The Astral Pulse

Thought that some of you just might have it interesting to read:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12531-outofbody-experiences-are-all-in-the-mind.html

Also see here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6960612.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6960612.stm)

lol cobalt, you beat me to it ;)

Hmmm so are they saying that this is proof of the soul or not?  :-)

AP Friends,

Proof is in the experience and validating your own concrete claims. Lets not forget that the projectionists don't wear helmets, or get prodded in the chest to achieve this level of consciousness. Also, many of these neurological scientific studies don't take in consideration healthy patients during trauma vs. the dying. I've done my own research for the last three years and whole heartdly tracked times, what I ate, amount of sleep, categorizing the experience. I've seen a constant value that the obe's occurr close to each other monthly to yearly, amount of sleep is a factor, and validations. The results are impressive and are natural.

I do think science might find the key to allow 'us' successfully reproduce anytime at 'will' the obe and allow us to connect with the spiritual body and that will change a lot. Still never less, there will always be that debate - science, religion and spiritual projectionists. There is so much science can't explain and will never be able to.

As we explore deeper into space finding water where it can breath life... just imagine!

Tvos

The experiment has nothing to do with out of body experiences... They're moving the point of self awareness while the subject is wide awake... Interesting... But not an OBE! Call it short-range remote viewing, perhaps...

I saw another article a few weeks ago about a scientist who uses magnets to trigger "OBEs" in people... His "proof" that OBEs are all in the mind is the fact that putting a strong magnet near a certain area of the brain causes you to feel a presence in the room.. His subjects don't even have an actual OBE!

Here, it's not even clear that the scientist himself was trying to "disprove" OBEs... It looks like the people writing the news somehow decided to not only claim proof where there is none, but they've got their OBE facts wrong too!

I think they are just doing what they can, according to our current theoretical knowledge and technological possibilities. Yes, it might be small steps, like starting with things they can probe(point of self awareness, different feelings felt during OBEs, it can all lead to whats causing them) but at least they are trying to get somewhere instead of denying OBEs at all as some nonsense.

I believe that they will try to use this as the "final word" when it comes to obes though. If they dont thats great if they do then its laughable. That is why I say that imitating something or duplicating an effect does not verify nor deny its reality. Also it does not mean that the way you created the effect is how the effect is always created. There are always different paths you can take to the same destination as someone else, and either one could not be considered the right or wrong way as you both ended up at the same place. Having said that a quote from the paper mentioned: "It gives you a very strong sensation you're sitting somewhere else" Okay Ive had a strong sensation I was some where else that did not mean I had a obe, once again its laughable. A good example was sitting in a chair staring at a full length mirror for an extended period of time, concentrating on the fact that perhaps I am not where I think I am to be instead I could be the person staring at me from inside the mirror. This was an exercise I thought of to practice consciousness/awareness placement or displacement. A good 20 minutes of this and with a little zoning off I was no longer sure which me was me. Sure it was a weird and confusing sensation but it was not life changing, truth be told I forgot about that exercise till just now when I was thinking of a close example.
  It certainly felt as though I was the other person in the mirror and sure it confused me. Such as the experiment mentioned confused the experiencer but I am sure they will not walk away from this with a life changing attitude. The main point was it was an physical illusion they witnessed. Now how many people who have had a full blown obe walked away from the experience completely changed especially in the way they view life? Probably around 90 percent and the others are scared to death but never-the-less changed lol, after all that is what motivates me to record my experiences and what keeps me here to talk about it with others to help them to achieve what I have, so that they too can be changed in this way.

This doesnt sound like they reproduce an OBE at will does it....

Not at all

Its more like visual suggestion from what i was reading

People expecting to feel something so they did....

Feelings can be reproduced by suggestion, i mean under hypnosis you can feel things you have felt before, taste things you have tasted before...  this can happen even without hypnosis. 

Maybe i have wrong idea about this experiment, but from what i read, its not got much to do with actual OBEs at all.

We know you can stimulate the FEELING your out of the body.  But you cant trigger a full blown OBE.

So they put some people in VR helmets and surprise surprise they feel as if they're in VR land!  What did I miss? Hello?

These experiments simply moved an individual's "point of view" to that of a camera located a few feet behind their physical body.  The subjects then (surprise surprise) reported the sensation of feeling "as if they were out of the body" and viewing themselves from behind.  Call me stupid, but what exactly did they expect?  Is this meant to be a big deal?  ... cos if so I'm a dandelion....

All they are doing is reproducing the exact conditions of an OBE, ie moving the point if view to behind the actual physical body.  They do this using a VR headset whereas in a "real" OBE the point of view (we assert) actually does move without the need for a VR headset.  But the resulting sensation is obviously going to be the same in both cases.  You don't need any GCSE's to figure this out...

This is research?

Quote from: T.L. on August 24, 2007, 13:40:38
A good example was sitting in a chair staring at a full length mirror for an extended period of time, concentrating on the fact that perhaps I am not where I think I am to be instead I could be the person staring at me from inside the mirror. This was an exercise I thought of to practice consciousness/awareness placement or displacement. A good 20 minutes of this and with a little zoning off I was no longer sure which me was me.

Awesome little experiment. A lot less expensive and actually an image of much higher fidelity than a video VR illusion.

Can you see what appears to be an institutionalized preconception about what OBE is supposed to be to these researchers?

Their simplistic concept of OBE is that it's all about looking at one's body from an offset position and that all you do is float around obsessed with looking at your physical self. ( lol )

I have never looked at, or even had the desire to look at my physical body because I'm aware of it, and know of its state of health, however, I'm instinctively concerned about learning how this lighter body works and to take the opportunity to explore. 

When I wish to look at my "body" in this state, I want to observe the current vehicle of my consciousness, and I see my ethereal arms and hands. At that point, my identity is the lighter body. As I said, the last thing I wish to do is to look at the physical body.

Science is always trying to disprove phenomena that do not accept as possible. Science is by definition concerned with logic and provable fact.

Having a OBE experience is more than a physical sensation it is a spiritual condition. An interesting experiment would be to use this technique on a person who knows and are capable of conscious exits and ask him/her if the sensation is the same. This however is not accepted, as it would require them to have faith in such a person.

It is easier to use it on a person who has no experience with such things and then make various conclusions and insinuations that supports their own postulate.

Regards Mustardseed

Well like most people, to me we are 3 part beings, sorta a trinity

Body
Mind
Spirit

Body is like your computers hardware, the keyboard, screen, speakers, microphone etc...

Mind is like your computers RAM memory (temporary) it remembers everything from this life.  The mind is also like a processor and a download devise. (If your mind is damaged the information it "downloads" can get messed up, for example hullucinate, ive heard of cases where blind people who was blind all there life have been able to see and describe things during an OBE).

Spirit is like your big hard drive, it stores everything about you from all lives it has access to hidden worlds etc... 


I think what im trying to say is you can manipulate the mind to believe something is there that isnt, but this cant example the thousands of NDE where people can remember information that have seen, for example there doctors notes, or even events that happened on other floors of the ward.  Niether does it explain alot of peoples experiences with OBEs.

I dont know much about OBEs or anything really, but im setting my life out to learn and teach others.

I keep getting dragged between religion and free thinking spirituality tho lol.

I think most of you are too negative and have too little tolerance against science. I mean, the idea of science forces it to begin in such ways. Science needs to know the details. It cannot philosophize about OBE in general. So can you suggest any better way/place to start seriously research obe in a scientific way, than to start with physical senses. Is there anything else we can probe?

I mean, if we could at least by any means detect or measure any of the spiritual stuff(like astral body and similar) im sure we would do so. but now we are only able to research our brain physical conditions and stuff.
I believe it would be much smarter to work with people who are actually able project, and test from where their senses and brain states come from.
Anyways, dont judge scientists so hardly, they just needs to do it their way, and maybe some they they will be able to define word spirit in a rational sense.

Quote from: Mustardseed on August 25, 2007, 00:39:19
Science is always trying to disprove phenomena that do not accept as possible. Science is by definition concerned with logic and provable fact.

Science never ever tries to disprove anything. Science tests an hypnosis, and then determines its truth from the recorded observations. Other people can test the hypothesis too. Science does not actively accept (or reject) anything at all. It is simply a method of observation, nothing more or less. I'm not specifically picking on you Mustardseed, but I'm shocked at the lack of education, especially on the scientific method, which is found on the majority of boards which purport to 'spiritual practices'. This then results in people being negative about science (which is caused by their own lack of understanding of the subject).
It might surprise you Mustardseed, but philosophy and indeed metaphysics by definition are concerned with logic and fact, such features are their very bedrock and foundation.
Provable fact is nothing more than shared consensus reality. If you really wish to do away with provable fact, then even spiritual subjects become meaningless, as each person defines their own term's and perhaps even language to talk about those terms in. Why is there such negativity towards finding a commonality in which to share experiences? Being anti-science is being against the sharing of experience, being anti-science through lack of education is worse.

Quote
Having a OBE experience is more than a physical sensation it is a spiritual condition.

What exactly is a spiritual condition? What exactly is spiritual? If we refuse to use logic and 'provable fact', why are we even sharing experiences on this forum?

Quote
An interesting experiment would be to use this technique on a person who knows and are capable of conscious exits and ask him/her if the sensation is the same. This however is not accepted, as it would require them to have faith in such a person.

Faith is useless in the scientific or even objective domain, as irrationality is at its core and it stifles any attempts at defining a commonality. Such as I can have faith that OBEs are actually the cause of clockwork elves polishing my toenails and so causing them to irradiate orgone energy which dissolves my body and places me in the zozo dimension. Another person might believe me mad based upon their faith in OBEs being aliens beaming holographic simulations into their head.
Faith is a dead-end as it ignore anything to the contrary of faith held beliefs, even if those beliefs could be proven to be 100% wrong (I'm not saying such a feat is possible).

Quote
It is easier to use it on a person who has no experience with such things and then make various conclusions and insinuations that supports their own postulate.

What conclusions or insinuations (a biased word) did this article actually state? Why are your own 'faith based' experiences and consequent conclusions reached from your own OBEs any less wrong or negative than the results of this experiment?
People fail to see that this experiment was about 'out of body sensations' not about the 'out of body experience', but it seems many are so desperate to hold on to their own beliefs they attack anything they perceive to counter their own desired faith held beliefs.

Quote from: T.L. on August 24, 2007, 13:40:38
I believe that they will try to use this as the "final word" when it comes to obes though. If they dont thats great if they do then its laughable.

What grounds have you got to believe this? Why do you actually believe this? Don't you see you are doing exactly what (groundlessly) you accuse science of doing?

Quote
That is why I say that imitating something or duplicating an effect does not verify nor deny its reality.

Can you post any examples of things where shared repeatable experience does not prove the reality of those things?

QuoteAlso it does not mean that the way you created the effect is how the effect is always created.

Agreed, but I've not seen anyone claim such a thing.

QuoteThere are always different paths you can take to the same destination as someone else, and either one could not be considered the right or wrong way as you both ended up at the same place.

Once again, agreed, but I don't see anyone denying such logic.

QuoteHaving said that a quote from the paper mentioned: "It gives you a very strong sensation you're sitting somewhere else" Okay Ive had a strong sensation I was some where else that did not mean I had a obe, once again its laughable.

A recorded observation is laughable because? The article is talking about out of body sensations, not THE out of body experience. Sensations in which one perceives themselves to be removed from their body is different from the perception of actually believing one is removed from their physical body.

Quote
A good example was sitting in a chair staring at a full length mirror for an extended period of time, concentrating on the fact that perhaps I am not where I think I am to be instead I could be the person staring at me from inside the mirror. This was an exercise I thought of to practice consciousness/awareness placement or displacement. A good 20 minutes of this and with a little zoning off I was no longer sure which me was me. Sure it was a weird and confusing sensation but it was not life changing, truth be told I forgot about that exercise till just now when I was thinking of a close example.

Did you also laugh when you experienced this? Why has an experience got to be life changing oto have any merit or use?

Quote
  It certainly felt as though I was the other person in the mirror and sure it confused me. Such as the experiment mentioned confused the experiencer but I am sure they will not walk away from this with a life changing attitude.

Why has the experiencer got to walk away with anything to make the experiment useful? Data was gained, insight into our body perception was gained, so it was a success.

Quote
The main point was it was an physical illusion they witnessed. Now how many people who have had a full blown obe walked away from the experience completely changed especially in the way they view life?

Why the obsession with changing ones view of life? If I huff a load of chemicals which causes brain damage my view of life will be changed. Does that make it a good thing?
Also, how can you be so certain that your OBEs have not been a physical illusion? I mean really, how can you 'know'?

Quote
Probably around 90 percent and the others are scared to death but never-the-less changed lol, after all that is what motivates me to record my experiences and what keeps me here to talk about it with others to help them to achieve what I have, so that they too can be changed in this way.

To quote yourself:

That is why I say that imitating something or duplicating an effect does not verify nor deny its reality.

If you truly believe this, why bother keeping a log or sharing your experiences? You admit doing such things does not in any way verify their reality. You are honestly open to the fact that OBEs might be brain induced? Or is the quoted comment wrong?


Once again, I'm not focussing on you, but I get dismayed when I see people being so openly biased about something they either know little about or purposefully misinterpret that thing. Most people in this thread seem to be attacking their own misreading of the experiment. Such things make me lose hope that people are actually looking for any kind of truth, rather than happily wallowing in their own beliefs regardless of any new knowledge or facts.

From the article:
Out-of-body experience recreated:
"Experts have found a way to trigger an out-of-body experience in volunteers."

"The article is talking about out of body sensations, not THE out of body experience."
The article claimed that scientists triggered an obe in the volunteers not that they were able to trigger sensations of an obe. I think there is a distinct difference. As I've admitted and said earlier I have created some sensations in which I felt I was out but wasnt really.

"Why has an experience got to be life changing oto have any merit or use?"
It was an observation that people who have had what most on this forum would consider a real full blown obe, does change most peoples opinions on the matters of life and death. Im sure perhaps there have been a couple who perhaps it didnt or a few that it scared more than actually helped. Lets say a group of 10 people have obes. Normally around 7 would walk away changed in a huge way (this is assuming that all ten werent too freaked out by it)

Also it does not mean that the way you created the effect is how the effect is always created.
"Agreed, but I've not seen anyone claim such a thing"

The article is assuming the reason in which people in their experiment felt as if they were out of body is the same reason those that do actually get out feel as though they are out.

"Also, how can you be so certain that your OBEs have not been a physical illusion? I mean really, how can you 'know'?"

Each and everytime my body itself has been asleep. According to sleep professionals while the body is asleep you can not consciously feel physical sensations. At least that is what they used to claim. To be a purely physical illusion such as you suggest my physical body would have to be awake, would it not? In the experiement the volunteers were completely awake and capable of feeling physical stimulis. In my obes my physical body is asleep, paralyzed, and Im not capable of consciously feeling anything physical.

  Its not my intention on arguing though. If you dont agree with anything I have to say thats fine. I know a lot of what I have to say usually seems abstract. There are times I admit though the way I word things is wrong, sorry about that. I dont have anything against science, without it the world would still be in the dark ages.
   As a matter of fact in school it was my favorite subject and there was a year or two where I went without making one single mistake on any of the tests,quizzes or homework. I also dont think people should take what others say as fact until they experience it for theirselves.  All I ask is to let the possibility intrigue you, and a willingness to give it a try. I had some friends who have thought of me as being crazy, gave what I suggested a few tries and then admit to me they were succeeding and it scared the sh*t out of them. To me its fine if science never acknowledges obe's as a real thing, that is okay. It's also part of why it is so special. A good majority thinks it does not exist yet it still does, to me that's a special thing and why I feel so honored to have been able to do it as much as I have. I still remember when sleep professionals said that what some termed lucid dreaming was impossible because in sleep the conscious mind could not possibly become active.
   

I dont have a negative attitude towards science, but i think alot of scientists are like alot of religious people, they believe what they want to believe, they will see this POSSIBLE explanation and accept it.

This attitude is increasing in science these days...  Some people claim to have already proved life after death exists with real facts.  But science ignores them as if there facts was accepted it would change alot of science we currently consider fact.  In other words it would shake the foundations of modern science.

Anyway, these guys didnt trigger a proper OBE.  But they did create some of the feelings and sensations.  But the articles ive read about it say clearly "they didnt trigger a OBE".

I think its good that there trying to learn about this, it would be nice for some more background on these scientist teams.

Have they ever experienced a real OBE themself?  Have they studied people who have?

OBE's are real....  This experiment doesnt tell us much.

A very interesting discussion. Do not worry about me taking anything personal. I am not.

My view is this. It seems to me that science is emerging as the new priesthood, and have passed through being "persecuted" to becoming the "persecute".

As you know there was a time where science was thought to be inferiour and in the wrong. Scientists were burned as heretics, when the thoughts they had on the world were seen and discarded  by the power that ruled. The Catholic church comes to mind.

As time passed these "same"scientists succeeded in capturing the mind of the populace. They became obsessed with the notion that unless something could be proven it was indeed a falsehood. I realise that there are many openminded scientists but I think it is very difficult for them to really explore certain subjects. Most are paid by grants and it is a threat to their very existence, so they stay on the straight and narrow.

A few weeks ago I talked to one such man. He did research in cancer and smoking and were attending a conference on the same subject where I live. He told me that it is a known fact that smoking has many beneficial effects, among them the fact that gingivitis and several other infections are provable smaller in people who smoke as the germs cannot survive in the environment of a mouth full of smoke. He told me that there are other good effects as well but lamented that it is impossible to ever get a grant to examine these facts, as it is simply not politically correct to grant funds to such a project.

The medical industry is the same, it is very hard to get a grant to explore the benefit of alternative medicine, as the grants are controlled mainly by the industry.

The video The secret covers some of the areas that science could explore but unfortunately it is a very small niche and is not attracting many career scientists.............why? ask yourself.

Science is in every way limited in their understanding of the world around us, because they are so focused on the scientific methodology they have developed, but we all know that our understanding of existence is evolving. There was a time when scientists believed stuff that today is shown to be false, yet at that time they insisted that they had an edge on various faith based beliefsystems.

When science starts to have an actual dialogue with people of faith, not looking down on them as being inferior and misguided, I believe that they will take a quantum leap in their understanding of the world we all live in.

Regards Mustardseed

Quote
The article claimed that scientists triggered an obe in the volunteers not that they were able to trigger sensations of an obe. I think there is a distinct difference. As I've admitted and said earlier I have created some sensations in which I felt I was out but wasnt really.

As you state, the article said:

"Experts have found a way to trigger an out-of-body experience in volunteers."

This is the article writers (mis)interpretation of the research; the researchers have not actually claimed this.

The research itself (not a reports poor interpretation) states:

Quote
Two teams used virtual reality goggles to con the brain into thinking the body was located elsewhere

The visual illusion plus the feel of their real bodies being touched made volunteers sense that they had moved outside of their physical bodies.

Operative word here is 'sense'.

Quote
The volunteers reported that the sensation seemed to be caused by the pen on their virtual back, rather than their real back, making them feel as if the virtual body was their own rather than a hologram.

Even when the camera was switched to film the back of a mannequin being stroked rather than their own back, the volunteers still reported feeling as if the virtual mannequin body was their own.
And when the researchers switched off the goggles, guided the volunteers back a few paces, and then asked them to walk back to where they had been standing, the volunteers overshot the target, returning nearer to the position of their "virtual self".

Dr Ehrsson said: "This experiment suggests that the first-person visual perspective is critically important for the in-body experience. In other words, we feel that our self is located where the eyes are."

"Scientists have long suspected that the clue to these extraordinary, and sometimes life-changing, experiences lies in disrupting our normal illusion of being a self behind our eyes, and replacing it with a new viewpoint from above or behind."

The above talks about sensations of being out of body, no claims that they actually reproduced an OBE. To back this up further, the report also states:

Quote
the two teams, from University College London, UK, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, believe there is a neurological explanation.
Their work suggests a disconnection between the brain circuits that process visual and touch sensory information may thus be responsible for some OBEs.

I've made bold the important words above. The research itself simply reproduced sensations of being out of body, the researchers themselves make no claims that this proves anything about OBEs, although the reporter himself does. That's a huge difference: Scientists in the article make no claims or predictions, it simply states the results of the experiment. It doesn't dismiss, or even claim to have proven anything about OBEs other than the sensation of being out of body could have its cause in this visual disconnection between body and perspective. Is this different from OBE techniques which ask people to visualise various things, or stare into the darkness (until the body is asleep and visual sensation would be disconnected from body sensation)?

QuoteIt was an observation that people who have had what most on this forum would consider a real full blown obe, does change most peoples opinions on the matters of life and death. Im sure perhaps there have been a couple who perhaps it didnt or a few that it scared more than actually helped. Lets say a group of 10 people have obes. Normally around 7 would walk away changed in a huge way (this is assuming that all ten werent too freaked out by it)

I agree it is usually a changing experience. What I personally would love to see is that people didn't immediately draw conclusions on the meaning of the experience (i.e. survival after death simply because they perceived themselves separate from their body), and that they research all angles and kept an open mind. For many, having an OBE or feeling vibrations somehow justifies an entirely new world view consisting of energy bodies, chakras, astral planes, reincarnation, and life after death. This does not follow from the experience, however exciting and mind opening it might be.

QuoteThe article is assuming the reason in which people in their experiment felt as if they were out of body is the same reason those that do actually get out feel as though they are out.

The researchers suggest there might be a connection; it was the article writer who assumed. A suggestion is not a decision either way, it simply opens possible avenues of future research.

QuoteEach and everytime my body itself has been asleep. According to sleep professionals while the body is asleep you can not consciously feel physical sensations. At least that is what they used to claim. To be a purely physical illusion such as you suggest my physical body would have to be awake, would it not? In the experiement the volunteers were completely awake and capable of feeling physical stimulis. In my obes my physical body is asleep, paralyzed, and Im not capable of consciously feeling anything physical.

When one is asleep, one can still feel physical stimuli, generally though internal stimuli (dreams) are more dominant than the physical stimuli which gets filtered by the subconscious. Some of this can make it to dreams, such as an alarm clock integrating itself into a dream, or even things like nova-dreamer. This is a device which detects rem movement and then flashes a light into the eyes, through reality checking, one will notice the incorporated flashing and use it as a cue to become lucid.

Quote
 Its not my intention on arguing though. If you dont agree with anything I have to say thats fine. I know a lot of what I have to say usually seems abstract. There are times I admit though the way I word things is wrong, sorry about that. I dont have anything against science, without it the world would still be in the dark ages.

As my previous post, I am not arguing as such, I just saw everyone misreading the article and then attacking science as a bad thing. Most spiritual forums I belong to are very anti-science, and yet, I see the people most rabid are usually those without a true understanding of scientific principles. So scientists in their eyes become closed minded sceptics who seem to go out of their way to disprove the occult and similar areas, when in truth, scientists would happily research these areas given sufficient cause. Science never dismisses anything as it doesn't deal in absolutes.

Quote
  As a matter of fact in school it was my favorite subject and there was a year or two where I went without making one single mistake on any of the tests,quizzes or homework. I also dont think people should take what others say as fact until they experience it for theirselves.  All I ask is to let the possibility intrigue you, and a willingness to give it a try. I had some friends who have thought of me as being crazy, gave what I suggested a few tries and then admit to me they were succeeding and it scared the sh*t out of them. To me its fine if science never acknowledges obe's as a real thing, that is okay. It's also part of why it is so special. A good majority thinks it does not exist yet it still does, to me that's a special thing and why I feel so honored to have been able to do it as much as I have. I still remember when sleep professionals said that what some termed lucid dreaming was impossible because in sleep the conscious mind could not possibly become active.

Keep on learning in all areas and keep an open mind to all possibilities (which you seem to be doing), and really, that's all we can ever do :).

Quote from: bjb1234 on August 25, 2007, 09:16:01
I dont have a negative attitude towards science, but i think alot of scientists are like alot of religious people, they believe what they want to believe, they will see this POSSIBLE explanation and accept it.

This is a great misunderstanding about science; it does not believe what it wants to believe, it believes what the weight of empirical evidence points to, and what has been backed up in repeated experiments by other people (which shows that whatever phenomenon is the core of the research is repeatable and hence has an objective reality outside of the cultural and scientific constructs used to study that phenomenon).
This discounts they accept possible explanations and that's that. Also keep in mind that science will update its world view based upon new research, such as Newton's laws of motion being replaced by Einstein's laws of relativity.

Quote
This attitude is increasing in science these days...  Some people claim to have already proved life after death exists with real facts.  But science ignores them as if there facts was accepted it would change alot of science we currently consider fact.  In other words it would shake the foundations of modern science.

If there was anything objective about such facts, science would study them. Most claims of life after death are irrational or can no way be backed up or studied. A belief does equate to a truth or a fact.

Quote

Anyway, these guys didnt trigger a proper OBE.  But they did create some of the feelings and sensations.  But the articles ive read about it say clearly "they didnt trigger a OBE".

They never claimed to have triggered an OBE.

Quote
I think its good that there trying to learn about this, it would be nice for some more background on these scientist teams.

Have they ever experienced a real OBE themself?  Have they studied people who have?

Read into Charles Tarts papers regarding his studies on people who claimed to be able to induce OBEs at will (he even included Robert Monroe in his experiments).

Quote
OBE's are real....  This experiment doesnt tell us much.

OBEs are real in the sense we can subjectively experience them, or because we can objectively observe them?

Hey Mustardseed,

I havent got time to reply to you right now, so I will later :). I've got housework to do :(.

 "What I personally would love to see is that people didn't immediately draw conclusions on the meaning of the experience (i.e. survival after death simply because they perceived themselves separate from their body),"
   
I dont think that a lot of people just jump to the assumption automatically once they do have an obe. Im sure that some do, but I think a lot of it has to do with them seeing dead relatives. The first conclusion I had was that I was going insane when I did succeed in an obe heh.

"When one is asleep, one can still feel physical stimuli, generally though internal stimuli (dreams) are more dominant than the physical stimuli which gets filtered by the subconscious. Some of this can make it to dreams, such as an alarm clock integrating itself into a dream, or even things like nova-dreamer. This is a device which detects rem movement and then flashes a light into the eyes, through reality checking, one will notice the incorporated flashing and use it as a cue to become lucid."

This is one of the cases where the wording I used wasnt great. I know you can sometimes notice in your dreams the radio or commercials or whats going around you and your subconscious will integrate it in the dream you are having. What I meant though is consciously feel while your body is asleep. For example have someone doing something to someone physically that wont wake the person up consciously then wake the person up and have them repeat what was done to them.
 
About the reincarnation thing. You mentioned people assume that this is a possibility because they can obe or from the obe experience. Before I could even project I believed in this as a possibility. Well believe isnt the right word, I knew it was. I guess I was lucky but I have this incredible ability to remember things very very far back. For instance I could remember things as a child before I could even walk. My mother a while back was pretty skeptic about this when I told her. So I recounted to her an experience before I could walk and could only crawl.
  The experience was basically that I was curious about these shoes they were cowboy boots and I seen people putting on shoes so I was curious to see if I could put them on lol. I crawled up to them knocked them over and tried to put a leg in one. My mother picked me up turned me over and layed me down to change my diaper. There were more details about the house I recounted to her that there would be no way of me knowing any of it unless I actually remembered it because back then she didnt take many pictures of anything at all, I only have one baby picture of myself.
  Anyway I can only remember so far back but if I try my hardest to remember something further than that I get all these memories of going to plays/operas and the way people are dressed points to how people dressed ages ago. This was real memories also not dream memories Im talking about.  So at a very young age I automatically believed in multiple lives except I didnt know as a child the term reincarnation. I also thought it as a natural thing everyone believed heh I was wrong about that. There used to be this show "proof positive" in which they take 3 stories/myths and put them to the test and shows which story held up to the evidence. There was this police officer who was sort of dared to go to a hypnotist to get a past life regression done. He didnt believe in it but went anyhow to prove the people wrong who believe in it. In the regression who starts to remember very descriptive details that he was a painter and described the paintings he had done in detail. He even remembered his name. The name, the fact that he was a painter, the actual paintings existed and eventually they came across a historic centre who had the actual painters diary. All details the officer recalled were true and fact.
  To prove this guy wasnt just making it up or lying to them they gave him a polygraph test in which he completely passed. This is just one example but there are tons in which people have personally verified the details they recalled later.
  Truth be told I wish that reincarnation wasnt a possibility because I really dont like the idea of physical lives. I dont mean that in a melodramatic or depressed way either. I have a good life, I have a fiance, a beautiful daughter and Im not homeless. I have a better than average car.. etc. So Im not saying life sucks in an "emo" way. I just mean that I know there are other possibilities, ive been there and that Id rather spend my "life" other ways than being stuck in the physical.
  One last thing is that science says that energy can not be completely destroyed. If we burn something for instance we just changed its chemical make up its not really destroyed. So even if we were to acknowledge that the brain created our consciousness,the mind and its thoughts are a form of energy so it can not therefore be completely destroyed. It's a cliche argument Im sure but its right.
    Im just glad we can (on this forum) debate things in a mature manner. Other forums it ends up being too personal. Regards,
                            T.L.

Put it like this: Science is truth / reality.
Paranormal and any other phenomena not proven = 100% chance it doesn't exist, because it was made up by man in the past to form a philosophy on the "truth", obviously we know the truth now so there's no use into believing in any kind of mumbo-jumbo.

Now THAT my friend is fundamentalism, not science. To say that science is truth /reality and other phenomena does 100% not exist.........well :-o

OK let me say it like this.

Whatever :roll:

A theory that was taught as fact (by alot of people) a while ago was that the moon came out of the sea....

You cant say all science is truth, cause as somebody said earlier, its always been updated and changed based upon NEW DISCOVERIES.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQAc_Z2OfQ

Above is the link to a official video from the scientists, showing the experiment and explaining what they did.

After viewing the video you will see most news articles about these experiments are very misleading.

It doesnt explain much, but atleast there trying to come up with some explanations for things like OBEs.

Altho in these experiments there was no OBEs involved at all.

Just visual suggestion, illusion to trick the brain.

Quote from: bjb1234 on August 26, 2007, 13:01:58
A theory that was taught as fact (by alot of people) a while ago was that the moon came out of the sea....

You cant say all science is truth, cause as somebody said earlier, its always been updated and changed based upon NEW DISCOVERIES.

No you can't use that metaphor as an example.
Like I said, science is closer to the truth then anything else.
Being physically out of your body hasn't been proven in OBE.

As a matter of fact, I'll use a metaphor if YOU like these so much.
True, people thought the moon came out of the sea.
But maybe SOME people don't know what OBE is and they make up theories like ACTUALLY going out of your body, now this can be interpretated as your own metaphor: The people didn't knew where the moon went when it went down the sea so they logically cleared that up with what they knew as reality.

Now we know that the moon rotates around earth.
And most people, espescially intelligent people know that eliminative materialism is reality, because it doesn't defy logic and it makes absolute sense being crystal clear in every field.
So it shouldn't be too hard to understand that being in an OBE is merely a dream where you position yourself as if you're outside your body.
You allready have a map of the world in your brain so if you're in a dream you can float around in your preconscious where you are aware of what reality looks like in your memory, because every single detail is allready stored in your subconscious.

I notice most believers in the paranormal use the same example over and over again.
They use: "We used to believe this and that, but we start learning more and more about our existence/reality".
It's always the same, but you have to believe that maybe what you believe IS the wrong one, and science allready moved past that and that most of you are floating in a forgotten ship.

Let me see...................my guess is ...............17......... male, average student, maybe black clothes and a safety pin in his nose. :roll:

nah just kiddin...............32..........investment broker suit and tie. Good student better career investor.

"Being physically out of your body hasn't been proven in OBE."

When Im projecting its the exact opposite as physical, most refer to it as the non-physical for that reason.


"You allready have a map of the world in your brain"

Assuming that one has seen all of the world. I have purposely while projecting intended to go to some places I have never seen. Paid close attention to details, ended it searched for pictures of that area and personally verified what I had seen. Having never seen that part of the world it should of been impossible for me to bring back the details I did if this was just a dream.

  Personally I dont think it will be possible to 100 percent prove obe's in a scientific manner. Other than verifying numbers, geographical data, and the like while projecting. Proving the non-physical with physical instruments just seems to be next to impossible. If you dont want to try to experiment yourself and wait for science to either prove or disprove before you are even interested, you will most assuredly die physically before that happens.

Just a  few points:

1. Stating the Obvious

I don't understand why this experiment is such a big deal.  All it shows is that, if an individual's "point of perception" is moved a few feet behind his physical body (by use of a VR headset) then he still associates the physical body he sees in front of him with "himself" and feels as if he is actually "outside" it. 

Now maybe I'm dumb or something but this seems pretty obvious to me.  It doesn't prove anything at all. Next we'll have scientists discovering that if you pay someone a lot of compliments they feel "better".  Oh sorry that research has already been done.  Another case of stating the obvious.

2. Bad Reporting

The problem is that commentators are VERY FAST to misinterpret results and (usually) write off OBE's following "scientific" experiments.  A chance remark by the experimenter that "this might lead to an understanding of OBEs" is usually completely misrepresented, to mean "we have shown that it's all in the mind".  The BBC have done this with the following headline:

Quote from: BBC News
Out-of-body experience recreated
Near-death events have triggered out-of-body experiences
Experts have found a way to trigger an out-of-body experience in volunteers.
The experiments, described in the Science journal, offer a scientific explanation for a phenomenon experienced by one in 10 people.

3.  Scientists are Impartial

To say that scientists are completely independent arbiters of the truth is nonsense.  It's like saying that parents are completely impartial to their kids' performance at sports day.  All they want is to find out who the best kid is!  Yeh, right.  All scientists have their own particular axe to grind and try really hard to prove it.  Scientists with competing theories engage in competition until one of them finally reaches a tipping point in terms of evidence which sways the rest of the scientific community, to his point of view.

4. Science And Proof

Science is good.  I know, I'm a scientist myself.  It offers a concensus opinion on the nature of things based on evidence and repeatability.  But nothing has ever been 100% proven in science.  The two best, and most respected  theories ever devised are the theories of quantum mechanics and relativity.  But neither of these is considered 100% "proven".

5.Bigotry

And finally, words fail me at how uneducated and ignorant (meaning not knowing the facts) the following is:

Quote from: Sharpe
Put it like this: Science is truth / reality.
Paranormal and any other phenomena not proven = 100% chance it doesn't exist, because it was made up by man in the past to form a philosophy on the "truth", obviously we know the truth now so there's no use into believing in any kind of mumbo-jumbo.

As I said science is not truth, it's a framework for establishing the nature of things, but nothing in science has ever been 100% proven. And if something hasn't yet been proven that doesn't mean there is, de-facto, a 100% chance that it doesn't exist.  So before Rutherford discovered the proton there was a 100% chance it didn't exist?  Utter nonsense.

Quote from: T.L. on August 26, 2007, 17:27:43
Assuming that one has seen all of the world. I have purposely while projecting intended to go to some places I have never seen. Paid close attention to details, ended it searched for pictures of that area and personally verified what I had seen. Having never seen that part of the world it should of been impossible for me to bring back the details I did if this was just a dream.

Dude, the brain fills the gap, it's good in doing that.
And I didnt actually mean physically going out of your body, you know what I mean, you don't actually go out of your body, you don't go outside of anything. You stay in your limits (your brain).

And mustardseed, you're not even close.
But if you should know, I'm not the stereotypical human being like you wanted to put me in a generalised area as a non-believer, so you can ignore me as a human being by just putting me in a box.
Now can you please stop stereotyping me and actually listen to what I have to say?

Quote from: catmeow on August 26, 2007, 19:42:29
As I said science is not truth, it's a framework for establishing the nature of things, but nothing in science has ever been 100% proven. And if something hasn't yet been proven that doesn't mean there is, de-facto, a 100% chance that it doesn't exist.  So before Rutherford discovered the proton there was a 100% chance it didn't exist?  Utter nonsense.

Ok.

    According to a few scientists, when asked what we really know. The reply was very little. We are not even sure and has yet to be proven that our consciousness actually resides in the brain in the literal sense. "Dude, the brain fills the gap"  This doesnt account for describing a geographical area and its buildings with 95 percent accuracy, when one hasnt even seen the area in person or in images. Its like if a projector was asked to go to a certain area and find a list of generated numbers on a computer monitor. Then he correctly gives the numbers. Then having someone such as yourself say "Dude, the brain fills the gap, it's good in doing that" Also what catmeow pointed out in you saying that if something isnt proven then theres hundred percent chance it doesnt exist. Your logic in this case is nonsense. This thread seems it ran its course, and now we are back where we started.

The brain DOES fill the gap, and if you ACTUALLY think you go out of your body, go do something usefull with it, punk...

And btw we know pretty darn much about our existence, so much that you need a few lifetimes to learn them. So don't bring me that ****.

Dear Sharpe
Please excuse my attempt at sarcasm. All I meant to say is that your statements appear to be so extreme as to suggest that you indeed are very young.

Your dogged worship of science is in every way as Fundamentalist as a Christian minister, Islamic Faithful or whatever, and it is to those of us who have had the dubious pleasure of living a bit longer, quite inordinate.

I will refrain from further comments. It is quite futile, ..............."dead men do not bleed", trust me.

Regards Mustardseed

I'm sorry, but I'm not trying to be a dogmatist here, now can you please stop talking about me personally, and also stop judging be because you don't know me.
Now actually look what I have to say.

Quote from: 19:00 23 August 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Andy Coghlan
By deliberately scrambling a person's visual and tactile senses, it is now possible to give them an "out-of-body" experience.

Two procedures – which are the first to imitate an out-of-body experience artificially – use cameras to fool people into thinking they are standing or sitting somewhere else in a room. They provide the strongest proof yet that people only imagine floating out of their bodies during surgery or near-death experiences.

"The brain can trick itself, and when it is trying to interpret sensory information, the image it produces doesn't have to be a real representation," says Henrik Ehrsson, of the Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK, who designed the first experiment.

To start from the beginning, my question is, what is the original researcher's hypothesis?

The introduction to the article is mixed with reporting of the research and the interjection of opinion by the journalist, Andy Coghlan.
"Two procedures – which are the first to imitate an out-of-body experience artificially – use cameras to fool people into thinking they are standing or sitting somewhere else in a room. They provide the strongest proof yet that people only imagine floating out of their bodies during surgery or near-death experiences." (This is Andy Coghlan talking, NOT the scientists?)

A common problem with journalists is that they very seldom know much about what they're reporting on. (lets beat up on journalists now   :-D  )

Exactly, I seriously don't see the point of the expiriment anyways

Quote from: Sharpe on August 27, 2007, 05:11:45
I'm sorry, but I'm not trying to be a dogmatist here, now can you please stop talking about me personally, and also stop judging be because you don't know me.
Now actually look what I have to say.

OK fair enough. I will stick to the topic. Apologies to you again.

My view is stated clearly however, and I find that it is mindblowing that you can disregard it, to the degree you do. To make claims like you do, that:

Science is truth / reality.
Paranormal and any other phenomena not proven = 100% chance it doesn't exist, because it was made up by man in the past to form a philosophy on the "truth", obviously we know the truth now so there's no use into believing in any kind of mumbo-jumbo.

Such a claim is ludicrous and I am trying to explore why you would make such a statement. Even scientists would disagree with you, so what do you base this silly comment on? ......Do tell!

If you were of age, and still had such a view, it would be very surprising to me. Thus I conclude that your statements are based on inexperience=youth, and serves no real purpose in the discussion of said matter.

Do feel free to reply and make your observations, regarding the subject in the thread, but if you want to be taken serious, you have to make claims supportable by fact. If you don't it is YOU my friend who is sprouting off Mumbo Jumbo

This is the Definition of Mumbo Jumbo:

Mumbo Jumbo, or mumbojumbo is an English phrase or expression that denotes a confusing or meaningless subject. It is often used as humorous expression of criticism of middle-management and civil service non-speak, and of belief in something considered non-existent by the speaker

I thought I said "ok" to the fact that I was wrong about that 100% thing.
But anyways, you're doing a great job of finding my weaknesses in this discussion and keep attacking that 1 point I made because I got a bit PO'd for the fact that most people here tried to sound intelligent or fully aware of the truth, whilest in fact most of the idea's and theories are not logical, but they are humanly hypothesized answers for the truth/reality.
And I thought I allready explained why OBE is not what it seems.

"an OBE is merely a dream where you position yourself as if you're outside your body.
You allready have a map of the world in your brain so if you're in a dream you can float around in your preconscious where you are aware of what reality looks like in your memory, because every single detail is allready stored in your subconscious."

Now, someone expiriencing OBE would get the IDEA that you're actually out of your body and that your soul is flying in the air or whatever.

Imagine egyptians, they didn't knew they were on a planet that rotates around the sun, so they did the obvious and most logical thing they could do.
They looked into the sky and saw the stars, sun , moon, so they started hypothesizing with the human brain which was evolved to the point more or less like the one we have now.
So let's just say they had the same brains, even we would make the same conclusions, they thought that the stars/sun/moon were living beings, gods.
And they are immortal, because they don't die, they ressurect after going down.
But now we know, because we went outside earth and we landed on the moon.

This is just like OBE, it SEEMS that you're going out of your body, but there are other, more logical answers. And that's what science wants to achieve, clarity vs magic/fantasy.
I can't believe some people actually believe this, that's why i got PO'd the first time I read some of the communities posts.
Believing in these stuff is a simple model for an unintelligent human being to find a way to achieve a clarity of the universe, but it only messes up your map of reality, because it isn't true.
But people that want clarity are rare, so I don't think most people believe in OBE for just that.
Most of you probably didn't achieve a high status in our societies status-hiërarchy.
And are trying to find a way to still achieve a status because human's psychologicly want to have a higher status. This is noticable by being happy when your status is high (= you are loved by many).
But mostly, status is build on what the society expects from you.
So if you fail in that, you must find a different society, and a different hierarchy, and a different idea of status.
Getting a high status in the new-age community isn't that hard, because you don't physically need to do anything, which removes a lot of pressure.
Anyways, for the people that actually want clarity, they are doomed here.

And mustardseed, again, "If you were of age".
You don't even know how old I am.
I don't judge you about your age or whatever stereotype you are.
Using someones gender/age/physical appearance, is just a sad way in winning an arguement and you know it (or maybe you don't, I hope you're conscious of your actions now). 

QuoteBelieving in these stuff is a simple model for an unintelligent human being to find a way to achieve a clarity of the universe, but it only messes up your map of reality, because it isn't true.
But people that want clarity are rare, so I don't think most people believe in OBE for just that.
Most of you probably didn't achieve a high status in our societies status-hiërarchy.
And are trying to find a way to still achieve a status because human's psychologicly want to have a higher status. This is noticable by being happy when your status is high (= you are loved by many).
But mostly, status is build on what the society expects from you.
So if you fail in that, you must find a different society, and a different hierarchy, and a different idea of status.
Getting a high status in the new-age community isn't that hard, because you don't physically need to do anything, which removes a lot of pressure.
Anyways, for the people that actually want clarity, they are doomed here.

You know what my friend, why don't we just agree to disagree. Obviously you are completely unaware of what is going on around you  :roll: possibly due to a lack of education, life experience or too large an ego.

You have absolutely no idea of what is happening in the world around you, but appear to still be in the formative years. It takes a young man, inexperienced and proud to discuss and argue like you do. You are continually spouting off theories and unsupported opinions disguised as facts, saying that things are "simply not true". In another thread you stated

QuoteI'm just gonna say politely, that I don't believe it and you shouldn't just say things like: "THIS IS THE TRUTH", be a little more: "My opinion is:/I think:", just because you believe solidly in something doesn't mean it's true, you are just giving an opinion, it can never be proved, understand?

Would it be too much to ask you to follow your own advice?

You also complain about me judging you unfairly, because I call you a young man, and in the same post where you state so grandly that you, and I quote:

.

Quote...don't judge you about your age or whatever stereotype you are.

In the same post you turn around and call the entire board and the posters here "low achievers" ."unintelligent"......... How does that strike you, as maybe ............hypocritical? Just asking!!

Lets just end it here. You obviously do not have a clue what you are talking about, you simply want to discuss these subjects. If you wanted to discuss them respectfully and with a open mind to at least hear folks out and debate respectfully, it would be fine, but you do not seem to want that but rather seem to draw some sort of pleasure from tearing down and criticising, a very negative approach, and unproductive.........I should know!!! In any case as for myself.......I do not have the patience or time to politely spend 10-20 years trying to teach you.

Regards Mustardseed

I haven't heard you say anything logical since yesterday, all you do is say what I say is wrong and you try finding mean little tricks to win this discussion.

You this, you that.
Drop it, if you have any knowledge to support your beliefs of OBE, say them or be quiet, because you obviously don't know anything.
And I think I proved my point of being more educated than you, though I loathe talking about what status someone has achieved in "life" in general.

And I see you have been looking at my posts from a year back, how low the ship has sunk to try to float again.  :evil:. - (This is exactly what YOU are doing)

I rest my case *shuts suitcase*

I think you both make logial points in different posts, but I also think this discussion has degenerated, lol.
You both apparently have good intentions, and I don't like silencing people, so do as suits you, lol, but I think this line of exchanges is getting  ugly :roll:

(Ducks back into trench with helmet)

End of the day the media has had done very bad coverage on this new research.  Very misleading titles etc...

If you go watch the actual experiment on youtube you will see it hasnt got too much to do with OBEs (not atleast from what i saw).

Just looks like mental suggestion, tricking the mind using goggles.

Sharpe you was wrong about a few things, for example science isnt all truth/reality, and anything thats not science is false.

Like i said earlier, science has many theories accepted as truth which have been updated/changed years later when they got evidence they was wrong.

I would guess 50 years time, most of the accepted theories and "truths" of today wil be laughed at by the scientific community.

I also believe the world would have evolved alot by then, with new discoveries.  Or disasters forcing us to work together.

All we need for mayor world peace is to get USA/EUROPE/RUSSIA/CHINA/INDIA to work together, but now there forgetting the lessons of ww1 and ww2 and are going to end up fighting and maybe destroying our planet out of oil and energy.

Bad times

"an OBE is merely a dream where you position yourself as if you're outside your body.
You allready have a map of the world in your brain so if you're in a dream you can float around in your preconscious where you are aware of what reality looks like in your memory, because every single detail is allready stored in your subconscious."

  This theory you have made seems to be a mixture of your own ideas and the experiment this thread started out talking about. The problem with this theory other than most others experiences being to the contrary is that if you were right in this theory the obe experience would be severely guided by ones expectations. If one can remain impartial while in an obe and then check up on a friend or someone you know, what you might expect them to be doing and what they are actually doing are two entirely different things.
    My experiences in projections were almost always not guided by my expectations what so ever. In relation to geographical information etc.. There have been times when in a projection I run into a part of my town I have never seen, and I think to myself this cant be real. Only to realize that the place I experienced is real, I just never happened upon the place because I never drive on that road. I think there are a ton of reasons why you have the opinions you do, but I dont see any reason to express them here because I know already what you would say. You would just state the exact opposite like anyone else to try to prove that your opinion is not just based on a theory you came up with, with no first hand experiences at all. I think we all realize this thread has run its course. We all agree to disagree =-)

I ain't gonna give you the last word to make you feel better, psht.
If you actually think you go out of your body, why don't you take randi's 1 million dollar test?

All of this is theoretical. The best way is for each individual to search within themselves. The answers found there are much more conclusive (albeit subjectively). Then, instead of telling someone else what you found and expecting them to adopt that belief system, you give them a way of finding those answers themselves, as you have. They may still find different answers, but they've exercised there own will and thinking. Pointing people in the right direction is much more productive than telling them where their flaws are. I think that's what the Astral Pulse is about - sharing ideas, tips, & tools. Not pushing beliefs.

It seems the only way a scientist in a lab could produce results which everyone could believe is hard conclusive physical evidence, like a good video that can be reproduced over and over in different circumstances. But how in the world do you get a physical object from something non-physical?

Maybe the only way to prove something non-physical to people is to help them have their own non-physical experience.

    I would love to. I dont think though they have the patience to monitor me night after night while attempting to project. Some days I can project and some I cant. Its not very controllable in that manner. Also its not as simple as taking the challenge, you first have to sign up, fill out their paper work. Send it in. Then wait. Some get answered some don't. Then if you do get an answer and they want to put you to a prelim. test you have to pay for the investigators flight, stay etc.. That would mean hundreds just to get the guy to test you, then if it takes 4 days to a week to get project you will be paying for his stay where-ever he decides to stay. When the person succeeds it gets worse. They have to wait to go to do the initial test and needs to get a hundred percent success. If there is even one wrong answer given or 1 percent failure rate they throw out all of the successes. I know this because Ive personally spoken with a few claiments stating that they were ripped off by that challenge and even randi himself. He has a personal axe to grind when it comes to anything paranormal, he doesnt believe and some will say he doesnt want it to exist. Any proof shown to the contrary is just thrown out.
  Dont get me wrong the sword is a double edged one. The same can be said about people who believe in the paranormal. Any evidence given to them that what they experienced was not paranormal they will just throw out in the belief that they are right no matter what. For example someone swears that a "ghost" is opening a door in their house but its just a draft caused by some wind tunneling effect when certain doors/windows are opened and closed. Then when shown the evidence they still disagree with the findings. I have no intentions of coming into contact with people of that kind of mindset, because right or wrong you are the loser in that kind of situation. You can find numerous discussions about randi's "challenge" on multiple forums for legit complaints about it.
  That's neither here nor there though. Whether or not you believe that I do really project myself does not change the fact that I can and do. I would be happy though if you did experience it because its a very freeing thing to experience. There are physicists that say without the consciousness what we perceive the physical world to be wouldnt exist. So in a way the physical world we are living in is just an illusion created by our consciousness, not the other way around. There are other physicists that believe the old occult principle of like attracts like. They explain it in the way that everything exists on a vibration level of some sort. (Which everything does) The difference between something being solid, or not, visible or not visible is the vibration level that said thing is at. Like visible laser light and not visible laser like (infared). There are frequencies that remain undiscovered. Never the less anything that is not close to our vibration we can not experience. This is how those physicists would explain the "law of attraction" That sort of explains why people who always think they are sick do get more ill than the average person, and those who say they never get sick, do rarely get sick. Those who say if I didnt have bad luck I would have no luck at all, always have bad things happen to them. So who are we to say that these physicists are wrong. Life is pretty ambiguous and sometimes there are answers that are both right and wrong. Henry Ford said "Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, you are right"

Now wowowow, first of all the law of attraction doesn't exist, because it's just a marketing scheme.
I mean isn't it obvious?

But, forget about that I just want to talk about the randi challenge, you can't just ignore the challenge.
It's still 1 million dollars, if you are so sure of yourself that you can actually do it, who cares about whatever you need to pay for...
IF you can do it, you will get paid, if you can't, then you will lose a bit of money...
But it's obvious you're sure enough, so why not take the shot, you have nothing to lose if you win.
1 million dollars is take-20-years-off-money.

I have to agree with TL regarding the $1million challenge.  It's just a scam. Randi devises the test, monitors it and then judges it.  If you perform 100% success, he has the right to make you repeat the test until you fail, at which point he will declare you a fraud and rubbish you in the press.

A true test should hold 1$million in trust and allow an independent panel (not Randi) devise, monitor and judge the results. Otherwise it is biased in his favour.  Who on Earth would trust a self-proclaimed trickster (Randi) to arbitrate this test?  You'd have to be insane.  No one will ever win the 1$million because Randi will never pay it.  So just forget about Randi.  In scientific terms the challenge is worthless, it's just a good marketting scam.  Anyone who knows anything about science will realise that you need an independent protocol, independent, ideally double-blind invigilators, and the rules can't change if you're unhappy with the results.

I have personal experience of ESP which in my opinion is highly difficult to explain in terms of anything other than ESP.  That's why I take it seriously. Despite what Sharpe said in an earlier rambling generalisation, my education level is good and I'm not in the slightest insecure about my "status".  I don't need to believe in things because it makes me feel important.  I'm inclined to believe in ESP because I had some inexplicable experiences.  The most convincing was hypnotising my mother and telling her to "travel in her mind" to locations which she then described accurately, plus other abilities she had while hypnotised.

I've seen Randi claim that he can reproduce everything that Geller can do (Geller on balance probably IS a fraud), but the Amazing Randi's sleight of hand was so transparent and clumsy the guy was a joke.  Other things he attempted like ESP and cold-readings were so unsuccesful in front of a studio audience they had to be cut from the final broadcast, and repeated until they worked.  So his claim to be "amazing" is wrong too.  At least Geller is a superb technician.  Not only is Randi a fraud with respect to the 1$million challenge he also gives third rate magicians a bad name....

Quote from: catmeow on August 28, 2007, 17:53:18
I have to agree with TL regarding the $1million challenge.  It's just a scam. Randi devises the test, monitors it and then judges it.  If you perform 100% success, he has the right to make you repeat the test until you fail, at which point he will declare you a fraud and rubbish you in the press.

A true test should hold 1$million in trust and allow an independent panel (not Randi) devise, monitor and judge the results. Otherwise it is biased in his favour.  Who on Earth would trust a self-proclaimed trickster (Randi) to arbitrate this test?  You'd have to be insane.  No one will ever win the 1$million because Randi will never pay it.  So just forget about Randi.  In scientific terms the challenge is worthless, it's just a good marketting scam.  Anyone who knows anything about science will realise that you need an independent protocol, independent, ideally double-blind invigilators, and the rules can't change if you're unhappy with the results.

I have personal experience of ESP which in my opinion is highly difficult to explain in terms of anything other than ESP.  That's why I take it seriously. Despite what Sharpe said in an earlier rambling generalisation, my education level is good and I'm not in the slightest insecure about my "status".  I don't need to believe in things because it makes me feel important.  I'm inclined to believe in ESP because I had some inexplicable experiences.  The most convincing was hypnotising my mother and telling her to "travel in her mind" to locations which she then described accurately, plus other abilities she had while hypnotised.

I've seen Randi claim that he can reproduce everything that Geller can do (Geller on balance probably IS a fraud), but the Amazing Randi's sleight of hand was so transparent and clumsy the guy was a joke.  Other things he attempted like ESP and cold-readings were so unsuccesful in front of a studio audience they had to be cut from the final broadcast, and repeated until they worked.  So his claim to be "amazing" is wrong too.  At least Geller is a superb technician.  Not only is Randi a fraud with respect to the 1$million challenge he also gives third rate magicians a bad name....

I don't think the randi challenge is a fraud, because like I said before, imo your brain needs to fill the gap to make your theory about the paranormal normal, because the brain cannot handle vagueness, it needs clarity, it needs 1 map of reality not multiple, if your theory isn't entirely true and your brain senses your beliefs are starting to lose, it will try to find flaws in all the other theories about reality and they will be eliminated in order to leave 1 in your map.
Which equals = your map of reality.

Now I'm not saying your status is low or anything, I'm not saying you need to feel important (although everyone wants to be loved by others, so I can't see the logic in that lol), maybe you want clarity of your existence, maybe you're searching for the truth.

But as far as I can tell, paranormal phenomena just complicates things.
And they're still theories by humans, with no proof whatsoever.
And isn't it weird that paranormal things only happen to people that believe in it?
Obviously it's all in their heads.

Quote from: Sharpe on August 28, 2007, 19:35:11
I don't think the randi challenge is a fraud, because like I said before, imo your brain needs to fill the gap to make your theory about the paranormal normal, because the brain cannot handle vagueness, it needs clarity, it needs 1 map of reality not multiple, if your theory isn't entirely true and your brain senses your beliefs are starting to lose, it will try to find flaws in all the other theories about reality and they will be eliminated in order to leave 1 in your map.
Which equals = your map of reality.

Now I'm not saying your status is low or anything, I'm not saying you need to feel important (although everyone wants to be loved by others, so I can't see the logic in that lol), maybe you want clarity of your existence, maybe you're searching for the truth.

But as far as I can tell, paranormal phenomena just complicates things.
And they're still theories by humans, with no proof whatsoever.
And isn't it weird that paranormal things only happen to people that believe in it?
Obviously it's all in their heads.

I agree with you on your mind making a map of reality and disregarding conflicting beliefs. What if you would turn your logic around?
Mind finds evidences for whatever it believes now that being in paranormal or not.

    Im sorry sharpe your reasoning for believing what you do is just nonsense to me. Does one try to mold the truth to make his/her belief fit into the "scheme of things" sure, that is what anyone does who's trying to make a point as to why they are right. When I started projecting I took a step back and observed what was going on with me a ruled out everything one by one. I didnt believe in projection or obe's a long long time ago,as a matter of fact a friend wanted to discuss some of his experiences and I blindly shrugged anything he had to tell me off like he was crazy. I see now that I was the blind one.
     After careful experimentation, and over 80 obes later I have to say the validations Ive had is overwelming personal proof. It is a subjective topic when comparing notes from ones experience to the next because people experience and interpret things differently. If one sees a very bright energy, another sees god instead. If you have a circle of people maybe about 5 sitting in a circle. One reads a sentence in the first persons ear and so on down the circle till the last person hears it, if you ask the last person to repeat it. It will be way out of context when compared to the original sentence. So many people interpret things differently. When it comes to obe's though and what leads up to them everyone is in agreement usually and most of everyone experiences things like a loud buzzing sound, sometimes roaring, and vibrations, and a loud click. Some of which could not even be considered physical sensations. So either all of the hundreds of thousands of people who report obe's are right or they are all "dreaming the same dream" or having the same delusion which is said to be not possible anyway. As far as the laws of attraction go, I never said it is my belief. I also dont buy self help books lol, I have just seen references to physicists who believe it exists. I have also taken from my experiences in the projection state. Also the experiences of others who talk about fear...etc.. when in the obe state. What they think or fear will happen usually does. Its no different from a person who believes tylonel will cure his/her flu if he/she actually believes it will then it usually does. So yes their arguments are very valid ones.
     You saying that some of these things holds no water because the brain builds your own map of reality, not only seems wrong, its nonsense. Im sorry that you see things otherwise, Im always a firm believer of experimenting and seeing who is right. After all you are a materialist, so experiment yourself and see for yourself. There really is no point in arguing about it, just go see for yourself.

First of all, none of what I say is nonsense, it's logic.
And don't accuse me of not having experimented it before.
Though I didn't want to get in the vibrational or whatever state you want to call it.
I felt that and it was like something pressing (pressure) against your ears and your brain and the more it sounded the less you could hear of what actually is happening in the real world.
And then... I opened my eyes in the dark, I was still in my room, staring onto my left, I saw it looking at me.
A 3 feet tall gargoyle.
And then something scary happend, it jumped towards me and i closed my eyes screaming.
It was just like a dream.
No air in your lungs, limpy arms, clumsiness and you can't scream.
Then I woke up filled with adrenaline.
I do not think that that was an OBE, you know why?
Because it was pure hallucination, I have no theory about hallucination without stimulants nor sleep deprivation, but I'll think about it today, and post a theory tommorow.

Actually I didnt say everything you said is nonsense. I said your logic to me is nonsense. That and just coming up with theories about how the world works or doesnt overnight is comical to me as well. Arguing back and forth about what you think and what my experiences tell me isnt going to help anyone. Really what we are doing here isnt what this forum was meant for. Im not going to sit here though and perpetuate this argument further. Im sorry if anything I said offended you. Regards,
                                                         T.L.

It seemed like offending me was your primary objective lol...
And about coming up with theories on how the world works over night, what the hell man?
You don't think about reality or anything?
The thing I do is, I view, look back on what I have actually learned, eliminate any bogus claims, don't trust what I view, but I trust what I've learned that puts all the pieces of the universe together and come up with a perfectly logical explanation.
This works with everything.
Now if you accept the claims given to you instead or assume it is what it looks like, you might think like the ancient egyptians did.
There have been many people in the history that allready invested time in discovering the truth, some of them gave their life to find it.
Why not take what they've learned instead of you making your conclusions by just going in OBE 80 times?

Don't worry about my overnight conclusions, I take what they've learned and try to find a more... logical explanation to OBE.

If OBE truly existed, what would the world be?
Just another world out of 8 spiritual ones?
How are brains connected to eachother to the other worlds?
Why are only humans possible of doing something like this?

We view things with our eyes, we hear with our ears, but it gets more complicated when it goes to the brain.
After you've sensed feelings, hear sounds, seen things, these are put in your hippocampus in your brain correct?
So how come when you go to the astral plane, you still have all your memory?
Never mind that, how come you take your whole brain over to the other side?
Isn't your brain matter?
So you take only your brain to the astral plain, nothing else?
How about eyes? Ears?
You can't exactly see without your eyes and hear without your ears.

And just drop that point lol, why in heaven dear god and our saviour jesus' name, would you need an astral plane to begin with?
Isn't evolution's purpose to evolve/progress in lifeforms, for whatever reason it is?
Why the hell would the universe give any entity the ability to go to the astral plane?

And I can see the point in cats having claws and dogs having sharp teeth...
It's made to survive, so evolution can progress.
How on earth does astral projection help with anything?
If people would astral project every day, they should put him on IV therapy and drug him with marihuana so he can FLYYYY everyday, feeling wonderful.

Sadly, this isn't what evolution is build on.
Evolution wants us to move forward, so any kind of fatigue will give us depression or the idea that you should be doing something better with your life.
So this breaks down that whole "actual-OUT" of-body expirience.
And still, the logicly obvious remains: It's merely a dream. A lucid dream.

I apologize that i havnt followed all of the conversation, bit i saw some phrases and it seemed wrong to me.
The idea, that if obe happens in our brain means its not real? Why not? If we assume that brain is i (which i believe is only partially).
Then we could call any expierience unreal. Even the real life in front of your eyes. If one had red a basic theory of sight, colors and vision (even such as written for photographers and artists, not some doctors), you would see that the picture you feel you're directly seeing just isn't there in front of your eyes... all the shapes, colors and objects are pure creation of your own mind - interpretation of enormous amounts of raw data being fed into us or created within us...

...Maybe...

Btw i recommend reading something about "Boltzman Brains". i guess one of the best places to start at would be here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

"We view things with our eyes, we hear with our ears, but it gets more complicated when it goes to the brain.
After you've sensed feelings, hear sounds, seen things, these are put in your hippocampus in your brain correct?
So how come when you go to the astral plane, you still have all your memory?
Never mind that, how come you take your whole brain over to the other side?
Isn't your brain matter?
So you take only your brain to the astral plain, nothing else?
How about eyes? Ears?
You can't exactly see without your eyes and hear without your ears."

   You are too stuck on the physical aspect of everything, that is what Im trying to tell you. You are making too many assumptions. Sure information we gather is categorized in the brain, we are in agreement on that. Whose to say that is the only place memories are stored and accessed. Why is it that in altered states of consciousness memories long forgotten are spontaneously remembered etc.. You are assuming that the brain is absolutely the only place memories are stored. You are assuming that consciousness itself only exists within the human brain, even many leading scientists dont even subscribe to that way of thought. Some admit that they dont know if consciousness itself is literally "in the brain". Without our consciousness we would not even be able to see, hear, taste,feel,smell. Our hands, eyes, nose, mouth, are just interfaces in which physically we experience the senses as we know it, but in order to experience those senses of the physical body we need our consciousness.
    So if we need our consciousness to do all these things in the physical, it is very safe to say that if obe's are a possibility if you can bring yourself to admit the possibility, and you seperate the consciousness from the constraints of the physical. Consciousness alone can recreate these sensations. As long as you arent suspended in the physical and are only existing within the mental.
   There is sort of an example I can relate here, is it your opinion that your ears are the only way to hear period? Can you give me an example in which one could hear without the ears? The reason I ask is because the way you talk you are only viewing from one perspective only. There are tons of possibilities and to only believe in one ultimate existence would be a fools choice, especially when no one can claim to know all about existence. The nonphysical does not follow physical principles as we know them to be. The brain is a tool in which our consciousness can interact with the physical, so yes without the brain we would not exist and wouldnt be capable of a physical existence. That does not mean however the brain created the consciousness. Im not attacking you personally either like you said I was. I was just stating my opinions on the way you look at things. Never the less sorry if you thought I was. Regards,
                T.L.

Ok I like how we're communicating now, and I'd like to point out a few little details.
I don't neccesarily believe in consciousness, how weird it may sound.
I believe the brain is made up of binary code, meaning: everything is perfectly programmed and there is no free will whatsoever.
It is true we know very little of our brains, but we know enough how the info travels from where to where, just thinking, it's a lot of info if you look at the brain and its functions, if it's so much info and you bind all that info together you MIGHT create "consciousness".
But ofcourse this is just a hypothesis.

Also I'd like to add: Whose to say that is the only place memories are stored and accessed. Why is it that in altered states of consciousness memories long forgotten are spontaneously remembered etc..

Freud said that when you dream you take a peek in your subconscious, your subconscious is the place where your personality, deep beliefs and sexual desires are.
So it wouldn't suprise me that you were conscious in your subconscious when you OBE, which is something extraordinairy to say the least, so it isn't going to another plane, but it's something.

Quote from: cobalt on August 29, 2007, 15:03:56
I apologize that i havnt followed all of the conversation, bit i saw some phrases and it seemed wrong to me.
The idea, that if obe happens in our brain means its not real? Why not? If we assume that brain is i (which i believe is only partially).
Then we could call any expierience unreal. Even the real life in front of your eyes. If one had red a basic theory of sight, colors and vision (even such as written for photographers and artists, not some doctors), you would see that the picture you feel you're directly seeing just isn't there in front of your eyes... all the shapes, colors and objects are pure creation of your own mind - interpretation of enormous amounts of raw data being fed into us or created within us...

...Maybe...

Btw i recommend reading something about "Boltzman Brains". i guess one of the best places to start at would be here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

Sorry for skipping you  :-(.
Uhm, I don't know, it's way too queer in my opinion.
Why would you accept that model with no logic nor proof, instead of centuries of study in science?

     Are you of the belief that our thoughts actually exist in this plane? For instance lets just use the lucid dream state as the example here, while you are in this lucid dream walking around remarking at how real this is (even though you know it to be just a conscious dream) you purposely touch things to see if you can feel them, you conclude you can. You smell, taste, hear and after all that you conclude yes you can do all those things. Yet you are not using the physical body to do any of this. You are really there in the lucid dream, you are experiencing everything, so it is a reality. Also this whole dream itself, who can say it is in the physical dimension. it certainly isnt or else dream objects would be physical objects. No one can also say it wasnt reality, because for the short duration you were there you it was real or else you wouldnt be experiencing it. How can one experience something and say it didnt exist? What is the nature existance? That is what we are talking about.
  Dont get me wrong Im not saying obe's are dreams I am saying that dreams themselves are still a reality no matter how you look at it. To say you have no free will at all is just a sketchy comment.  I want to type this to you so therefore I am, I am coming up with all my remarks of my own accord. I dont have something forcing me to do this. I can remain here or lay down to sleep, I am of the belief that I can do either one I choose. I do not have anything forcing me one way or the other. Everything down to the very last detail is not pre-arranged for me. If it was and I was of the belief I would of shot myself a long time ago because that would mean nothing really matters, no choice you could ever make would be your own so what why would living help at all? However my experiences tell me otherwise and I have been free up to now to do and experience anything I choose to. As for consciousness existing, I am thinking at this very moment, I can interpret anything how I like. So as far as being able to formulate my own thoughts, and make decisions tells me yes I am conscious and have a consciousness, if I leave out all my experiences to date and just go by being able to freely think and communicate. Regards,
                            T.L.

Free-will...
Free-will, is making choices.
But, if the choice is allready made, not by you but by a chemical, it wouldn't be your choice right?
Or if the choice is made in a programmed sequence of binary code, it still wouldn't be yours.
As a matter of fact, who are "you", you are just matter put together (materialisticly).

A neurotransmitter like adrenaline is released, what can you say about this?
Would it change your thoughts on stuff?
Yes it would, there are only 2 options for a neurotransmitter, it either releases or it doesn't.
1 or 0.
Now I am not gonna get complicated with this because it's pretty late and I wanna sleep.
Use this model for every neurotransmitter, for every instinct for everythingthing you have ever learned.
You should have binary code...

How do thoughts come you say?
How can you say you have consciousness, how can you say every thought you make is yours.
You can't because we are programmed to take behaviour from our culture or from a role-model you have selected, usually your father.
Now add all the things you have ever learned and form them in 1 personality.
That's you, and this all, is in your subconscious.

Just because you can say you are conscious doesn't mean you aren't programmed to do so.
By (don't take this seriously): wanting to prove me right that you are conscious you stand up and say that you are conscious, now you do this because for example you do not want to "lose" the discussion, this puts you in the position of wanting to become the alpha male in our "group".
So you want to be on top of me and you want me to be lower than you so you can mate, this system is build for progress in evolution. (I know this all sounds veeeery crazy)
So you prove, that you're better then me by proving me wrong.
OR, your model of reality wan't to eliminate mine (I think I mentioned this before), and your brain wants clarity so it chooses to say it's conscious so you are right! And this comes back to you want to be right because you want to be better than me.

It all sounds crazy at first but even I do it without being "conscious" over it.
But that's what the brain wants anyway.

So I hope you understood what I meant with "we do not have consciousness nor free-will".

"I think therefor I am, equals = I do not think therefor I am not"
No consciousness, no thinking = No "you"

"A neurotransmitter like adrenaline is released, what can you say about this?
Would it change your thoughts on stuff?
Yes it would, there are only 2 options for a neurotransmitter, it either releases or it doesn't"

   I completely understand what you are trying to say and where you are coming from. You can drop it down to the smallest possible scale on the physical level and mentality but who is to say that the physical action/reaction is the cause of a thought, and not vice versa. Its like trying to argue what came first the chicken or the egg? The brain is the physical tool in which our consciousness can interact with the physical, so all you are saying now still can be explained by what Im saying. There was a study done a while back about thoughts and physical reactions etc.. Theres a certain physical response we get to certain imagery, feelings etc.. People would be shown an image an the correlating physical reaction would be gauged. They noticed in the study that the physical reactions were being seen before the images were shown by  fractions of a second. This shows that the brain is reacting to the images before we even really see the images physically, so this points to what Im saying that the physical reactions/actions are caused by the consciousness not the other way around. I know we are going back and forth here, and truth be told no matter how many times we keep at this we are still going to be in disagreement. Sure it would be nice to have physical proof to show you and prove to you that there is a little more to existence than you think. But its not necessary.
   The whole reason I am involved with this website and forum is to help those who are willing to try and experiment succeed in doing so. I want to help others who are cursious as I used to be about matters of projection, to have success in projection. To give direction and tips to those trying but not succeeding. I used to be whole heartedly against projection because I thought that the world we live in physically was all there is and ever will be, but I was wrong. Im not saying Im always right, but I know that this is not all there is to existence. When I had my own personal experiences at first I was still not convinced of course I dove deeper and deeper and come out with answers. The more scientific research I read up on the nature of consciousness, thoughts..etc.. the more those studies seemed to point to the obviousness of everything I was realizing. I wish I was wrong sometimes existing is boring, Ill give anyone that much, it would be nice once I get very old and tired of life. I would be happy if once Im done here Im done for good anywhere, it would be great to know I would be wiped out of existence. What better vacation? I want you to be right, but me wanting you to be right does not however make you right. There are some things we agree on but throwing the whole physical existence down to the simplest terms right or wrong when it comes to it on a physical level, does not make it the only existence and does not give validity to the claim that the non physical does not exist. I need rest as well. It was nice conversing with all of you today. Regards,
                                                                                     T.L.

"You can drop it down to the smallest possible scale on the physical level and mentality but who is to say that the physical action/reaction is the cause of a thought, and not vice versa."

I love this one, I was in school all day thinking about 1 thing, something close to this one.

"We know where the information goes, we know how the information can form a memory, we know the subconscious is the memory itself, but the choises you make, the decisions you make, it's hard to exactly say how all this is linked with the consciousness."

I felt like I was learning analytic geometry all over again.
It's like, you know the methods for why things are going on, and why the info goes where.
But the connection...
When I get that part I know everything will be crystal clear.

I can answer yours though:
"You can drop it down to the smallest possible scale on the physical level and mentality but who is to say that the physical action/reaction is the cause of a thought, and not vice versa."

Because, the physical reaction is released by the sense of danger, for instance: serotonin.
This one is released when you must feel happy for example.
And the happiness is decided by allready programmed material.
You get in your subconscious what makes people happy: Status/Love/Money/Big house - These mostly come to 1, Being loved by others / Having a high status.
But just to be simple, your subconscious knows this, what SHOULD make you happy.
Lets say you have all = 1111, lets say you don't have all = 0000, lets say its divided = 1010.
And lets say your neurotransmitters look like 0000.
So if you have something like 1010, the quantity of the neurotransmitter released will be: 0011.
And if you are happier then you can be you get: 1111 for serotonin.
Meaning: you're doing the right thing according to evolution.

Quote from: Sharpe on August 30, 2007, 10:44:04
Because, the physical reaction is released by the sense of danger, for instance: serotonin.
This one is released when you must feel happy for example.
And the happiness is decided by allready programmed material.
You get in your subconscious what makes people happy: Status/Love/Money/Big house - These mostly come to 1, Being loved by others / Having a high status.
But just to be simple, your subconscious knows this, what SHOULD make you happy.
Lets say you have all = 1111, lets say you don't have all = 0000, lets say its divided = 1010.
And lets say your neurotransmitters look like 0000.
So if you have something like 1010, the quantity of the neurotransmitter released will be: 0011.
And if you are happier then you can be you get: 1111 for serotonin.
Meaning: you're doing the right thing according to evolution.

Nice theory but when you look around it's not true. Happiness is not determined by outer circumstances but by inner. Happiness equals how much you're accepting your reality right now. You feel the most joy when you get something what you really desired and that joy is the result of your ego not blocking the flow of joy as it accepts the reality. But it doesn't last long b/c there is something else you want what you dont have yet. So if you only wanted that what you already have you would feel happy.

What you said isn't completely right, seeing we buy stuff we don't need because we want love.
Not because we "desire" them, desire comes for the need of love.
And like I said status IS love.
When you buy things you mostly buy them to show-off at other people to let them know your status is still high. So they give you love, as in you're higher then them so you deserve more then them.
You deserve a hot girlfriend (hot according to the society), they don't.
So you're the alpha male.
And we all know this is subconsciously the truth.

gosh darn, my last post sucked, I just came back from school and it was a bit too sucky model to take as example sorry for that.

You could take as example: how high is your status amongst your equals: 00001 = lowest, 11111 is highest for example.
And the same trick with the serotonin, this probably makes more sense.
But maybe if you make it precise, the serotonin is 01111 with people that are the alpha males in most groups.
But if you are a king or you rule the world or whatever, you are the ultra alpha male (I made that up xD), so this would give you the highest possible serotonin release = 11111.
Because if we know there's someone better than us, we can't accept all serotonin, however if we know we're the king of kings, we give ourselves permission to receive the whole thing (serotonin).

It's easy to say to not look at the outside, but seeing our brains work like that and we can't change the hardware, we're doomed to be superficial.

Earlier I said that perhaps our physical actions are just reactions to our mind rather than our mind and thoughts are the reaction of the physical. I wanted to back this up with the study I mentioned...

http://www.newsmonster.co.uk/have-scientists-really-proved-that-man-can-see-into-the-future.html     and

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pdfs/presentiment.pdf (the actual study report)

this study shows that volunteers in this experiment have physical reactions to images before they actually physically see them. which means the volunteers can see the future albeit subconsciously and a small amount of time before. This shows that physical actions/reactions are the result of the conscious/subconscious mind.

Hi Sharpe

Quote from: Sharpe
And most people, espescially intelligent people know that eliminative materialism is reality, because it doesn't defy logic and it makes absolute sense being crystal clear in every field.

Well this is just a wild speculation.  Eliminative materialism is not widely accepted, as you suggest.  It seems however that all of your reasoning is based on materialism (universe=physical) and monism (mind=brain) of one form or another.  Hence all the talk of neurons and brains etc etc...

Please follow this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind)

You should consider dualism and idealism.  Dualism asserts that the mind and brain are separate and idealism asserts that our minds create our own reality, ie there is no physical reality, ideas which you do not appear to have considered.

The assumptions of monism and materialism, on which you base all of your conclusions are not safe at all.  They have been fiercely contested for thousands of years, and still, we don't know what the truth is.  Another unsafe assumption of yours is Darwinism, a theory which is not completely accepted.

So if your assumptions are unsafe, which they are, then so too are your conclusions.

I would ask you to stop using brains and neurons as a starting position for all of your arguments.  Many of us simply don't buy into these ideas so we will not agree with your conclusions.  Don't assume that the brain oozes thought like the liver oozes bile.  This has absolutely not been demonstrated, and therefore it's really hard to buy into your conclusions.  Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, but you can not assume that we all start from the same position of materialism that you do.

Don't forget that the biggest paranormal event of all time is creation itself. Creation is one of the most absurd and unlikely events imagineable, and yet it is something which we all take for granted.  Compared to "creation", ESP is small potatos.

T.L. I've seen these studies before and they are very interesting.  I'll dig out some other scientific studies of ESP which are being taken very seriously when I get time and post them later...

     Sure, I appreciate that. There are other studies that were done, even another study that almost mirrors the one I posted the exception is that they used pain instead of images of emotional or neutral aspects. The results were the same as well, there are reflexes/reactions they see occurring right before the actual event takes place. So there is a host of studies I could use to back up what I have to say. The thing is that I dont only see science as the only way to prove or experience these things.
     Though a good amount of scientific studies does back up some of the ideas I put forth though, such as physical actions/reactions are a result of the mind/consciousness rather than the other way around which a lot of people believe. That we (our consciousness) continue to thrive after physical elimination of the physical body. Even science says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, the only that changes is its form. So in a way someone who is scientifically minded might find theirselves in a paradox in that yes our thoughts, and the consciousness we use to derive our decisions/thoughts is a form of energy, yet they believe our consciousness ceases to exist once we physically die.
    I hope I dont need to point it out, if I do then - If energy can not be created nor destroyed, how can it be that your consciousness and thoughts cease to exist once the physical body dies as they too are a form of energy? I dont need others here to elaborate on an answer to the question as its meant to be rhetorical. I already know the answer, and Ive found from my experiences I am right. I dont want others to be swayed one way or another just by what I say though. Believe what you want to believe, but you owe it to yourselves to search, research, experiment, and experience before you arrive at what you feel is a solid answer. Regards,
                                                                  T.L.

Well, I hate to reuse posts, but this is one I used in another thread (Experiment to prove past lives in metaphysics section of this forum) that I think perfectly addresses the issue being raised here again, namely why materialism hasn't proven the brain can account for every aspect of of consciousness (the major bone being the inability for materialism to account for qualities such as "awareness", which a mere collection of atoms cannot explain), and thus shows how science has far from disproven Idealism and dualism. I wish there was a link to send someone to whenever this Mind-body arguement arose in the forums (as it seems to every week), as so much has already been said on the subject in history, but I guess material like this from Chalmers is the next best thing. I seem to adopt this as my "pet issue" whenever a new group of posters arrives, lol.

Now pay attention to the fact that Chalmers does not say that the answer is outside of science, as it clearly isn't, since science takes as its goal an understanding of the entire universe, whatever non-physical elements it may or may not contain; furthermore, he does not make the mistake of saying that science has already solved the problem through materialism, as so many dangerously assume.


_________________________________

I can probably not explain the issue as well as the professionals, so here is an excerpt from Chalmers (link provided again) to better elucidate the issue, with the parts I think are most important underlined:

http://consc.net/papers/facing.html (http://consc.net/papers/facing.html)

1 Introduction
Consciousness poses the most baffling problems in the science of the mind. There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious experience, but there is nothing that is harder to explain. All sorts of mental phenomena have yielded to scientific investigation in recent years, but consciousness has stubbornly resisted. Many have tried to explain it, but the explanations always seem to fall short of the target. Some have been led to suppose that the problem is intractable, and that no good explanation can be given.

To make progress on the problem of consciousness, we have to confront it directly. In this paper, I first isolate the truly hard part of the problem, separating it from more tractable parts and giving an account of why it is so difficult to explain. I critique some recent work that uses reductive methods to address consciousness, and argue that such methods inevitably fail to come to grips with the hardest part of the problem. Once this failure is recognized, the door to further progress is opened. In the second half of the paper, I argue that if we move to a new kind of nonreductive explanation, a naturalistic account of consciousness can be given. I put forward my own candidate for such an account: a nonreductive theory based on principles of structural coherence and organizational invariance and a double-aspect view of information.

2 The easy problems and the hard problem
There is not just one problem of consciousness. "Consciousness" is an ambiguous term, referring to many different phenomena. Each of these phenomena needs to be explained, but some are easier to explain than others. At the start, it is useful to divide the associated problems of consciousness into "hard" and "easy" problems. The easy problems of consciousness are those that seem directly susceptible to the standard methods of cognitive science, whereby a phenomenon is explained in terms of computational or neural mechanisms. The hard problems are those that seem to resist those methods.

The easy problems of consciousness include those of explaining the following phenomena:


the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli;
the integration of information by a cognitive system;
the reportability of mental states;
the ability of a system to access its own internal states;
the focus of attention;
the deliberate control of behavior;
the difference between wakefulness and sleep.

All of these phenomena are associated with the notion of consciousness. For example, one sometimes says that a mental state is conscious when it is verbally reportable, or when it is internally accessible. Sometimes a system is said to be conscious of some information when it has the ability to react on the basis of that information, or, more strongly, when it attends to that information, or when it can integrate that information and exploit it in the sophisticated control of behavior. We sometimes say that an action is conscious precisely when it is deliberate. Often, we say that an organism is conscious as another way of saying that it is awake.

There is no real issue about whether these phenomena can be explained scientifically. All of them are straightforwardly vulnerable to explanation in terms of computational or neural mechanisms. To explain access and reportability, for example, we need only specify the mechanism by which information about internal states is retrieved and made available for verbal report. To explain the integration of information, we need only exhibit mechanisms by which information is brought together and exploited by later processes. For an account of sleep and wakefulness, an appropriate neurophysiological account of the processes responsible for organisms' contrasting behavior in those states will suffice. In each case, an appropriate cognitive or neurophysiological model can clearly do the explanatory work.

If these phenomena were all there was to consciousness, then consciousness would not be much of a problem. Although we do not yet have anything close to a complete explanation of these phenomena, we have a clear idea of how we might go about explaining them. This is why I call these problems the easy problems. Of course, "easy" is a relative term. Getting the details right will probably take a century or two of difficult empirical work. Still, there is every reason to believe that the methods of cognitive science and neuroscience will succeed.

The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect. As Nagel (1974) has put it, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion, and the experience of a stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience.

It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.

If any problem qualifies as the problem of consciousness, it is this one. In this central sense of "consciousness", an organism is conscious if there is something it is like to be that organism, and a mental state is conscious if there is something it is like to be in that state. Sometimes terms such as "phenomenal consciousness" and "qualia" are also used here, but I find it more natural to speak of "conscious experience" or simply "experience". Another useful way to avoid confusion (used by e.g. Newell 1990, Chalmers 1996) is to reserve the term "consciousness" for the phenomena of experience, using the less loaded term "awareness" for the more straightforward phenomena described earlier. If such a convention were widely adopted, communication would be much easier; as things stand, those who talk about "consciousness" are frequently talking past each other.

The ambiguity of the term "consciousness" is often exploited by both philosophers and scientists writing on the subject. It is common to see a paper on consciousness begin with an invocation of the mystery of consciousness, noting the strange intangibility and ineffability of subjectivity, and worrying that so far we have no theory of the phenomenon. Here, the topic is clearly the hard problem - the problem of experience. In the second half of the paper, the tone becomes more optimistic, and the author's own theory of consciousness is outlined. Upon examination, this theory turns out to be a theory of one of the more straightforward phenomena - of reportability, of introspective access, or whatever. At the close, the author declares that consciousness has turned out to be tractable after all, but the reader is left feeling like the victim of a bait-and-switch. The hard problem remains untouched.
3 Functional explanation

Why are the easy problems easy, and why is the hard problem hard? The easy problems are easy precisely because they concern the explanation of cognitive abilities and functions. To explain a cognitive function, we need only specify a mechanism that can perform the function. The methods of cognitive science are well-suited for this sort of explanation, and so are well-suited to the easy problems of consciousness. By contrast, the hard problem is hard precisely because it is not a problem about the performance of functions. The problem persists even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained. (Here "function" is not used in the narrow teleological sense of something that a system is designed to do, but in the broader sense of any causal role in the production of behavior that a system might perform.)

To explain reportability, for instance, is just to explain how a system could perform the function of producing reports on internal states. To explain internal access, we need to explain how a system could be appropriately affected by its internal states and use information about those states in directing later processes. To explain integration and control, we need to explain how a system's central processes can bring information contents together and use them in the facilitation of various behaviors. These are all problems about the explanation of functions.

How do we explain the performance of a function? By specifying a mechanism that performs the function. Here, neurophysiological and cognitive modeling are perfect for the task. If we want a detailed low-level explanation, we can specify the neural mechanism that is responsible for the function. If we want a more abstract explanation, we can specify a mechanism in computational terms. Either way, a full and satisfying explanation will result. Once we have specified the neural or computational mechanism that performs the function of verbal report, for example, the bulk of our work in explaining reportability is over.

In a way, the point is trivial. It is a conceptual fact about these phenomena that their explanation only involves the explanation of various functions, as the phenomena are functionally definable. All it means for reportability to be instantiated in a system is that the system has the capacity for verbal reports of internal information. All it means for a system to be awake is for it to be appropriately receptive to information from the environment and for it to be able to use this information in directing behavior in an appropriate way. To see that this sort of thing is a conceptual fact, note that someone who says "you have explained the performance of the verbal report function, but you have not explained reportability" is making a trivial conceptual mistake about reportability. All it could possibly take to explain reportability is an explanation of how the relevant function is performed; the same goes for the other phenomena in question.

Throughout the higher-level sciences, reductive explanation works in just this way. To explain the gene, for instance, we needed to specify the mechanism that stores and transmits hereditary information from one generation to the next. It turns out that DNA performs this function; once we explain how the function is performed, we have explained the gene. To explain life, we ultimately need to explain how a system can reproduce, adapt to its environment, metabolize, and so on. All of these are questions about the performance of functions, and so are well-suited to reductive explanation. The same holds for most problems in cognitive science. To explain learning, we need to explain the way in which a system's behavioral capacities are modified in light of environmental information, and the way in which new information can be brought to bear in adapting a system's actions to its environment. If we show how a neural or computational mechanism does the job, we have explained learning. We can say the same for other cognitive phenomena, such as perception, memory, and language. Sometimes the relevant functions need to be characterized quite subtly, but it is clear that insofar as cognitive science explains these phenomena at all, it does so by explaining the performance of functions.

When it comes to conscious experience, this sort of explanation fails. What makes the hard problem hard and almost unique is that it goes beyond problems about the performance of functions. To see this, note that even when we have explained the performance of all the cognitive and behavioral functions in the vicinity of experience - perceptual discrimination, categorization, internal access, verbal report - there may still remain a further unanswered question: Why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience? A simple explanation of the functions leaves this question open.

There is no analogous further question in the explanation of genes, or of life, or of learning. If someone says "I can see that you have explained how DNA stores and transmits hereditary information from one generation to the next, but you have not explained how it is a gene", then they are making a conceptual mistake. All it means to be a gene is to be an entity that performs the relevant storage and transmission function. But if someone says "I can see that you have explained how information is discriminated, integrated, and reported, but you have not explained how it is experienced", they are not making a conceptual mistake. This is a nontrivial further question.

This further question is the key question in the problem of consciousness. Why doesn't all this information-processing go on "in the dark", free of any inner feel? Why is it that when electromagnetic waveforms impinge on a retina and are discriminated and categorized by a visual system, this discrimination and categorization is experienced as a sensation of vivid red? We know that conscious experience does arise when these functions are performed, but the very fact that it arises is the central mystery. There is an explanatory gap (a term due to Levine 1983) between the functions and experience, and we need an explanatory bridge to cross it. A mere account of the functions stays on one side of the gap, so the materials for the bridge must be found elsewhere.

This is not to say that experience has no function. Perhaps it will turn out to play an important cognitive role. But for any role it might play, there will be more to the explanation of experience than a simple explanation of the function. Perhaps it will even turn out that in the course of explaining a function, we will be led to the key insight that allows an explanation of experience. If this happens, though, the discovery will be an extra explanatory reward. There is no cognitive function such that we can say in advance that explanation of that function will automatically explain experience.

To explain experience, we need a new approach. The usual explanatory methods of cognitive science and neuroscience do not suffice. These methods have been developed precisely to explain the performance of cognitive functions, and they do a good job of it. But as these methods stand, they are only equipped to explain the performance of functions. When it comes to the hard problem, the standard approach has nothing to say.

4 Some case-studies

In the last few years, a number of works have addressed the problems of consciousness within the framework of cognitive science and neuroscience. This might suggest that the analysis above is faulty, but in fact a close examination of the relevant work only lends the analysis further support. When we investigate just which aspects of consciousness these studies are aimed at, and which aspects they end up explaining, we find that the ultimate target of explanation is always one of the easy problems.

___________________________________

Okay, so Chalmers covers so many ideas, but most importantly, he explains why describing how the functions of the brain are performed does not explain the "Hard Problem" of awareness that accompanies some of these functions.

I really hope you can see why this is such an issue, and how unassailible it has proven, even to modern neuroscience.

Feel free to read the entire link, and any information you can find, as I think it is useful to a person interested in pschology and neurobiology, and what has and hasn't been achieved by the sciences to this date.


Quote

QuoteFrom our point of view the robot has no consciousness, but what if human beings don't have consciousness either? Can you actually say a human being other then yourself has it?
Why do you think you have it? "I think therefor I am?"

Yes, that is a problem philosophy also recognizes, and I agree it may be impossible to prove.

An interesting thing, though, is that Chalmers' "Hard Problem" of consciousness still exists even if there is only one aware entity in the universe (for every person, that one they call "me"), as the problem of awareness still exists then.

But I do think "I think, therefore I am" is ample proof to a self-aware organism of its own existence- this principle, which as you probably know, was proposed by Rene Descartes as his Cogito, or the one thing he could easily prove without any other information but his mind, has never to my recollection been disproven.


Quote

QuoteIf I make my choises based on how I feel about the choise.
The feeling makes the choise, not me.
Because there is no "me".

Maybe there is a thing like consciousness but it is so queer that it can't make it's own decisions.
It is merely an observer?

If this was right, why the need for the observer?

Well, I do agree that if Materialism is true then we don't have free-will, and so basically can't really make choices, but even if awareness only existed as an observer believing it was making choices, as you say (and I would agree with, within materialism), it would still be a (queer, yes) type of awareness, and this still subject to Chalmers' "Hard Problem". 

I hate to go on and on about this Chalmer's guy, and how he had problems and stuff, but I think he really highlights the essence of what a person examining the issue philosophically should be take note of.


Quote

QuoteIf this was right, why the need for the observer?
And that is where I think it logically eliminates that.
Which only leaves matter.
A biological organism that is build for progress.

Well, it comes down not to propriety, but reality, I guess. No one can say why there is awareness, or if it should be there, but that does not change the fact it is, even if it is not needed for the function of an organism.

Another merely accademic issue, lol, but still important: most biologists, especially Materialists, do not believe evolution is progress based, but rather generates a timeline of organisms which were statistically likely in a given situation to produce offspring. In the famous moth case, a moth whose species was mostly light colored, to blend into birch trees, later evolved to have mostly darker individuals, as industrialization darkened trees, later, with better pollution standards, they went back to the lighter kind! So you can see there is no real progress per se, but rather adaptation to environment. But I am splitting hairs, and you probably understood this, despite the wording.

Hi T.L.

Here is another article about Prof willy Bierman

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=452833&in_page_id=1965 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=452833&in_page_id=1965)

And here is an article about different research, which involves a random number generator which appears to "sense" major world events before they happen (such as 911):

http://www.redorbit.com/news/display/?id=126649#121 (http://www.redorbit.com/news/display/?id=126649#121)

Stillwater - am at work right now so can't read your article but will do soon!

Hi Stillwater

OK I read it.

The paper is one of the clearest explanations I have seen about the difference between the "easy" and "hard" problems of consciousness.  The "easy" problems are to do with function, and the "hard" problem is about experience.  Neuroscience may one day explain all conscious functions, and the biology by which they happen.

But the "hard" problem, is to explain why all of this functional processing is encumbered by our own awareness of it, our emotions and our "experience".  Awareness and experience are not necessary and yet they are present.  This is the "hard" problem.

Eliminative materialism (Sharpe's position) effectively solves the "hard" problem by denying its existence:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism)

If we take the approach of denying a problem exists, then obviously things become much simpler.  But unfortunately, this doesn't actually solve the problem.  It simply ignores it.  That darn problem, as inconvenient and stubborn as it is, still remains there.

Quote from: Dr Pim van Lommel
Michael Shermer states that, in reality, all experience is mediated and produced by the brain, and that so-called paranormal phenomena like out-of body experiences are nothing more than neuronal events. The study of patients with NDE, however, clearly shows us that consciousness with memories, cognition, with emotion, self-identity, and perception out and above a life-less body is experienced during a period of a non-functioning brain (transient pancerebral anoxia).

The above is taken from research performed by Dr Pim van Lommel.  It is significant that the conclusions of this research, were misrepresented in Scientific American by Michael Shermer, who in fact mysteriously reported the exact opposite conclusions to the ones reported by Dr Lommel. 

Michael Shermer, an editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine (http://www.csicop.org/si/ (http://www.csicop.org/si/)), is the scientific world equivalent of the Amazing Randi. Clearly not as impartial as he should be.

Dr Lommel published his rebuttal of Shermer's misrepresentation here:

http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm (http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm)

I thought this was interesting since this thread started with a New Scientist article on research into OBEs which similarly perhaps, misrepresents the research.

For myself, the most fundemental issue in approaching an explanation of consciousness (apart from spelling it,) is accepting that the physical brain and the physical processes within it, are a universe away from the mind and thinking processes. You cannot follow a percept, such as tree, through the eyes, into the brain and into the firing of neurons. There is no point where, as a scientist, you can make a leap from thought to physical process.
   I prefer to think of it this way; The activity within the brain is just a reflection of what is happening in the mind (soul,) we could not function on the earth without the brain, because it is our doorway to the physical universe, just as we could not function without a heart or lungs. Through the brain, the human spirit makes its connection with the physical universe.

                                                            Joe.

Quote from: catmeow on August 30, 2007, 19:47:51
Hi Sharpe

Well this is just a wild speculation.  Eliminative materialism is not widely accepted, as you suggest.  It seems however that all of your reasoning is based on materialism (universe=physical) and monism (mind=brain) of one form or another.  Hence all the talk of neurons and brains etc etc...

Please follow this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind)

You should consider dualism and idealism.  Dualism asserts that the mind and brain are separate and idealism asserts that our minds create our own reality, ie there is no physical reality, ideas which you do not appear to have considered.

The assumptions of monism and materialism, on which you base all of your conclusions are not safe at all.  They have been fiercely contested for thousands of years, and still, we don't know what the truth is.  Another unsafe assumption of yours is Darwinism, a theory which is not completely accepted.

So if your assumptions are unsafe, which they are, then so too are your conclusions.

I would ask you to stop using brains and neurons as a starting position for all of your arguments.  Many of us simply don't buy into these ideas so we will not agree with your conclusions.  Don't assume that the brain oozes thought like the liver oozes bile.  This has absolutely not been demonstrated, and therefore it's really hard to buy into your conclusions.  Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, but you can not assume that we all start from the same position of materialism that you do.

Don't forget that the biggest paranormal event of all time is creation itself. Creation is one of the most absurd and unlikely events imagineable, and yet it is something which we all take for granted.  Compared to "creation", ESP is small potatos.

Oh for crying out loud, look at least I believe in things that fit together, if I would believe in dualism or idealism, nothing would be logical, you know why?
Because anything that involves "non-programmable" entities, are gods, and if gods can manifest their desires, there would be no need for evolution.
Also, isn't it obvious our whole society is build on evolution?
Now I'm not talking about some birds on Galapagos island.
I'm talking about psychology, why is it that we always want the hottest girl / intelligent girl?
It's impossible to ignore evolution in any theory about the mind.

The whole universe is programmed.
And if you can't see it, open your bloody eyes.

It's much easier to believe in this then to mess your brain up with wrong information that could jeopardize clarity, now THAT is dangerous.

And I seriously don't get this part:  "I would ask you to stop using brains and neurons as a starting position for all of your arguments.  Many of us simply don't buy into these ideas so we will not agree with your conclusions.  Don't assume that the brain oozes thought like the liver oozes bile."

Hell yeah! Let's do it!
Let's reject reality!
Then we come up with OUR theories, and we MAKE OUR OWN REALITY!!!
YIPPIE!!!

Quote from: Lysear on August 31, 2007, 11:10:20
For myself, the most fundemental issue in approaching an explanation of consciousness (apart from spelling it,) is accepting that the physical brain and the physical processes within it, are a universe away from the mind and thinking processes. You cannot follow a percept, such as tree, through the eyes, into the brain and into the firing of neurons. There is no point where, as a scientist, you can make a leap from thought to physical process.
   I prefer to think of it this way; The activity within the brain is just a reflection of what is happening in the mind (soul,) we could not function on the earth without the brain, because it is our doorway to the physical universe, just as we could not function without a heart or lungs. Through the brain, the human spirit makes its connection with the physical universe.

                                                            Joe.

Awww, that's cute!

Now... Wikipedia is hardly a trustworthy source, now is it?

I've not followed the entire convo here, but I'll just jump in and be a prat and just react, if you don't all mind.
Now, Joe, how can the activity in the brain be ''just a reflection'' of what is in the mind or ''soul''? Where would this soul be then? In your belly? Or wait... perhaps where your brain is? Isn't it obvious? The brain IS your mind/soul... You can call it whatever you wish, but it remains the same. I see no reason as to why someone would believe that a brain is merely a physical representation of the human mind, to act and work its way through the physical realm. Well, the only reason I can think of is that one would wish to feel special, to believe that there is this little light in yourself that's basically you. And that when your physical self perishes, you (the little light) float out of your body and just fly away for all eternity with your immortal babe, or dude.
Anyway, i'd still like an answer as to where you believe this spirit is. Belly, head, butt, feet or perhaps the tip of my fingers. When I write this, are my fingers illuminating the light of life? Of course not... because there is no such thing as a spirit. Unless proven otherwise of course, which, as so many things, is about as likely as me growing pubic hair on my lips.
  There are however loads of folks who say they have the answer, that we have a soul etc... but that's said by theologians, scripture, simple minded people and many more groups or individuals. But as time has passed throughout the centuries, it's becoming more and more obvious that the brain is YOU. And you're simply living the ''dream'' as you go. The brain lets you see the world, and you react to it. However way you react to it is decided by people around you who either consciously or subconsciously indoctrinate you with their beliefs. For example, catholic families have done so throughout the ages, and many others as well.
Now, of course, there are people who ''break'' free of their grip and believe they have found the truth, that they know the right answer now. They can convert to Islam, to Hinduism, to all sorts of ''isms'' and whatever the mind can come up with in its deluded fantasy. Yeah, they can convert to any specialist! A specialist of the unknowable, or they decide they, themselves, are a real specialist and they form a little group specializing in another form of the unknowable... on how to summon a spaghetti monster.
But on a more serious note, I've once lived by this rubbish as well. I sat on my bed, I concentrated and after some time I could feel myself slipping away... 'My God!' I said later, when I ''recovered''. 'I've just had an OBE! This is stellar! I feel divine! I can do everything now! I can shoot fire from my eyes and lightning from my butt! Hey, wait, let's do it again! I LIKE FEELING SPECIAL!' But, as tempting as it was to do so again, I came to my senses and realised it was just a form of dreaming. Fe... you have daydreams, hallucinations, fata morgana's etc etc, the list goes on.
There are so many ways one can wake up and just realise ''wow that was so real, just what happened?!'', but in the end it is just THAT; a very real looking fantasy which left you in either awe or fascination, and you feel special and decide that you are either blessed by destiny or some other all-deciding factor which has blessed your life. But, let's face it, it's ALL a DREAM. And I'm saying this with something that virtually every being on this godforsaken planet lacks: COMMON SENSE.

I think it was Dr. Lommel who did research on how transplanted organs affected the personality of the person who received the organ. Personal characteristics of the donor were caried over to the other person. For example a guy got one organ (i dont remember exactly which) from a person who died in early twenties in motorcycle incident and who liked eating chicken and led unhealthy lifestyle. Then that guy started eating chicken although he never ate it before and started to act differently. Some people also gor memories from other person.

Quotelet's face it, it's ALL a DREAM. And I'm saying this with something that virtually every being on this godforsaken planet lacks: COMMON SENSE.

QuoteI see no reason as to why someone would believe that a brain is merely a physical representation of the human mind, to act and work its way through the physical realm. Well, the only reason I can think of is that one would wish to feel special

here is an interesting article about brain

10 Unsolved Mysteries Of The Brain

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/unsolved-brain-mysteries/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

QuoteBecause anything that involves "non-programmable" entities, are gods, and if gods can manifest their desires, there would be no need for evolution.
Also, isn't it obvious our whole society is build on evolution?
Now I'm not talking about some birds on Galapagos island.
I'm talking about psychology, why is it that we always want the hottest girl / intelligent girl?
It's impossible to ignore evolution in any theory about the mind.

Yeah... I think this is where Sharpe's argument falls a little juvenile. What about the Wife that marries a rich man and runs off with the Gardener and lives happily ever after? What about Childhood sweethearts that stay in love, Marry, have many grand children and die together? e.g. based when they were kids, when materlism wasn't so important... The Love (sorry to be gooy) kept them together and they didn't desire anyone else. There are many examples of when people don't desire the one at the top of your status tree but I won't ramble through them.

It's funny but it's the people that aren't bothered about reaching the top in their society, are happy as they are. For example, I have neighbours that married when they were 21 the guy works in a factory and the woman works in Admin, they've been together over twenty years, still have the same job (probably always will) and are happy to save for their one holiday a year, watch their local football team each week and spend time with their friends. I asked the guy one day if he wanted to try for management or something as he's been their so long but he said he was happy as he was. And I believe him.

Your Materlistic Psychology is based on aspects of Western culture. I'm not saying it doesn't exsist but the majority of the world wasn't built on this type of evolution. A big chunk of the planet have no choice in who they marry whether they desire them or not.

As for physical evolution, it hasn't been scientifically proven after all, why haven't monkeys evolved?

I'm undecided about OBE's but some of Sharpe's assumptions are just that. Assumptions.

Excuse me while I suddenly interject on page 6 :roll: :-D

I don't really buy the materialistic psychology belief system (that's exactly what it is-just like every other one-different as they may be).I don't buy into social status-it may be the driving force of a lot of people, but it does NOT make you happier.Eg-I work part time & rent a room.I don't own a house, a car, a boat.I'm not at thew top rank in the company I work for by any means, yet I'm content & happy.If MP: were true, every wealthy rich & famous person on earth would be very very happy.Of course, they aren't: they kill themselves,they may be stupid as doornails, or belligerent, or greedy.

If materialistic psychology were true, there wouldn't be millions of people sorta like myself who are happy the way we are.I'm living proof that it's just wrong.
There's more than one way to view "the world".NOTHING is absolute.Not even the holy grails of science & religion.It's all just belief systems based on root assumptions.

eh Jason, I just said all of that in the post above yours! But thanks for backing it up.. I'm happy your happy :-D

Hisoka:

QuoteI've not followed the entire convo here, but I'll just jump in and be a prat and just react, if you don't all mind.
Now, Joe, how can the activity in the brain be ''just a reflection'' of what is in the mind or ''soul''? Where would this soul be then?

Hi Hisoka,

To butt in again, and offer solutions to problems posed to other people.....

As this thread has demonstrated before, Materialism, that doctine that states that mind is a product of brain (matter), has numerous strong qualities, since it seems to perfectly describe our apparently mechanical universe, and the fact that things which happen to our brain, such as a concussion, directly affect our consciousness; that would make sense, if the brain were producing our consciousness, no?

But, as I have shown in other posts, and in another parellel thread, though a theory, like Newtonian physics, can describe the real world in most cases, if there are exceptions and loopholes to this explanation, such as Relativisitic physics introduces and explains, then the theory is either incomplete, a mere approximation of what is actually occuring, or, looked at another way, and entirely invalid model of reality.

Now I am not saying Materialism is wrong, as no one has the authority to say so, but

1)It cannot explain instances, like project PEAR at princeton, when mind can apparently affect physical universe, or instances when it can gather information about it outside of senses, such as experiments like Charles Tart performed with Miss Z.

2)It does not address the "Hard problem of Consciousness", namely why a brain, a thing composed of matter, which is composed of dead things called atoms, can manifest awareness if organized in the proper fashion- it has been demonstated that if Materialism is true, and brains really can produce every aspect of a mind, including awareness, then machines such as computers could also be aware if built with enough complexity.

Now number one is strong, as it is built on a massive amount of anecdotal evidence, but if you choose to say that all of those individuals, many of them disciplined experts of their field in a labratory setting, all produced erroneous data, then I think number 2 is still enough to put a major roadblock in declaring Materialism fact, as Materialism can address how our brains produce cognition, and store memories, but not why we have an experience of thinking, or feeling. The brain, on the level we understand it, is a machine for gathering, storing, and transducing data in the form of chemical bonds and electrochemical signals, and neither data, nor the machines that handle data, should in any way experience that data.

On the location of a "soul":

No one said we had such a thing, or why if we did, it must have a spatial location; for example:

Imagine you are experiencing a virtual reality setting; you could ask yourself, "Where in this world am 'I' ?"
Now you can see the location of your representative body, but that doesn't really tell you where 'you' are, as you know this to only be an illusion to be in keeping with the virtual environment. 'You' actually do have a location, but it is one that transcends the virtual environment, so it is useless to describe that location in any refrence to the virtual environment.

Perhaps our awareness, which some call "soul" (I try to avoid the word as it is associated primarily with dualism) has the same relationship to our body that the person experiencing the virtual world has to their virual representation. Since our awareness may in fact transcend what our senses tell us is a physical world, what is the sense in looking for our mind "here or there"? Yes, our brains seem to account for most of our mental functions, but cannot account for all of them (such as awareness of experinece), so why is the mind necessarily there?

Don't make me cut and paste Chalmers again, lol.....

   Stillwater, I really appreciated your post, it conveys so well what I couldn't manage to put into words!

     

     I must disagree with you on one point though, you dislike the word soul because it is ascociated too readily with dualism. It is also possible to use the word comfortably in a monoistic model. If you consider the soul as our awareness, the percepts we recieve from the so called "real world," approach our soul from one side, while the concept is formed when we imbue the percept with thoughts. The concept and the percept are not exclusive, they are two parts of a whole. We wouldn't know an object without the concept of it, it would meet our senses, and the experience would end there. When we as concious beings contemplate an object, the percept and the concept reunite into the whole. Now, I hope I didn't massacre Rudolf Steiner's Philosophy of freedom too badly!

                                                     Joe.

Quote from: Sharpe
Oh for crying out loud, look at least I believe in things that fit together,

Exactly, you believe in things rather than proving them. You're all opinion and no fact.  Personally I don't believe in anything.

Quote from: Sharpe
if I would believe in dualism or idealism, nothing would be logical, you know why? Because anything that involves "non-programmable" entities, are gods

Weird, free will = deity.  That's a new one.

Quote from: Sharpe
and if gods can manifest their desires, there would be no need for evolution

You're hung up on an unproven theory

Quote from: Sharpe
Also, isn't it obvious our whole society is build on evolution?

Nope.

Quote from: Sharpe
It's impossible to ignore evolution in any theory about the mind.

There's that unproven theory again

Quote from: Sharpe
The whole universe is programmed.  And if you can't see it, open your bloody eyes.

Wow you're a God.  You can see 14 billion years into the past and into the farthest reaches of the universe.  You can see every single sub-atomic particle, the reasons for everything and even the meaning of life itself.  Or is this just your own personal opinion again?

Quote from: Sharpe
It's much easier to believe in this then to mess your brain up with wrong information that could jeopardize clarity, now THAT is dangerous.

Funny because that's exactly what you've done with your own brain, messed it up with wrong information.

Quote from: Sharpe
And I seriously don't get this part:  "I would ask you to stop using brains and neurons as a starting position for all of your arguments.  Many of us simply don't buy into these ideas so we will not agree with your conclusions.  Don't assume that the brain oozes thought like the liver oozes bile."

I'm not surprised.  Let me explain it for you.  You start from an unproven materialistic standpoint, which others don't agree with.  From this shaky standpoint you use sweeping arguments which are actually just your own opinions rather than any rational thought processes.  The result is an incomprehensible and unsupportable personal belief system which you call "logic" or "reality" or "obvious" or "things which fit together".  Your mind is so messed up with your own belief system you're incapabable of taking account of any opinions other than your own.  You are in fact guilty of the complete lack of clarity you accuse others of.

Quote from: Sharpe
Hell yeah! Let's do it!
Let's reject reality!
Then we come up with OUR theories, and we MAKE OUR OWN REALITY!!!
YIPPIE!!!

Erm, I think it's you who rejects reality.  Open your mind.

And about being happy with posessions.
I guess none of you has read status anxiety by Alain de Botton.
It's not about what you have, it's what your friends have (your equals).
If they don't have a car / boat, you don't feel happy if you get one, but you surely will feel happier because you are "higher" then your equals.

And catmeow, I understand you're angry because you can't win the discussion fair 'n square, but lying doesn't prove anything and your credibility has sunk to 0.
You see people, this is what humans do when their map feels threatened.
They say: "Nope" or "an unproven theory", that's called living in denial.
Now I feel sorry for catmeow but let's leave it alone, it needs to cool off. 
We're on a discussion board for heavens sake, come back to reality and stop flying around in your dreams!

QuoteYou see people, this is what humans do when their map feels threatened.
They say: "Nope" or "an unproven theory", that's called living in denial.

You do exactly the same thing...haha..

Yes, but my beliefs are reality, so I have authority to do so. Ha-ha.

Quote from: Sharpe
And catmeow, I understand you're angry because you can't win the discussion fair 'n square, but lying doesn't prove
anything and your credibility has sunk to 0.
You see people, this is what humans do when their map feels threatened.
They say: "Nope" or "an unproven theory", that's called living in denial.
Now I feel sorry for catmeow but let's leave it alone, it needs to cool off. 
We're on a discussion board for heavens sake, come back to reality and stop flying around in your dreams!

Don't flatter yourself.  I'm not in the slightest bit angry, and I think I won the argument easily. You're just too closed minded to see it.

You missed the point when I said "Personally I don't believe in anything".  By this I mean my mental map is agnostic.  Therefore it can not be threatened.  A point you clearly missed. 

If I deny you your fundamental assumptions (materialism, evolution), which as I keep saying are flawed, you have absolutely no answer.  "Nope" obviously hit a raw nerve with you.  Well that's good because it was intended to do just that. You think Nope is a lie?  Well "Nope" happens to be what I think, I disagree with your asumptions and because your belief system doesn't permit this I must therefore be lying.  Crazy...

You have no answer when challenged and resort to insults such as "your credibility has sunk to 0".  In fact I bet you don't even understand that you are being challenged to discuss your fundamental assumptions?  Do you?  So another point you missed. Your reply indicates lack of understanding.

Discussion board?  You haven't discussed anything yet, you just use this thread as a soap box for your own point of view whilst ignoring anything anyone else has to say.

Quote from: Sharpe
Yes, but my beliefs are reality, so I have authority to do so. Ha-ha.

Just proven my point....

Quote from: catmeow on September 01, 2007, 08:30:46
Don't flatter yourself.  I'm not in the slightest bit angry, and I think I won the argument easily. You're just too closed minded to see it.

You missed the point when I said "Personally I don't believe in anything".  By this I mean my mental map is agnostic.  Therefore it can not be threatened.  A point you clearly missed. 

If I deny you your fundamental assumptions (materialism, evolution), which as I keep saying are flawed, you have absolutely no answer.  "Nope" obviously hit a raw nerve with you.  Well that's good because it was intended to do just that. You think Nope is a lie?  Well "Nope" happens to be what I think, I disagree with your asumptions and because your belief system doesn't permit this I must therefore be lying.  Crazy...

You have no answer when challenged and resort to insults such as "your credibility has sunk to 0".  In fact I bet you don't even understand that you are being challenged to discuss your fundamental assumptions?  Do you?  So another point you missed. Your reply indicates lack of understanding.

Discussion board?  You haven't discussed anything yet, you just use this thread as a soap box for your own point of view whilst ignoring anything anyone else has to say.

Just proven my point....

Aww that's cute, it thinks it won.

For a while I was wondering what was going on here with our dear young flamer. :-o I thought for a while he was actually interested in a serious discussion about said subjects.  :roll: I soon realized that this was not the case. Now I have another problem........I have to categorize him. I think I lean toward ..........the last one .........Troller. What do you all think?  :wink:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/acne.htm

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/enfantprovocateur.htm

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troller.htm

And still..........maybe more Acne. Yea definitely Acne

Quote from: Sharpe replying to Lysear
Awww, that's cute!

Quote from: Sharpe replying to malganis
Yes, but my beliefs are reality, so I have authority to do so. Ha-ha.

Quote from: Sharpe replying to catmeow
Aww that's cute, it thinks it won

Please just keep digging yourself deeper... I love it...

Mustardseed, tough call, but don't forget  bong

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bong.htm (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bong.htm)

with a bit of acne of course...

Quote from: the voice of silence on August 23, 2007, 19:12:07Proof is in the experience and validating your own concrete claims.

Well said.

QuoteAnd about being happy with posessions.
I guess none of you has read status anxiety by Alain de Botton.
It's not about what you have, it's what your friends have (your equals).
If they don't have a car / boat, you don't feel happy if you get one, but you surely will feel happier because you are "higher" then your equals.

I don't think you've read the book yourself!
1st: It mainly applies to western culture
2nd: Read what he says about the people that don't experience status anxiety and why

Looks like your universal "obvious" theories are falling apart. Never mind son.   

You mean you guys actually stereotype people on the internet.
That means putting people in boxes, so you wouldn't need to discuss with them because you allready think you're better then them.

I know exactly what you guys are doing, so don't waste time on primitive discussion tactics.

Why is it that you guys want to know who I am and what I do, and attack me for that?
Isn't that irrelevant on the subject we're discussing.
It is true that you can not find a way to defend your beliefs.
Instead, you find a way to attack the person giving the opposite beliefs which is the desperate defend of your map, highly programmed and logical.

I did notice a great personality shift in most of you, however I do not want to go as far as to attack you all personally, some of us are better then that.

If I am attacked again towards my personality, it will only prove my point.

PS: I read status-anxiety twice.

Now, all I see here are a bunch of people suddenly using internet stereotypes on others. When it comes to a discussion, using such stamps = instant lose = a waste of time. To be frank... when one resorts to such childish antics, one is really diverting the issues at hand and trying to escape by looking smarter and better than the other one, by uniting under the flag of Insanity. And, to be frank again, I believe that anyone trying to categorize another person is mentally ill, and you really do need psychiatric help, or perhaps a local indian herb doctor... whatever is your cup of tea. Because, let's face it, Mustardseed: what you said makes you nothing less than a pussy, and I think you're afraid.

P.S I'm not attacking or flaming or w/e... just pointing out that I found it weak how some people apparently can't reply other than basically saying: 'Yeah, you said it! Now what to categorize him? Hmm... maybe a troll! How nice, yea!'

Why thank you "troll" haha, don't mind me I'm an acne guy!  :roll:

I think everyone needs to stop bickering, lol.


We have 5 pages of banter not even related to the topic, and it shows no signs of stopping.


This thread has formed its own subcultures! That is nothing short of a sociological marvel! :-D


There are now two camps organized around competing belief systems, and each poster seems to be strongly identifying themself with one of them, and defending against its offences!

We need to stop arguements against individual people; if this discussion is to generate anything useful, we must sepparate arguements and ideas from the people who made them, and analyze them on their own merits;furthermore, before anyone goes supporting their belief system, it is courteous to address the objections of the other side, otherwise the converstation will continue to circle as it has done for days. :roll:

Exactly.

My sentiments exactly, Stillwater. Sense at last.

Dear Stillwater
I expect that you have been following the thread. I think that what has happened, is that Sharpe has continued successfully hijacking the entire process, by stating a barrage of unsupported theories, masked as fact. He continues to state his points, though they have been addressed, in a very hostile way. This is called flaming. Most serious folks have grown weary of his antics, and are bound to leave this thread because of his attitude.

He naturally sees himself ,as a serious contender for the TRUTH, (as he sees it) and will follow people, that he does not appear to like, around in other threads, only to cause more contention with his abrasive comments, untill be is banned. This should not take long, at the rate he is going.

If he was interested in a serious conversation, or debate he would have engaged in one. Flamers are a very real thing in the internet community ,and the AP has had its share of them. They eventually leave, after they have been exposed for what they are.

Most people are here to discuss the experiences they have had, or aspire to have, and they see him for what he is, if not immediately then at least very soon after they have had a brush up against him.

Regards Mustardseed

Hi Mustardseed,

I understand where you are coming from, and have followed the thread from the beggining, and have seen the behavior you are describing; I also believe that if a person truly is disruptive, and repeats the same behavior, it is best to see it for what it is and pay it no attention, as doing so is an invitation for more of the same.

I do stand by what I said, in that it is best for the discussion if the focus is not on the individuals themselves involved, but rather what they have to say.

If what they say is of merit, then we respond accordingly; if it isn't, we courteously offer our counter-reasoning; if what they say is inane, or they repeat the same statements without reading what others have to say, they are probably not contributing and it is best to ignore them, without making reference.

When forum members begin posting comments about the character of other members, it is clear that control has been broken, no?

Please do not feel I am talking down to you, as I understand your position; I am merely stating my observation that both "sides" are acting rudely, and some reflection upon what has developed into a complicated social combat might be in order.

P.S. :

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/diplomat.htm (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/diplomat.htm)

This one looks like a role I seem to fill too often, lol; speaking vaguely, as you can see it suits me, I have seen examples of each of these "net personalities", and the majority of them do seem to have a close representative on this forum   :-P :-P :-P

Hey I didn't start calling people names I just wanted to discuss why my beliefs are better.
And I wasn't hijacking anything, you did a good job of making it seem that way.
If you look back, all my beliefs are supported, and I never see anyone here give a valid source except wikipedia.
Which is absolutely ridiculous, wikipedia isn't a real encyclopedia if you didn't knew that.
Everything I said about the brain can be found here: www.brainmind.com.
You could've researched that yourself.
Now, you have no option to accuse me of unsupported theories.
So drop it.

I thought I was gonna find resonable people on these forums that I can actually discuss these topics with.
But after the attack from catmeow, anyone would make a counter-attack.
The childish behaviour going on here is a great dissapointment.

And the stereotyping is even worse  :wink:.
I started out this topic with good intentions but when I said my beliefs, I got attacked saying I was too young or something. lmao

And then I was called young of age, after that I was called troll, then it followed up to acne or whatever.
I never accused anyone of being anything lol.

I merely wanted to point out that most of your beliefs can be explained by how good the brain is programmed.
OBE- no proof whatsoever.
I even asked one guy to take the Randi challenge, no, according to him the challenge was a hoax.
And after that *no response*.
Well then, do something with it, why not prove to everyone by putting a card on a high position in your house without looking at it and then just AP and look at the card. If the card is right while AP'ing you are right it exists. (I read this experiment somewhere)
This seems like a good experiment.

So untill you can prove it, everything you say is unsupported and unsourced bogus.
See, I nailed it without stereotyping anyone, because I don't need to.

wow this topic has gone on a tangent :(

it seems the maps of either side of the argument feel threatened.

that card experiement is one I will DEFINATELY be trying out when I become more advanced at AP.

I understand the brain is incredibly powerful and could theoretically create these scenarios we believe to be external from the mind. I also understand that there IS more to existence than the physical world and science cannot prove or disprove that because science cannot measure it therefore science disbelieves it because science CANNOT believe it.

thus is our existential quandry.

One might believe the experiences of an astral projector are subjective due to the nature of the astral realm... leaving no room for solid "proof" on account of ones experience but certainly a very real experience to the individual. The correlations of these experiences with other projectors are vast but with no way for it to be measured scientifically this still doesnt amount to "proof" although it certainly validates the experiences for the individuals. Arguing for the scientific side saying that "due to the information a prospective projector has recieved about what the experience is supposed to contain the subconcious creates it accordingly" does not explain isolated cases. The power of the subconcious mind is more than enough to create a scenario of astral projection but has science pinpointed the how and why? How specifically does using exit techniques for astral projection produce the same symptoms (and subjective experiences) in over 90% of projectors (my own rough estimate)... the power of suggestion alone is an unacceptable argument due to isolated cases having the same symptoms and experiences. This is a huge question that science is yet to answer and this factor MUST be taken into account when dealing with this issue no matter which side of the argument you are on. To disregard the subjective experiences of many, many people including isolated cases that have vast positive correlations because science hasnt found a way to measure with a physical instrument taht which is non-physical (a seemingly impossible task) seems a bit closed minded. I would love to know the science behind it but maybe there isnt any per se.

Going deeper into the experience side of things in regards to the experiment with the card...
if one could complete the experiment with 100% accuracy this would make the experience objective.
Thus giving "proof" to the existence of Astral Projection as being real and external from the mind.
Im positive people have done numerous validations like this one but as soon as I become more advanced at AP (be it in my mind or not) I will certainly be undergoing this experiment as I would like to verify it for myself.

I Believe the odds are stacked firmly against science in a couple of ways.
Sharpe I checked out www.brainmind.com and I must say its a very extensive resource! thanks for the link :) I would also like to add that if you want to try and understand this or ascertain its validity...

Give it a go for yourself. You wont be dissapointed.

Sharpe you joined this thread with a complete nonsense statement

Quote from: Sharpe
Put it like this: Science is truth / reality.
Paranormal and any other phenomena not proven = 100% chance it doesn't exist, because it was made up by man in the past to form a philosophy on the "truth", obviously we know the truth now so there's no use into believing in any kind of mumbo-jumbo.

After that you stereotyped us with:

Quote from: Sharpe
Believing in these stuff is a simple model for an unintelligent human being to find a way to achieve a clarity of the universe

Most of you probably didn't achieve a high status in our societies status-hiërarchy.
And are trying to find a way to still achieve a status because human's psychologicly want to have a higher status

Then you announced that you were more educated than us:

Quote from: Sharpe
And I think I proved my point of being more educated than you

And at every juncture, you refuse to answer your questioners.  Instead of answering a  question you simply dismiss it as if it is beneath you, in a very patronising and hostile fashion, effectively ignoring it:

Quote from: Sharpe
The brain DOES fill the gap, and if you ACTUALLY think you go out of your body, go do something usefull with it, punk...

Your arguments are based on unsafe assumptions. They also don't make any sense. Your conclusions are just your own personal opinions masquerading as "logic":

Quote from: Sharpe
You could take as example: how high is your status amongst your equals: 00001 = lowest, 11111 is highest for example.
And the same trick with the serotonin, this probably makes more sense.
But maybe if you make it precise, the serotonin is 01111 with people that are the alpha males in most groups.
But if you are a king or you rule the world or whatever, you are the ultra alpha male (I made that up xD), so this would give you the highest possible serotonin release = 11111.
Because if we know there's someone better than us, we can't accept all serotonin, however if we know we're the king of kings, we give ourselves permission to receive the whole thing (serotonin).

You have no time for anyone's opinion other than your own.  As Mustardseed put it this is called "flaming". Eventually people become tired of this behaviour and begin to respond in a negative fashion.  What do you expect? 

If You walked into a bar in Cricklewood (an Irish community) and shouted "All Irish are thick", and "I'm more educated than you" etc, you'd get a very sobering response, probably ending in hospitalisation. This is effectively what you did here.  So you got a few personal comments?  Small potatos compared with what would happen to you in the real world.

You need to grow up, learn some social skills and get out into the real world on a Saturday night instead of slumping over a keyboard.

PS Mez - thanks for an intelligent post and re-directing this thread back on track.

Hey I just read your last posts, and the latest 12 are all attacking me.
Thank you for giving me such attention.
I do not know what I did to PO you, but I can assure you that everything I say, except this post:

"Put it like this: Science is truth / reality.
Paranormal and any other phenomena not proven = 100% chance it doesn't exist, because it was made up by man in the past to form a philosophy on the "truth", obviously we know the truth now so there's no use into believing in any kind of mumbo-jumbo."

(Which you have mentioned, repeatedly)
Is pretty much very close to the truth.

Now I'm not going to say anything about your ESP experiences but let's keep this easy here.
I have nothing to prove, you however, have no business telling me I'm wrong unless you can prove it.
Prove it, and stop blabbering about me personally because you don't know me.
Can't you see your own human mistakes here?
You try to find anything personally about me, then you attack me with it.
Primitive discussion tactics.
Lawyers use it every day, but that isn't related to this topic is it?
And lol, you say I started flaming right?
Didn't you notice your first attack calling ME uneducated?
Nailed. -This conversation is over-

And Mez, I would love to hear your results about that test, you know my beliefs, and if you pull that test off, I would need to recalculate my whole map of reality. Which I think is fun, because althought I might say that most of what I believe is reality like I said on that post that catmeow mentioned, repeatedly.
It would be awesome if there is an afterlife. Not that I see the point of it...

Quote from: Sharpe on September 02, 2007, 09:02:26
And Mez, I would love to hear your results about that test, you know my beliefs, and if you pull that test off, I would need to recalculate my whole map of reality.

Hi Sharpe

The playing card experiment was successfully 'pulled off' by me a few years ago.  Here is the relevant post:

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_the_astral_faq/the_playing_card_experiment-t18497.0.html

The trouble with this is that you don't know me from Adam and there would always be doubt in your mind as to whether I cheated or made it all up.  In addition, you might also say that to prove it scientifically, it would need to be done numerous times.  Even then, if I told you that I'd successfully done it 17 times (for instance), you still are left with that doubt as to my integrity.

So in a nutshell, the best way to obtain proof is to experience it directly yourself.  And to do this, you need to suspend any belief/disbelief you have about said subject.   :-)

Sarah

P.S.  Oh and just because I have had many OBEs, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is an afterlife - in my opinion.

Well I wouldn't call it succesfully pulled off, but why didn't you check the card in your pocket while AP'ing?
And you had 2 suits correct right? That means you had a chance of 4 to 1, 4 to 1, meaning 16 to 1 chance right? So how did you get 500 to 1?

Anyways about the afterlife thing, If everyone actually did have free-will and every human being was a free spirit, it would mean that there should be an afterlife because it's logical that the body would only be a tool.

I may try AP just to try out some experiments, but my beliefs more or less stay the same.
Thanks for your post though, I knew I read that experiment somewhere but I couldn't find it. :-D

QuoteI may try AP just to try out some experiments, but my beliefs more or less stay the same.
Thanks for your post.

There! The human condition ;)

I am glad you can at least entertain possibilities- that is what this site is all about.

Hi Sharpe

The trouble with OBEs is there is much speculation as to whether they occur in the physical realm or not. 

Most folks who have the "classic" OBE (where they find themselves in their own bedroom) find that the room is 'not quite right' in that a door is in the wrong place or an extra window is on one wall. 

This makes sense with the playing card experiment.  My belief (and understand it is a belief, not a known fact) is that when we project into the etheric world, it is not physical in the least, but because we perceive it to be, we assume certain things and can literally "create" a physical world overlay on top of another world, if that makes sense.

For instance, what I saw was the Jack of Spades in the astral.  But because of certain (dis)beliefs that this experiment was even possible, I subconsciously made it harder for myself by putting a blue 'A' in the way, thereby potentially making me question/abort the whole experience.

The fact that I stuck with it and checked it out was proof to me.  I'm totally sure myself of my own experience - I know I cannot share it fully with you or anyone else, for you would have to experience it yourself to know what I mean.

Therefore, I'm happy with what I've experienced.  Whether it's "real" or not is beside the point, in my opinion.  We could argue for the rest of eternity whether something is "real", "factual" or "truth".  It doesn't matter, from my point of view.  I've come to the conclusion that if you choose beliefs that make you happy, that makes for a smiley life.  :-)

Curious about something you said...

QuoteIf everyone actually did have free-will and every human being was a free spirit, it would mean that there should be an afterlife because it's logical that the body would only be a tool

What do you mean by 'free-will', 'free spirit' and 'logical that the body would only be a tool'?

As an aside (and a lovely experiment if you've never done it) - take yourself outside of being human and imagine yourself as an alien looking down on planet earth.  Imagine what humans think.  Then imagine what robins think.  Then worms.  Then moles.  And so on.  If you can do this (while meditating is even better), it can give you huge insights to our world, especially from a non-human source.

Sarah

Quote from: Sharpe on September 02, 2007, 15:05:13
Well I wouldn't call it succesfully pulled off, but why didn't you check the card in your pocket while AP'ing?
And you had 2 suits correct right? That means you had a chance of 4 to 1, 4 to 1, meaning 16 to 1 chance right? So how did you get 500 to 1?

Just to clarify, you are talking about TVOS's experience, not mine.  Mine was the post above, the Jack of Spades post, the One Off.  :-D

Sarah

Oh excuse me about that lol.
I really get stuck on the part where you say that if it isn't real, this "etheric" plane you are talking about.
Because the way TVOS described it sounds awfully close to a lucid dream.

And if you can change or bend the reality in that realm it would be difficult if there were more people inside that realm.
Wouldn't there be a conflict on how everything should look like inside that world?

"What do you mean by 'free-will', 'free spirit' and 'logical that the body would only be a tool'?"
Well, if everyone had a spirit, this would break down the materialistic thought about the brain.
And these spirits would have free will, free to think whatever they wanted, which we humans don't have (that's why I doubt, OBE's).
And because the spirit is the main source of where the information and consciousness is stored, this would make the body including the brain a tool.
And if the body dies, the spirit would move on to the world which you speak of.
Unless the spirit can also die, if that's the case, all of the above doesn't matter.

By the way: "I've come to the conclusion that if you choose beliefs that make you happy, that makes for a smiley life."

I love what you said here, but I always say to myself that there are better things I can do than just being happy for the rest of my life. :|

I like your response, and I'm the type to go away and think about it for a while.  I'm quite a simple-minded being, and non-technical or scientific, so forgive me if my response is a tad 'basic'.

My first impression is that you assume quite a bit - such as 1 + 1 = 2.  There's nothing wrong with that, but it's quite a 'black and white' view of the world, which won't help if you want to pratice AP.

You also used the word 'better' more than once in your posts.  I'm curious to know what is 'better' than living a happy life.  I'm not being argumentative - just curious to know what you term 'better'.

Sarah

PS  Please understand I'm not looking for a fight, but trying to understand your way of thinking.  If I can't understand, then at least to accept it as your way of thinking.

Haha, well I just want to know the truth, black and white is how I like to see things because it gives control.
But it immensely jeopardizes happiness.
Because in some way I think, we aren't supposed to know the truth.
And to know the truth we need to ignore any human feelings.
Just like what you said about the alien observation, looking at things from a different point of view changes everything.

My strongest belief is that humans are fully programmed organisms, that do what they are programmed to do.
I do know that this is probably the case but I don't fully "get" it, just like mathematics.
For instance, I got angry at some people in this topic but I also know that I shouldn't be angry because it's just a program in my brain.
That's why I don't fully *get* it.

And unless I can view humans as programmed entities, I never will.

How about you, what are your beliefs?

Quote from: Sharpe on September 02, 2007, 16:43:33
Haha, well I just want to know the truth, black and white is how I like to see things because it gives control.
But it immensely jeopardizes happiness.

You're spot on with that. The whole subject of brain maps and programs fits in very well with what you've just said and Im forever making that exact observation of my gf's dad. If she does something that isnt in accordance with his map (of how he thinks she should act) his immediate response is reacting to control, the sponsoring thought of the desire (or need) to control is fear. Fear = unhappiness.

This is a model which applies to humanity pretty much the world over with one exception... (maybe theres more?? idk bout that though)

that exception being yoga. Im not talking about the form of excersice because that is only one form of yoga known as hatha yoga and its basically a pepatory stage for Raja yoga. Excluding Hatha yoga there are 4 main forms of yoga these are Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Raja Yoga.

Im about to explain my main point which is explained very clearly in the Bhagavad Gita. (these qoutes are from *coughs* wikipedia but I am only citing them from there for convenience. If you want to look into this further I suggest you go here http://www.krishna.com/node/915 where you can find the Bhagavad Gita as an audio book. Bear in mind its 5000 years old and was spoken supposedly from Krishna who was an incarnation of god. These are the people who gave us the term "Chakra" so to me their words hold some serious weight.)

Karma Yoga:

"Karma yoga focuses on the adherence to duty (dharma) while remaining detached from the reward"

Jnana Yoga:

"In the Bhagavad Gita (13.3) Krishna says that jnana consists of properly understanding kshetra (the field of activity--that is, the body) and kshetra-jna (the knower of the body--that is, the soul). Later in the Gita (13.35) Krishna emphasizes that a transcendentalist must understand the difference between these two

Jnana yoga teaches that there are four means to salvation (transcendance):

Viveka - Discrimination: The ability to differentiate between what is real/eternal (Brahman) and what is unreal/temporal (everything else in the universe.)
Vairagya - Dispassion: After practice one should be able to "detach" her/himself from everything that is "temporary."
Shad-sampat - The 6 Virtues: Tranquility (control of the mind), Dama (control of the senses), Uparati (renunciation of activities that are not duties), Titiksha (endurance), Shraddha (faith), Samadhana (perfect concentration).
Mumukshutva - Intense longing for liberation from temporal limitations."

Bhakti Yoga:

"Bhakti yoga is a term within Hinduism which denotes the spiritual practice of fostering loving devotion to God, called bhakti"

Raja Yoga:

"Raja yoga is concerned principally with the cultivation of the mind using meditation (dhyana) to further one's acquaintance with reality and finally achieve liberation.

It is also sometimes referred to as ashtanga (eight-limbed) yoga because there are eight aspects to the path to which one must attend

The eight limbs of Ashtanga Yoga are:

Yama - Code of conduct - self-restraint
Niyama - religious observances - commitments to practice, such as study and devotion
Āsana - integration of mind and body through physical activity
Pranayama - regulation of breath leading to integration of mind and body
Pratyahara - abstraction of the senses, withdrawal of the senses of perception from their objects
Dharana - concentration, one-pointedness of mind
Dhyana - meditation (quiet activity that leads to samadhi)
Samadhi - the quiet state of blissful awareness, superconscious state "

Basically what it is all about is a perfectly balanced mind. Krishna makes a point that people who know the absolute truth of the universe (in his humble opinion) understand there is no need to be attached to anything for they understand that their bodies are temporary and so is the physical universe and so on and so forth... He says one who has a perfectly balanced mind feels no need to lament when something bad happens and no need to rejoice when something good happens.

In this model of human existance there is no room for fear. No fear = No unhappiness.

Before I knew anything about hinduism I kinda looked at it in a funny way being tottally ignorant.
Now that i've come to understand (as I may) and believe all that I do...
I have adopted this as my philosophy (only quite recently, my map is still adjusting) and it is my firm belief
I must say it has given me a startling amount of clarity in any given situation and I have definately experienced FARRR less unhappiness.

Quote from: Sharpe on September 02, 2007, 16:43:33
How about you, what are your beliefs?

Hi Sharpe

I believe in endless possibilities.  And in all the various shades of grey between black and white.  :wink:

Sarah

Quote from: Mez on September 02, 2007, 20:11:30
You're spot on with that. The whole subject of brain maps and programs fits in very well with what you've just said and Im forever making that exact observation of my gf's dad. If she does something that isnt in accordance with his map (of how he thinks she should act) his immediate response is reacting to control, the sponsoring thought of the desire (or need) to control is fear. Fear = unhappiness.

This is a model which applies to humanity pretty much the world over with one exception... (maybe theres more?? idk bout that though)

that exception being yoga. Im not talking about the form of excersice because that is only one form of yoga known as hatha yoga and its basically a pepatory stage for Raja yoga. Excluding Hatha yoga there are 4 main forms of yoga these are Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Raja Yoga.

Im about to explain my main point which is explained very clearly in the Bhagavad Gita. (these qoutes are from *coughs* wikipedia but I am only citing them from there for convenience. If you want to look into this further I suggest you go here http://www.krishna.com/node/915 where you can find the Bhagavad Gita as an audio book. Bear in mind its 5000 years old and was spoken supposedly from Krishna who was an incarnation of god. These are the people who gave us the term "Chakra" so to me their words hold some serious weight.)

Karma Yoga:

"Karma yoga focuses on the adherence to duty (dharma) while remaining detached from the reward"

Jnana Yoga:

"In the Bhagavad Gita (13.3) Krishna says that jnana consists of properly understanding kshetra (the field of activity--that is, the body) and kshetra-jna (the knower of the body--that is, the soul). Later in the Gita (13.35) Krishna emphasizes that a transcendentalist must understand the difference between these two

Jnana yoga teaches that there are four means to salvation (transcendance):

Viveka - Discrimination: The ability to differentiate between what is real/eternal (Brahman) and what is unreal/temporal (everything else in the universe.)
Vairagya - Dispassion: After practice one should be able to "detach" her/himself from everything that is "temporary."
Shad-sampat - The 6 Virtues: Tranquility (control of the mind), Dama (control of the senses), Uparati (renunciation of activities that are not duties), Titiksha (endurance), Shraddha (faith), Samadhana (perfect concentration).
Mumukshutva - Intense longing for liberation from temporal limitations."

Bhakti Yoga:

"Bhakti yoga is a term within Hinduism which denotes the spiritual practice of fostering loving devotion to God, called bhakti"

Raja Yoga:

"Raja yoga is concerned principally with the cultivation of the mind using meditation (dhyana) to further one's acquaintance with reality and finally achieve liberation.

It is also sometimes referred to as ashtanga (eight-limbed) yoga because there are eight aspects to the path to which one must attend

The eight limbs of Ashtanga Yoga are:

Yama - Code of conduct - self-restraint
Niyama - religious observances - commitments to practice, such as study and devotion
Āsana - integration of mind and body through physical activity
Pranayama - regulation of breath leading to integration of mind and body
Pratyahara - abstraction of the senses, withdrawal of the senses of perception from their objects
Dharana - concentration, one-pointedness of mind
Dhyana - meditation (quiet activity that leads to samadhi)
Samadhi - the quiet state of blissful awareness, superconscious state "

Basically what it is all about is a perfectly balanced mind. Krishna makes a point that people who know the absolute truth of the universe (in his humble opinion) understand there is no need to be attached to anything for they understand that their bodies are temporary and so is the physical universe and so on and so forth... He says one who has a perfectly balanced mind feels no need to lament when something bad happens and no need to rejoice when something good happens.

In this model of human existance there is no room for fear. No fear = No unhappiness.

Before I knew anything about hinduism I kinda looked at it in a funny way being tottally ignorant.
Now that i've come to understand (as I may) and believe all that I do...
I have adopted this as my philosophy (only quite recently, my map is still adjusting) and it is my firm belief
I must say it has given me a startling amount of clarity in any given situation and I have definately experienced FARRR less unhappiness.

Well, I don't know Mez, I read the whole Krishna thing.
But, in my opinion, the universe is build on logic, so you need to turn off your feelings to grasp the actual truth instead of the wrong ones, any feeling will bend the logic the wrong way, the way you want it to go subconsciously.
We believe what we want to believe instead of the truth imo.

Some feelings are to die for in a human point of view, however with an "alien" (:wink:) point of view, it is just a chemical released in your brain.
That's why I think happiness is just an illusion.

 Hi Sharpe, thanks for the link www.brainmind.com , that's a good one.

from wikipedia "theoretical physics "
"Modern theoretical physics attempts to unify theories and explain phenomena in further attempts to understand the Universe, from the cosmological to the elementary particle scale. Where experimentation cannot be done, theoretical physics still tries to advance through the use of mathematical models. "

A famous example is the discovery of how to detect black holes by Stephen Hawking. When black holes were purely theory, Hawking created a model that predicted that black holes actually emit x-rays from the event horizon. As a result, black holes are now detected and are a scientific fact.

"Where experimentation cannot be done"

I recommend that you start with the basics, as you would in any field of study. (IE, jumping directly to the advanced course might not help.)

The investigation of hypnogogic imagery      (setting aside the subject of audio atm (sounds of beautiful chorus and polyphonic symphony.)
With the modern advancements in 3D graphics, we know that all imagery can be described mathematically and in terms of geometry. (described but not necessarily explained, but it's a start) In my work, I use a 3D engine as a visualization tool, and hope to be able to create emulations of this experience as a form of visual documentation.

We start with the mental practice that enables us to make observation of what appears to be "imagery from another world".
Instead of using the word, "meditation" lets say for example, "mental/brain concentration exercise" instead.

While in good health and with a clear respiratory system, find a quite room, and sit in a comfortable reclining chair.

Practice relaxing the body, releasing tension in the muscles, and with eyes closed, focus attention to the visual field.
When you do this, you naturally focus on the area between the brows.

Quiesce the mind and ignore the inner chatter until it's as quiet as possible. For example, similar to reading without mentally vocalizing the words.

Eventually ( as in my experience, taking years of practice) you will notice that the blank visual field takes on a 3D void appearance.
Imagery begins to form in the void, beginning with vague cloud like donut shapes, to vivid sharp and detailed natural looking cloud formations. (Why are clouds in the sky so fascinating?)
My observation is that the cloud imagery is not from memory of clouds I've seen, rather that the mind is visualizing the geometry of mental structures that are derived from the same fractal like expressions that result in actual cloud formations in nature.

That's the beginning.

With regular and routine practice, observation of imagery that exceeds the beauty and creativity of most artwork can be seen in vivid detail, from the indescribable intricate multi color textured abstracts to scenes of majestic forests populated with an endless variety of plants.

At times the imagery takes on a technical theme, and geometry of architecture and unusual machines can be seen.

As you progress, you will eventually be able to "step" into these scenes and explore with high Fidelity, while maintaining full memory and lucid consciousness.

And, this is sort of the first step.

Where does the imagery come from?
I could say that this is created individually by my brain in isolation, or that I could be seeing something that we all share on a quantum level for example.
Based on the theory that synaptic processes depend on quantum functions to solve the sense of perseption.

A note on hypnagogic imagery and audio  : in the diagnosis of schizophrenia, hallucination symptoms are "Aside from hypnogogic and hypnopompic hallucinations"
In my case, this never happens spontaneously, and requires a deliberate initiation of a process to achieve this state. So, no, I'm not hallucinating as a result of mental illness.

- I V

Quote from: iNNERvOYAGER on September 03, 2007, 15:14:19
I could say that this is created individually by my brain in isolation, or that I could be seeing something that we all share on a quantum level for example.

Have you read Franks phasing resource?

Focus 2 is your subconcious and anything you create from that is created by your brain in isolation but going further Focus 3 becomes once again (like Focus 1 (physical)) a common consensus reality "something that we all share on a quantum level".

The 3D blackness or that void is halfway between F2 and F3 so you could use it to access either.

Quote from: Mez on September 03, 2007, 19:01:57
Have you read Franks phasing resource?

Yeah, I like to refere to that when people talk about the fear of "going out of the body"
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_obe_discussions/danger_of_oobe_or_lucid_dreaming-t26718.0.html;msg222124#msg222124

This thread starts with an article about a research project of tactile sensory disassociation with the help of VR goggle monitors.

The problem is caused by an ignorant journalist, Andy Coghlan, making off the wall assumptions and conclusions about the research.

"Out-of-body experiences are 'all in the mind' 19:00 23 August 2007 NewScientist.com news service, Andy Coghlan.

I was just trying to explain to Sharpe that it's not realistic to begin learning about a subject by jumping to the most advanced part, and that I'm suggesting to begin with the basics first. The first part of my post follows along with Frank's description of how you start the basics of phasing, and relating my personal experiences.

What are your personal experiences in regards to Frank's description of phasing?

i found franks resource to be rather enlightening... after my first AP I got the feeling that I didnt really go out of my body but I also knew it wasnt a dream and that I had a level of waking conciousness throughout. This means I had to be somewhere but I didnt know where... in light of what frank said I was probably projecting to Focus 2. Ive never really tried phasing as such (the whole 3D blackness thing) but I am super keen to give it a go.

As for going "out" of the body the idea of overlays (in the RTZ case a F1/F3 overlay) is rather interesting and certainly IMHO very valid.

Anyone can say OBEs are all in the mind (and that you dont really go out of the body) but if you look closely at what frank says about Focus 4 (kinda like the source of it all?) technically we may think we are physically moving about all day long but we never actually go ANYWHERE... its all in our mind.

QuoteHaha, well I just want to know the truth, black and white is how I like to see things because it gives control.
But it immensely jeopardizes happiness.
Because in some way I think, we aren't supposed to know the truth.
And to know the truth we need to ignore any human feelings.

So you are basically a hard core analytical type...(not bashing, simply making an observation). In my experience, the world is not black and white. It is more like one giant gradient scale of grey. Truth and fact are not the same thing; truth is highly subjective.

Would you agree that we live in a world of duality/polarity? One thing cannot exist in this world without co-existing with its opposite. You can't have hot without having cold. North doesn't exist without south. Up and down are inseperable. The truth is that these opposites exist quite harmoniously in the world (assuming humans don't mess with them). The opposite of logic is emotion. Anyone who is emotional is never logical and vice-versa. I don't believe 'the truth' can be found in living by one to the exclusion of the other. I think 'the truth' is that both are needed in balance to truly live life.

Now, you can raise the issue, as you have also done, that happiness (and I'm assuming other emotions as well) are all an illusion. This is not a new concept. Indian's refer to it as maya. They consider this world an illusion. Pain and happiness are simply illusions. I agree with some of this concept, but not most of it.

QuoteBut, in my opinion, the universe is build on logic, so you need to turn off your feelings to grasp the actual truth instead of the wrong ones, any feeling will bend the logic the wrong way, the way you want it to go subconsciously.
We believe what we want to believe instead of the truth imo.

I think belief and truth are closely linked. Something is true for you because you believe it. Wanting to believe something doesn't make it true. You don't believe in OBE's, therefore they aren't true for you. However, OBEs are very true to me because I've experienced them. Because of those experiences, I believe in these types of experiences. Although I don't believe every experience I've read, and there have been a number of them that contradict my own experiences. I only go with my own experiences because those are the only ones I can really judge. As a result, my beliefs are constantly adjusting as my experiences expand.

Now all of the people on this board could make post upon post of their own experiences and why they believe OBEs are real. But I doubt you would believe a single one of them. Why? Because you've never experienced anything like then, therefore you don't believe they're true. I know I didn't believe any of this stuff before I had my own experiences. And like Selski's suggested several times, if it is something you want proof of, you need to look no further than the person looking back at you in the mirror.

Regardless of the 'proof' anyone here provides, the only thing you should put your faith in is what you yourself experience. Otherwise, its too easy to let beliefs run rampant and take control of logic. This is one of the reasons why I think logic and emotion are partners in life. Without logic, life is chaotic and rampant. Without emotions, life is grey and hollow. However, if the two are happily married...  :wink:

Just a few thoughts!

Look pal, I don't know what you're trying to say here, but you can look at reality in any way you want.
The point is not how YOU look at it, the point is how it is.
It always will stay the same, yes there may be 2 poles, but it's easier to look at them with 1's and 0's then to illogicly add the grey part with it.
And in the end it will only lead to reality being 1.
Emotions are always what they are and what they will be, a program to guide us to what evolution desires of us.
Now unless you can look above that, I do not wish to believe anything you are saying even if my feelings say to do so because you use such poem in your writings.
This, I know is just a feeling an emotion given to grasp the same knowledge from movies which is exactly the way you are communicating.
If a movie has a message it will use a close up with strong and hope-full words to give a message to the viewer.
This is what society has thought me, but what reality has thought me is more important.
It thought me that everything is crystal clear and that folks wisdom just complicate things.
If everything isn't clear and it's grey somewhere in the middle, what's the point?
I'm not going to believe it just so I can have the feeling of security, that everything is under control, because it's not.
And that's fine with me, because this gives you the oppertunity to DO everything you want, without thinking of morals and if something is good or bad.
It's just the feelings that limit it.
In the end, there is no good or bad, if good is helping someone else out, I think that's the most hypocritical thing ever.
You act like you are against using people, but you use them to make yourself look good in their eyes.
Just to increase your prestige towards people.
And the funny part is, this isn't done consciously, it's all unconscious behaviour.

Now I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, just thought I had to get this off my back, don't blame me, I'm programmed this way.

Actually this is very much like some Hindues argue. They kall it Karma. In other words Fatalism. I am what I am I cannot and will not fight against it. I will do what I want to do whatever my fancy is, and I am not really responsible.......I am programmed this way.

This seems to advocate a common disregard for social rules, norms, and cultural codes, as well as a almost impulsive behavior, and indifference to the rights and feelings of others. Would you say that you believe that this is a good thing.

Regards Mustardseed

Hi Sharpe

Quote from: Sharpebut you can look at reality in any way you want.
The point is not how YOU look at it, the point is how it is

This is a tricky one, because personally I believe that the point IS how you look at it, not how it is.  Actually, to be honest, I don't believe there is a POINT to anything at all, but that's a different discussion...  :-P

If I may, I'll give you an example.

Let's take two children brought up in different households.  Let's look at their lives pre-nursery school (or pre-kindergarten if you are American).

Joe is brought up in a very hateful atmosphere.  He is regularly beaten, abused and has never experienced affection or love.  He learns to fight for attention, to cheat, sneak and lie, as that is what he sees his parents doing.  It is natural for him.  When he gets to school age, he will believe that every family is like his, it's as natural as breathing.  It's all he knows.  It is reality.  Truth.  Fact.

Jim is brought up in a very loving atmosphere.  His parents show him affection, care and attention, without mollycoddling him.  He learns to listen, smile and be happy as that is what he sees his parents doing.  It is natural for him.  When he gets to school age, he will believe that every family is like his, it's as natural as breathing.  It's all he knows.  It is reality.  Truth.  Fact.

What is the actual Truth?  It is neither, but it is one or the other for each child.

The Truth we know can only be based on the experiences we have had so far in our lives (in my opinion).  My Truth before I had ever heard of/experienced OBEs was that I doubted they existed.  Luckily, I've always been open to possibilities and perhaps because of this openness/curiousity, I was able to project.

Truth is a very very moot subject.  So many people wail, "I just want the Truth!"  My belief is there isn't such a thing as One Truth - there are billions and billions and billions of truths - my truth, your truth, Novice's truth, Mustardseed's truth, Mez's truth, etc., etc., etc.

Quote from: SharpeThis is what society has thought me, but what reality has thought me is more important.
It thought me that everything is crystal clear and that folks wisdom just complicate things.
If everything isn't clear and it's grey somewhere in the middle, what's the point?
I'm not going to believe it just so I can have the feeling of security, that everything is under control, because it's not.

I'd love to know what you mean by crystal clear.  What's the point of it being crystal clear?  Actually, I'd love to hear what IS the point in your opinion.  :-)

I like the idea of everything NOT being under control.  I'd love for the universe to be one big random chaos thing - that means anything could happen next, which I find exciting.  I suppose this is to do with my beliefs in endless possibilities - the reason I believe this is because it makes me happy  :-D

Quote from: SharpeDon't blame me, I'm programmed this way

This is a cracking quote.  Many years ago, my ex-hubby and I used to go down the pub, have a few drinks and have conversations about life and what it means, all that usual pub stuff.  He came up with a theory that everyone can only be themselves, there is no free-will.  We discussed it for hours, as I felt it was flawed in some way, however I couldn't put my finger on the flaw.  We even discussed the fact that anyone who murders or rapes is excused from the crime because they were always meant to be that way - it wasn't their fault if you like.  The reason I couldn't put my finger on the flaw is because the theory is a clever little circle that you can't break - it always comes back to "you can only be you, you will only ever do what you are supposed to do"

Your quote reminded me of this.  What are your thoughts on after/before life.  If you say you are programmed, does this mean that you believe someone/something has programmed you, or did you programme yourself before you landed on this earthly realm?  Again, just curious as to your views.  As you know, I believe in endless possibilities so whatever you say is most likely going to be of interest to me.

The trouble with saying that you KNOW the Truth and the rest of us can believe what the hell we like leaves little or no room for discussion.  Which is a shame because this is a discussion forum, to share views/opinions and listen to others.  After a while, members will become frustrated with your "all-knowing" attitude and will either attack or make fun of you, as you have experienced.  And the added problem is that the subjects we discuss here tend to be subjective and based on personal experience, which is not like joining a discussion forum about whether a chair is a chair is a chair...  :-)  You will always get different views/opinions/facts/truths. 

One of our most respected members, Frank, claimed he knew the Truth, above all else.  For me, when someone starts talking like that, I tend to switch off and it has the knock-on effect of disbelieving everything they have ever said/will say, which is a shame.  However, that is most likely because of my upbringing and the experiences I have had thus far in my life.  Or it might that I am programmed that way!  :wink:

Sarah

First off Sharpe, take a deep breath and calm down.

Apparently I was unclear in what I was saying, so let me try it again.

QuoteLook pal, I don't know what you're trying to say here, but you can look at reality in any way you want.
The point is not how YOU look at it, the point is how it is.

By "the point" I'm assuming you mean reality? If so, then I disagree with this statement. Reality, fact and truth are not the same things. What I was trying to explain was pretty much what Sarah put into concrete examples with Jim and Joe. Reality is what you perceive it to be. To take this further, if you put Jim and Joe, with their backgrounds as Sarah described them, into the exact same situation as an adult, they will react differently. Not because the situation is different, because their perception of it, based on their own history/experiences is different.

QuoteI'm not going to believe it just so I can have the feeling of security, that everything is under control, because it's not.

If you re-read my post you will notice several times I mentioned not believing what you read just because you read it somewhere. In fact in the last paragraph of my initial post, I said NOT to believe anything you read about this stuff until you can prove or disprove it for yourself. I have never and will never suggest someone "take my word" on something like this.


Lastly, Sarah is correct about this being a discussionforum. You mentioned elsewhere that you came here to discuss these things. Yet, when someone presents their own views, you stomp them down without considering them. That isn't discussion. Additionally, most of the topics on this forum are about things that can be neither proved nor disproved with science. Its all a matter of belief. And you are free to disagree as much as you want.

However, if you post here, people will respond. Now whether they respond politely or rudely is dependent, for the most part, on the tone of your post. So, going forward, I would suggest you think about what you type before you type it. If someone posts something that doesn't make sense, simply reply with "Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying." Simple respect towards other members is one of the stipulations of the acceptable use policy here.

Hey, I just noticed a few things in the last 3 posts, I'd like to share my thoughts about that.

Free-will and reality.

I don't know how there can be more "truths" or "facts" then just 1.
Let's divide them from what we are thinking.
Selski you say that what humans think the truth is, is the truth, but this is subjectively.
Objectively there is just 1 reality.
That is what I think everyone wants to know.

In my map however, I believe humans are no more then matter.
Just look at it logicly, can you say that a human being besides you is conscious?
Can you say that you are conscious?
Why?
Just because you think you are doesn't mean you are, you could've just been programmed to think so.
Besides that point, if someone was conscious of what he was doing all the time, the consciousness couldn't catch up. Consciousness can be just a simple program not a complicated multiple reality/universe thing.
That's why we have a subconscious, it thinks for us.
So if there is a thing like the subconscious, what's the point of the consciousness?
That is where I always get stuck, but I will figure it out sooner or later.

So my belief on this subject is that there is no "me" "your" or "us" it is all 1.

"What are your thoughts on after/before life"
Well I honestly think everything that lives, follows the same rule that was given by DNA, it is build on progress.
The program in our brains was developed for this purpose, that's noticable.
So if it was just a code, the way the brain was programmed was mostly luck, or maybe not, maybe even THAT was in the DNA code of the first living creature. - My theory, not proven.

QuoteSo if there is a thing like the subconscious, what's the point of the consciousness?

Subconscious caries out what ever consciousness tells it. It doesn't question your thoughts. You can be conscious of only 7 bits of information at any moment of the time but the subconscious can be aware of much much more so it has to filter that information of you would be flooded and there comes the filters and maps. Subconscious takes care that you are aware of informations that are not in contradiction with your map of reality.

So if two people look at the same situation they would interpret it differently according to their beliefs and experiences they had or in other words depending in what reality tunnel they are living. For example one man is a avid meat eater and another strict vegan and they go in the wild and they see hunter who caught a deer and the first one say great, have a goulash while vegan frowns upon it and making him sick. Same situation different interpretation. Was the act of killing the deer good or bad? Who is right and what is the truth?

I'm not sure if there is such a thing as absolute truth but this definition of enlightenment makes sense. Enlightment is the freedom to choose, unfettered by ignorance, attachment, prejudice, fear, or coercion.

Quote from: malganis on September 05, 2007, 13:52:00
Subconscious caries out what ever consciousness tells it. It doesn't question your thoughts.

No that's not it.

I do in someway agree to the last part about enlightenment.

QuoteIn my map however, I believe humans are no more then matter.

I agree. Human beings are made of matter. However, I also beleive that we (you, me, and any other sentient being) operate through physical bodies to interact in the physical world. I believe that we are seperate from those bodies and thus, what happens to them only affects 'us' (our consciousness) to the point at which we allow it.

QuoteJust look at it logicly, can you say that a human being besides you is conscious?
Can you say that you are conscious?
Why?
Just because you think you are doesn't mean you are, you could've just been programmed to think so.

That is certainly a possibility. Not one that I agree with, but it is a possibility none the less. If you are correct, then all of our discussions here are essentially moot. Everything we do, say and think is irrelevant. In fact, thinking is really an illusion too then. If we were 'programmed' to think these types of things, then our thoughts are merely pre-programmed responses. They mean nothing. And if they mean nothing, than none of this can be real.

Do I understand your theory on this?

QuoteBesides that point, if someone was conscious of what he was doing all the time, the consciousness couldn't catch up. Consciousness can be just a simple program not a complicated multiple reality/universe thing.
That's why we have a subconscious, it thinks for us.
So if there is a thing like the subconscious, what's the point of the consciousness?
That is where I always get stuck, but I will figure it out sooner or later.

Ah, I disagree with this. The subconscious does not think for us. Science (if you agree that psychology is a science) has shown that the conscious part is where we do our active thinking. The subconscious is what controls/operates basic functions, eliminating the need for conscious thought. These are rote functions, and thus, only need a "simple program", to use your terminology. Maybe you meant to reverse these? I don't know.

I had to chuckle at the "consciousness couldn't catch up" comment. I'm not sure what you meant by it, but it sounded funny. I envisioned this brain running hard trying to catch up to a body.  :roll:  

Remaining conscious of all your actions is no easy feat, however, it is possible. That, I believe, is a goal every individual should strive for. (again, my opinion only). The subconscious is the seat of emotions and history. From it is how we color our view of the world. The conscious part of the mind is the logical side. That is the part that can be an objective observer. If I understand your theory on this, I would have expected you to advocate the conscious over the subconscious -- logical over emotional.

Just out of curiosity, have you read any books on autocratic societies? This is essentially where it seems your beliefs/theory lie. If so, do you see them as true or real?

That's amazing, I was just reading "The Prince" just a minute ago before I checked for a response lol.

The last part in your reply is a miscommunication I think, or maybe I just wrote something different from what I meant.

I mean that the subconscious is a spunge that programs itself after it has the knowledge of prohibiting or allowing any thought that is different from what is morally accepted as "normal" to reach the consciousness.
Sorry, I shouldn't have used the word "think" in my last post.
Maybe, the subconscious is located in the amygdala and also the hippocampus, forming the subconscious.
But I read on brainmind.com, that the part that limits or prohibits thoughts for reaching the consciousness is the frontal lobe, which is logical after experiencing how alcohol works.
Alcohol firstly anaesthetizes the frontal lobe, it should enhance any functions the frontal lobe has.
So like we know the first effect of alcohol is that you do things that you normally wouldn't.
If what I said above made sense we now know that the subconscious is also a part of the frontal lobe.

But I have not enought knowledge to go too deep on this, or else I would mess up everyones maps that reads this (if it isn't true), I apologize.

Maybe the most simple metaphor I can give about what I meant is any small form of life.
They certainly don't have consciousness, or they do but they just don't have the tools to communicate.
But taken the first case, the animals are doing fine.
And if small forms of life can live without the consciousness, why do we need it?

I still don't feel like I have said exactly what I wanted to say, but there's a really good movie on, so I'm going to go watch that. :-D

"transplanted organs affected the personality of the person who received the organ. Personal characteristics of the donor were caried over to the other person. For example a guy got one organ (i dont remember exactly which) from a person who died in early twenties in motorcycle incident and who liked eating chicken and led unhealthy lifestyle. Then that guy started eating chicken although he never ate it before and started to act differently. Some people also gor memories from other person."

  malganis, wasnt that the movie "body parts"? Heh. Im just being sarcastic, my apologies. I get tired of reading replies by opponents of the obe experience, especially when they claim to have had an obe but knew it was just a dream. Each is in the right to have their own opinion, but a lot of what some of these opponents claim seems like only a semi lucid dream, where they have very little control over the dream itself. I dont think a lot of what some of these people described was a full blown obe in the first place. When I first had semi lucid dreams it was interesting to say the least, but I would never mix a lucid or semi lucid dream up with obe's I would only do that if I never had an obe. Thats okay though, whoever wishes to worship the physical and materialism are in a way trapped but in the physical mindset they are right to. If I were to look at this argument from the physical side and mindset I would say that the ones who are were completely in the right. However looking from this from my perspective and from my point of view its an illogical outlook. No matter what evidence or proof I put up will do anything to sway someone looking from purely the physical aspect, and vice versa. However in the debate aspect I think that a lot of people are losing direction, with comments such as "you are getting upset because you can't win fair and square". Come on most of you are beyond these comments, however not all of you.

Quote from: Novice on September 05, 2007, 14:09:43
Remaining conscious of all your actions is no easy feat, however, it is possible. That, I believe, is a goal every individual should strive for. (again, my opinion only).

Hello Novice,

I definitely agree with you on that.  Maintaining a constant state of awareness has been one of several goals of mine.  I've been practicing awareness for the last 13 months, and I have made pretty good progress so far.  Some days are easier than others, but it has been challenging at times to maintain a constant state of awareness which has included remaining conscious of all my actions, thoughts, and feelings.  I have found through my experience the more I practice the easier it is to maintain awareness to the point that it is automatic.  My ultimate goal in this particular exercise is to maintain a 24 hour awareness, and I am getting close.  I'm now at the point that I maintain a constant state of awareness all throughout the day and almost the entire night.  Training my mind to stay awake and aware throughout the night has been quite challenging to say the least, but it's gradually getting easier every night, and I feel that it will not be too much longer before I will have achieved 24 hour awareness.

Anyway, I could go into a lot more with my experience on the topic of remaining conscious of all my actions, but I really didn't want to make my reply this long.  I just wanted to add a little potential confirmation to your statement I quoted above by the experience I've had thus far with awareness.

Kailaurius-
Glad to see you have similar experiences. I am far from the 24 hour mark, but I'm persistent. As you say, I have my ups and downs when it comes to maintaining it. However, one nice 'side effect' I personally have noticed, is that the more consistent I am during the day, the easier it is during the night. Meaning, my quantity as well as quality of OBEs/Phasing experiences dramatically increases the more I practice awareness (or as the buddhists call it: mindfullness).

The one interesting thing I noticed during waking hours, is the way you can actually see thoughts form and merge, before they actually appear. It's really interesting. It's almost like sitting in a boat, on a perfectly still lake, and looking straight down. Then you see a thought emerge, like some great abstract thing rising from the depths. And you consciously know something is coming, but it isn't till it's close to the surface that you can actually understand what it is. Then, you have the choice of letting it fully emerge, or simply fade away. It's almost like sitting and watching the subconscious work. I'm not nearly proficient enough to experience this too often, but I've experienced it enough to realize that when aware, I have total control over all thoughts and, thus all actions. And you then really get an amazingly acute view of how much of your actions are controlled by random/pre-set responses to your surroundings. Things that, given the chance, you really wouldn't say/do. It's depressing and scary.

Ah well...all is a learning curve!

Quote from: Mez on September 04, 2007, 00:45:16
Anyone can say OBEs are all in the mind (and that you dont really go out of the body) but if you look closely at what frank says about Focus 4 (kinda like the source of it all?) technically we may think we are physically moving about all day long but we never actually go ANYWHERE... its all in our mind.

I think you cracked the code here:
"They are FOCUSES OF ATTENTION along your very own 'Consciousness Continuum" Frank's way of saying "Out-of-body experiences are all in the mind"?

So in that respect, Andy Coghlan and Frank Kepple are totally in agreement.

I take back what I said about Andy Coghlan being ignorant, he's actually a pretty smart dude IMHO.   :-D

i think he's approaching it wrong tho.

Franks right for sure... but frank had the experience to back up what he said he didnt just stick a helmet on someone and confuse them as to where they were. Thats the ignorant part.

We have replaced honesty with fallacy.
Edgar Cayce was probably one of the last real OBEers.
As of today, there is no clear atmosphere to do what you want as far as OBE, so you must rely on memory.  There is drugs of all kinds that affect every aspect of being; there's alchohol.  All of the nuclear facilities that are leaking some sort of radiation, microwave ovens, computers, electronic equipment, electric lines that run everywhere, etc. etc. ad nauseum.  So it is not a bad thing that we cannot go out-of-body.  What is a bad thing is that we can do it and are oppressed from doing it because of the obstructions in the atmosphere.

Quote
Quote from: Mez on September 04, 2007, 06:45:16
Anyone can say OBEs are all in the mind (and that you dont really go out of the body) but if you look closely at what frank says about Focus 4 (kinda like the source of it all?) technically we may think we are physically moving about all day long but we never actually go ANYWHERE... its all in our mind.

That's exactly right!  We go in one big circle; the same circle day after day.  And the circle is getting smaller and smaller with more and more obstructions.

The thing about the mind is it is a totally different world.  A world of ions; not atomic, but ionic.  The sun is not atomic; it is ionic.  Your thoughts are the same.  But you are restricted by the magnetic field around the earth and it is tightening because of the metal that is being put on the earth and that is shrinking the magnetic protection between the earth and sun and causing global warming but that is a different subject altogether.

Dude! that's just what I was going to say, and you beat me to it!

Well done, I applaud you.  _(\