you have it, you wrote it yourself, I could have quoted all 5 of your meanings but meaning 3 had your favourtie word in it, logical! There will always be a consequence to thoughts but not always an action.
Take care
Quote from: Aquarious on September 16, 2007, 09:29:42
Why do you keep saying that my statement is illogical?
1. You have no proof that thoguhts = consciousness.
2. No proof that we leave our physical body when we die.
3. No proof that we don't stop thinking or exsisting when we die.
Well I would think that by simply observing my own thoughts I could easily deduct that I am concious. I guess you are unconcious then?
As for all that "proof" you're after... I dont need to prove number one it proves itself. Numbers 2 & 3 I certainly plan on proving for myself at a later date when I contact my father during a projection. I'll be sure to obtain information I could not possibly have known and then verify it. That will certainly be enough proof for me... and its a personal thing.
I could very well say to you...
You have no proof I sat here and typed this so how can you respond to it? Maybe my post just magically appeared.
Nows when you use logic (a system of reasoning) to deduct that the event of me typing the post did indeed occur because that is the only possible way for it to have appeared. But then again you have no proof.
While its nice to be that thorough it can really close you off to lots other possibilities.
If you want proof of something try prove it yourself. Thats the only way to make progress.
Denial of all existence based no the notion you cannot "prove"
that because you you think, that you are concious only leaves you in the dark
Quote from: Aquarious on September 16, 2007, 09:29:42
As for thought = action... You very kindly provided the meaning to support that consequence follows an action
Yes. Consequence FOLLOWS an action. It isnt the action itself.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is the consequence that follows the action.
I think you'll find that party A thought about throwing something at party B then followed through with that action.
Party B then thought about retaliation and followed through with the act of punching Party A.
The reaction of party B was the consequence of the action of party A.
The consequence was brought about by the action. The action was brought about by the thought.
"3. A logical conclusion or inference."
con·clu·sion (kn-klzhn)
n.
1. The close or last part; the end or finish.
2. The result or outcome of an act or process.
In this case the consequence was the conclusion and I used logic (a system of reasoning) to arrive at that conclusion
the consequence is the END result of thinking not the DIRECT result of thinking.
Therefore Thought = Action = Consequence. (the chain just perpetually flows on)
All you're doing is skipping out the middle part which is silly.
Now you say there will always be a consequence to thoughts but not always an action.
You arrive at this conclusion by observing that while you may think about doing something you do not necesarily have to follow through with that particular action. This observation is correct but incomplete IMO you fail to observe that when you decide not to follow through with that particular action you have in fact acted by deciding. That itself is an action... although thats not my point. Once you have decided that you dont want to do that particular action you MUST decide what you DO want to do. That may be "I think I will just stay right here" so then you act accordingly.
The CONSEQUENCE of deciding not to act on your first thought is that you did not do what it is you wanted but you first had to THINK and then decide how to ACT... the consequence followed naturally.
This is going to be my last reply because we're going round in circles... You have no idea how to formulate your theory
Without going to the dictionary and looking up the meaning I can tell you that "Action" is a verb (a doing word) By not taking action, one is not acting. Look it up and post the meanings!
But let me explain one last time, by not acting on a thought (which requires no effort so it is not an action) there will be a consequence. There will also, funnily enough, be a consequence if you do act.
I have a feeling you're going to say you're acting by not deciding to act... No! Not acting requires no action, therefore it is not an act... "To think" is an action but "Thoughts" is another story.
You could have said thoughts = decisions, which would be closer but I don't think all thoughts require decisions or actions. You can think of anything without having to deicide whether to act on it or not.
Now in the case of a manifestation, can a 75 year old man think about being a world famous footballer and then it will materialise in time? I got a feeling, no matter how much he thinks about it, or how long he waits, it wont manifest.
There will always be a consequence to anything you decide to do and anything you decide not to do. There will not always be an action.
Thoughts = Thoughts :-P
we're just going to have to agree to disagree.