I found this fascinating and that's why I want to share it here. T. Campbell did a whole series of verifications at the Monroe lab (with Bob Monroe then). Unfortunately, as it seems, they never documented it in any scientific paper. Maybe that was not their aim at all, but I think it is still very sad that they did not do more on it in a regular, more documented and systematic fashion. Anyway, here it is.
"My Big Toe" - Part 1: Awakening, Chapter 10: "But Is It Real?" excerpt from Google-Books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=RYHtBPiZVgsC&pg=PA84&dq=%22trip+%28experience%29+in+the+nonphysical+together%22&hl=en&ei=750HTtqMKsvEswbvp9TbDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22trip%20%28experience%29%20in%20the%20nonphysical%20together%22&f=false
Quote"One of our first experiments was for Dennis and me to take a trip (experience) in the nonphysical together. Our independent descriptions of what we were experiencing should correlate closely if the experience were real and independent of either of us. From the beginning of our training, we had learned to give real-time descriptions of whatever we experienced. A microphone was suspended from the ceiling above each of our heads. What we said was recorded on tape. Dennis and I could not hear each other because we were in separate soundproof chambers.
Dennis and I quickly achieved the appropriate altered state, left our bodies, and met in the nonphysical as planned. It was a long adventure. We went places, saw things, had conversations with each other and with several nonphysical beings we happened to run into the long way.
Bob had let us go a long time before he ended the session and called us back. We pulled off our EEG and GSR electrodes and stumbled out of the darkness into the hallway of the lab.
In the control room, Bob was waiting for us. After a quick exchange, we knew that his would be a good test because we both had experienced many specific interactions. But were they the same interactions? Bob looked at us deadpan. 'So you two think you were together?' he asked, trying to sound disappointed. We looked at each other and shrugged our shoulders.
'Maybe,' Dennis said tentatively, 'at least we perceived meeting each other.'
'Listen to this!' Bob said emphatically. The tapes, rewound as we disconnected electrodes and climbed out of our chambers, began to roll forward. We sat down and listened. The correlation was astonishing. For almost two hours we sat there with our mouths open, hooting and exclaiming, filling in the details for each other. Bob was now grinning. 'Now that tells you something, doesn't it?' he exclaimed beaming. He was every bit as excited as we were.
I was dumbfounded. There was only one good explanation: THIS STUFF WAS REAL! (...)
We repeated that experiment with similar results. It wasn't a phenomenon that depended on the two of us. Nancy Lea and I shared equally astonishing joint experiences. We tried other things as well. We read three and four digit numbers written on a blackboard next to the control room. Somebody would write a random number and we would read it while our bodies lay asleep. Then they would erase it and write another one, and so on and on. We went places - to people's homes - and saw what they were doing, then called them or talked to them the next day to check it out."
- Dr Thomas Campbell (My Big T.O.E.)
I also mention this (and now many other, e.g. from oberf.com and other forums) on my little modest webpage where I started to collect these things now (recently updated with a lot more accounts!)
http://reconnection.lima-city.de/OBE-Verification/index.html
Should you have any verifications of your own, you can mention them here and I can include them (with link to this thread) on this little website too. Feel free to do so if you like.
Why doesn't someone break that Randi price..?
Quote from: Pauli2 on July 01, 2011, 09:56:57
Why doesn't someone break that Randi price..?
From what I read, Randi places so many ridiculous restrictions on the test and takes total control of the entire experiment and does not allow for dry runs or warm-ups or second chances. It is his way or nothing. You get one shot and if you fail that time he has the rights to present the failure publicly in his own narrow minded venue.
Few people will take that risk. Even the best OBEers have a bad day now and then.
Quote from: Volgerle on July 01, 2011, 07:25:41
I found this fascinating and that's why I want to share it here. T. Campbell did a whole series of verifications at the Monroe lab (with Bob Monroe then). Unfortunately, as it seems, they never documented it in any scientific paper. Maybe that was not their aim at all, but I think it is still very sad that they did not do more on it in a regular, more documented and systematic fashion. Anyway, here it is.
"My Big Toe" - Part 1: Awakening, Chapter 10: "But Is It Real?" excerpt from Google-Books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=RYHtBPiZVgsC&pg=PA84&dq=%22trip+%28experience%29+in+the+nonphysical+together%22&hl=en&ei=750HTtqMKsvEswbvp9TbDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22trip%20%28experience%29%20in%20the%20nonphysical%20together%22&f=false
I also mention this (and now many other, e.g. from oberf.com and other forums) on my little modest webpage where I started to collect these things now (recently updated with a lot more accounts!)
http://reconnection.lima-city.de/OBE-Verification/index.html
Should you have any verifications of your own, you can mention them here and I can include them (with link to this thread) on this little website too. Feel free to do so if you like.
Yeah, he relates that particular experience in his book: My-Big-TOE.
It was his "AH HA!" moment regarding the out of body experience and it being REAL.
Everyone needs to come to that conclusion on their though.
He speaks of Dennis... Dennis' "AH HA!" moment came a little while longer after that point. The specific story you relayed above didn't really cause Dennis with too much concern. His moment came a little while later when he was having a "psychic cleansing" of sorts, when the healer asked him what he wanted healed, Dennis thought to himself something to the effect of "heal me of any blocks that keep me from believing"... then the healing progressed and he was LITERALLY healed of that. His eyes opened wide to what he has missed all these years. There's a video of it if you wanna get more specific information regarding it, but it's really neat.
Found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoTpu4jDiSo
Thomas Campbell appears to be on the right track. I've also had some verifications (my visits to a few Astral Viewers members). It seems that, more often than not, you get it right when visiting people (you either perceive the 'gist' of what they are doing in actuality or you appear to view their thought forms), at least from what I've experienced so far.
It is not just stuff from your mind that you experience. Yes, it is also that but there's more! I strongly suspect that you can also explore that which is not MAINLY yours - you may access the collective. And all this by simply using your intent once you enter the Phase. It seems one is able to travel extra-dimensionally within consciousness and bypass physical rules.
If I hadn't experienced this for myself I would be sceptical of it, but, the truth is that OOBEs are revealing to that point. This is also why I've tried to get the lottery numbers once and I plan to do it again (of course, taking up on Campbell's computer system analogy, it might not be so easy to find that "file" amongst an array of other potential files).
I'm glad Pauli2 raised the Randi issue and I agree with Rudolph. Randi can be good on many levels but he is way too close minded. He seems intent on finding whatever mundane explanation he can in order to use it to protect his money and REPUTATION. He lacks what Campbell has: open-minded scepticism.
Randi is too inhospitable for OOBErs because sometimes they need a few tries to get it right. Here's a scenario that I will use as an example:
Johnny can enter the Phase quite easily. He is experienced and after having carried out his own OOBE study, he comes to the conclusion that there is more to reality then meets the eye. He finds that when he visits people in Mode 2 OOBEs, he can peruse their minds. He finds that he can also talk to the dead and was able to get validations from the info that was provided from beyond the grave. He once found his lost mobile phone in a Mode 1 OOBE which coincided with its exact actual location. His Phase experiences proved to him, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the human mind extends beyond the physical body. He decides to go for Randi's prize...
Randi sets up an experiment (fully in control) similar to the one in the famous case of Miss Z. The numbers are placed in a location and hidden from everyone else's view. "Only an OOBEr will be able to tell us exactly what numbers are on the piece of paper". Johnny enters the Phase. The environment he encounters appears correct at first but then he discovers some anomalies and fluctuations. He finds that everybody in the audience is naked. This knocks his confidence a bit and more of his thought forms manifest further distorting the reality before him. In spite of that, he flies up to where the piece of paper is to have a look at the numbers.
He finds an order of numbers that keep changing rapidly like the digits in a stopwatch. "What is the friggin' number?" he says to himself as he watches before him what is probably the unmanifest probabilities. He finds that the more he observes the apparent sheet of paper, the more the numbers slow down. As he feels that he is trying to measure something, the transfiguration on the sheet of paper settles into a satisfactory outcome. From an array of possible realities he had finally captured one that apparently had a high probability. But high probability for what physical universe? Our own? Or another system? He returns to his body.
JOHNNY: I saw the numbers.
RANDI: Well...?
JOHNNY: 64599.
RANDI: No. It was 73598. At least you got two numbers and in the right order...*turns to the audience*...hence I conclude, ladies and gentlemen, that OOBEs are nothing but hallucinations, illusions concocted by the brain, they are not real...
JOHNNY: But...what about the two numbers I got in the right order? what if I saw the high probability for an alternate reality? Give me another chance and I might separate in the real-time zone and get them right...
RANDI: I'm afraid you had your chance. Even if you got them right the second time, there is a good chance that it would be merely coincidental...
JOHNNY: But Mr. Randi, I don't think reality is that simple...you see, I think all these realities overlap, some resemble our world, others are far removed from it, it's like a full-void full of vibrations that represent many environments and sometimes I don't always tune into the desired one...
RANDI: theories...theories...*rolls his eyes*...it's all in the brain, my friend. I can have the same experience, which is illusory, by stimulating my brain with a God Helmet, for example, or if I take a powerful dose of DMT intravenously...
You see what's happening here? It would be very controversial in the eyes of the world and Randi would probably get death threats from many OOBErs around the world... :-D
(http://blog.redfin.com/files/2009/05/numbers.jpg)
Even if Johnny got the numbers right, Randi would say it's a coincidence and would probably ask him to do it again.
Yep!!! In fact, one go would not suffice with Randi if Johnny guessed it right the first time! He'd put it down to coincidence or wild guessing until proved otherwise...but even if Johnny got it right a second...Randi would make him go a third time and still say it's a coincidence or imply that the experiment has somehow been compromised. :-D
Quote from: Volgerle on July 01, 2011, 07:25:41
I found this fascinating and that's why I want to share it here. T. Campbell did a whole series of verifications at the Monroe lab (with Bob Monroe then). Unfortunately, as it seems, they never documented it in any scientific paper. Maybe that was not their aim at all, but I think it is still very sad that they did not do more on it in a regular, more documented and systematic fashion. Anyway, here it is.
"My Big Toe" - Part 1: Awakening, Chapter 10: "But Is It Real?" excerpt from Google-Books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=RYHtBPiZVgsC&pg=PA84&dq=%22trip+%28experience%29+in+the+nonphysical+together%22&hl=en&ei=750HTtqMKsvEswbvp9TbDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22trip%20%28experience%29%20in%20the%20nonphysical%20together%22&f=false
I also mention this (and now many other, e.g. from oberf.com and other forums) on my little modest webpage where I started to collect these things now (recently updated with a lot more accounts!)
http://reconnection.lima-city.de/OBE-Verification/index.html
Should you have any verifications of your own, you can mention them here and I can include them (with link to this thread) on this little website too. Feel free to do so if you like.
interesting.. I wonder how they remained conscious enough in their physical bodies to record their experiences? Or were their OBEs more of a minds eye projection? Wow- this would be a great way to record and preserve our own OBEs without much memory loss.. if it is indeed not that difficult.
It shouldn't be that difficult to remember anyway. All you have to do is write down all that you can remember as soon as you wake up. OOBEs are easier to remember than dreams because of their impact. In both, you will find that memory works in reverse. It's like a backward thread that you chase. The more notes you make upon waking the more you will remember. Paying attention to the thoughts that you had upon waking, can lead you right back to the experience (clearer memory).
Once it's recorded in a journal, it is safe and you can go about your business during the day and focus on worldly matters knowing that the experience is recorded and cannot be altered by false memory syndrome. You can re-read the notes in your journal as it may help you to remember more. During the day, more memories from the OOBE/dream may surface without you having to make an effort to dig them out. You will know these are genuine memories because they will resonate with you and the overall memory of the metaphysical experience.
The same brain mechanism that controls whether we remember or forget things in waking life is involved in dream/Phase memory. When you wake during REM sleep and remember clearly what was experienced, theta wave oscillations manifest in frontal and prefrontal cortex areas - these are the parts of the brain where most of our advanced thinking occurs. The same activity has been observed and found to be extremely important in recalling memories during wakefulness.
The same parts of the brain are active for recalling regardless of whether one is awake or asleep. It seems that this process is continuous throughout the sleep-wake cycle too. Amazing, isn't it? 8-)
(http://www.neuroscience.cam.ac.uk/uploadedFiles/RikHenson_phpMuaaxi.jpg)
Quote from: Rudolph on July 01, 2011, 11:16:43
From what I read, Randi places so many ridiculous restrictions on the test and takes total control of the entire experiment and does not allow for dry runs or warm-ups or second chances. It is his way or nothing. You get one shot and if you fail that time he has the rights to present the failure publicly in his own narrow minded venue.
Few people will take that risk. Even the best OBEers have a bad day now and then.
Yeah. Already quite a while ago, I read this nice blog entry that in a very detailed way examines the Randi Prize hoax (it's 3 parts actually):
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge.html
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge_p.html
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge_p_1.html
There is also a book out on this now:
http://www.amazon.com/RANDIS-PRIZE-sceptics-paranormal-matters/dp/1848764944/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309734806&sr=8-1
I have still a long reading list already, but I might include it soon. 8-)
Quote from: Xanth on July 01, 2011, 11:32:55There's a video of it if you wanna get more specific information regarding it, but it's really neat. Found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoTpu4jDiSo
thanks, bookmarked and will watch it soon
Looks like Randi got caught up in his reputation. His superscepticism is blinding him and narrowing his mind. :-D
Quote from: Summerlander on July 04, 2011, 06:57:44
Looks like Randi got caught up in his reputation. His superscepticism is blinding him and narrowing his mind. :-D
Can't really blame him. It's not like anyone has brought forth any awesome proof otherwise. ;)
But then again, it also doesn't sound like he active tries to find his own proof... which is really more to the point. You can only ever prove this kind of stuff to yourself.
The vast majority of people who apply to get Randi's money have claims like the following:
- I can find water with dowsing rods
- I have invented a perpetual motion machine
- I can tell you what a random person is thinking 100 miles away, but they have to be one of a pair of twins
- The government is trying to read my thoughts, give me a million dollars???
If there is even one authentic demonstrable use of paranormal abilities, Randi has no choice but to use rigorous scientific standards, exactly like you would use in testing the efficacy of a new drug, in order to separate the wheat from the chaff. He posts all communication and test results on his forums. I've read a lot of them and his testers are very fair and accommodating to even the nuttiest applicants.
Calling him "close minded" and "superskeptical" (whatever that means, how can you be TOO reliant on evidence to test the truth of a claim? Should you use half evidence and half hearsay?) does nothing except raise the smugness level of people here on the forums. It would be more helpful to figure out a way to demonstrate or record your abilities to let someone with a skeptical mindset begin to take you seriously.
The majority of people supporting the existence of paranormal abilities don't have a basic understanding of the scientific method or of the common cognitive biases. If someone experiencing a true psi event is indistinguishable to an observer from your common nutjob, it's not exactly the observer's fault for being "close minded," is it?
Well, since this is in a thread about Tom Campbell... it's funny, because if his theories are correct, then the Scientific Method is actually not only obsolete, but anything and everything ever determined accurate by it is now unfounded again.
Suffice to say though, trying to "convince skeptics" isn't anyone's job. Personal proof is easily attained if they simply put in the time and effort to find it for themselves instead of having it delivered to them on a silver platter for them to pick apart.
Exactly. And I've already demonstrated why performing an OOBE experiment like the Miss Z one would not be good enough for Randi. Randi has already decided what OOBEs are anyway...dreams or hallucinations. He's only had one OOBE in his life and he's already decided what's going on.
By the way, I don't think OOBEs or even telepathy are paranormal in any way. I think both are pretty much normal but we are yet to fully fathom them. :-D
Quote from: Xanth on July 08, 2011, 15:43:43
Well, since this is in a thread about Tom Campbell... it's funny, because if his theories are correct, then the Scientific Method is actually not only obsolete, but anything and everything ever determined accurate by it is now unfounded again.
Actually, if his theories are correct, it means that for all intents and purposes the Scientific Method is still accurate in PMR, since it is categorically impossible to prove that it is inaccurate according to the rules of the system. He kind of shoots himself in the foot with this catch-22 of the PUP.
Not at all, I think you're confusing his theory.
Simply put, his theory states that Intent *WILL* (not can) change the outcome towards what the experimenter wants/desires/needs/intends.
This skews the Scientific Measure into absolute uselessness.
According to Campbell, the Scientific Method is currently still dealing with the "Little Picture" scenario. His theory deals with the "Big Picture". The larger reality. His words...
His theory also states that these effects (although they can be said to exist) cannot be proven to exist, therefore the Scientific Method is still internally and externally consistent. Any attempts to prove these effects will be prevented by the PUP.
Basically the PSI effects are about as relevant to the Scientific Method as the china teapot floating in the asteroid belt is to ontology.
Quote from: bluremi on July 08, 2011, 17:14:12
His theory also states that these effects (although they can be said to exist) cannot be proven to exist, therefore the Scientific Method is still internally and externally consistent. Any attempts to prove these effects will be prevented by the PUP.
For others: PUP = psi uncertainty principle
Not at all... the double slit experiment actually provides plenty of evidence in and of itself. There's nothing "PSI" about it.
The experiments with the hospital data, being able to change the data in such a way that it's 100% accurate every single time is quite the feat and supports his theory pretty well if you ask me. And the experiment of raising the PH of a glass of water using nothing more than Intent.
So I'm not sure what you're basing that on. It's from nothing I've read of his, but I could be forgetting something. :)
Could you provide some backup to it?
I mean, if I've missed something... I'd love to know it.
And it's quite possible, I'm not getting any younger afterall. LOL :)
LOL! :-D
What about the six pack experiment? when I look at my belly, I see the pack. When I look away, it's gone! :lol:
Quote from: bluremi on July 08, 2011, 17:14:12
His theory also states that these effects (although they can be said to exist) cannot be proven to exist, therefore the Scientific Method is still internally and externally consistent. Any attempts to prove these effects will be prevented by the PUP.
Basically the PSI effects are about as relevant to the Scientific Method as the china teapot floating in the asteroid belt is to ontology.
well, the question is, do we want to talk about what (mainstream!) science currently is in its restricted form or do we talk about what science
should be?
the problem here surely is also that many people (not just skeptics but a large part of society) assume this kind of established (materialistic) 'science' as their new truth provider (replacing religion and/or philosophy)
maybe that's why the book I linked above (Randis prize) is maybe a good book, especially due to the last words "... and why it matters"
moreover, the paranormal (hinting to the "big" picture behind the little picture where the close-minded want to remain due to their ideology) has long been proven or at least shown according to the scientific method, it is just constantly negated and/or ignored by the skeptics societies and the media (and thus: by mainstream society in general).
so in sum: the scientific method with the little picture in its only focus is a perfect tool to hide behind if you don't want to get a taste of what reality 'really' is
I couldn't have said it better, Volgerie. In fact, most physicists go by the "calculate and don't ask" philosophy with their little pictures as the best explanation they've got for the nature of reality. Their little picture is fraught with gaps that are more convenient to ignore. As for materialism...pffft...it's just another creed really... :roll:
When someone expresses disdain towards another person's views or methods and then proceeds to call them close-minded, it's hypocritical.
I'm open to all ideas and judge them on their merits, so when someone speaks with smugness or ridicule it's like a red alarm warning me to be skeptical.
Be careful, blueremi. Don't start getting personal here. Remember that you have said, in your own words, that Thomas Campbell shot himself in the foot. Your little "hypocritical" comment may bite you back...
If you don't see the difference between what I said and what you said we probably shouldn't have an argument about it.
No need for arguments. Enlighten me. I'd like to think that I'm a reasonable man. What's the problem?
Quote from: Summerlander on July 11, 2011, 09:00:53
No need for arguments. Enlighten me. I'd like to think that I'm a reasonable man. What's the problem?
I'm criticizing a logical problem with his argument, while you're deriding all of physics and their tangible results (including the computer you're using) as nothing but "little pictures" complete with :roll:
Quote from: bluremi on July 11, 2011, 11:01:34
I'm criticizing a logical problem with his argument, while you're deriding all of physics and their tangible results (including the computer you're using) as nothing but "little pictures" complete with :roll:
For me personally I'm not following what the logical problem with it is. :)
Quote from: Summerlander on July 10, 2011, 14:45:41
...Thomas Campbell shot himself in the foot...
Please don't tell me he shot off his big toe.
Quote from: Stookie_ on July 11, 2011, 11:33:20
Please don't tell me he shot off his big toe.
LMAO! :lol:
Hypothetically...yes. :-D
Quote from: bluremi on July 11, 2011, 11:01:34
I'm criticizing a logical problem with his argument, while you're deriding all of physics and their tangible results (including the computer you're using) as nothing but "little pictures" complete with :roll:
Deriding all of physics? No, not really. I acknowledge that some things work but others remain unexplained and require some answers and that's where their little picture fails. Little here implies the need to grow. It needs development. And you seem to be confusing the little picture scenario with the physical world around us when the little picture that we (and Campbell) talk about is the mainstream scientific view of reality. Trust me, if I derided all of physics I wouldn't have subscribed to Newscientist and Focus. Also, I wouldn't get along with my scientifically minded friends...
Ok, going by what you said, here's a few questions then:
1-What is the logical problem you have with Campbell's theory?
2-Could you describe to me the "tangible results" in full detail from the double-slit experiment and how/why observation seems to play a role?
3-At what point do the classical rules cease to apply and why?
4-Why does quantum entanglement happen and what will that do for quantum computing?
5-What's the deal with superposition?
6-Where does the matter in our universe come from and what happened to antimatter?
7-Why can't scientists find the Higgs boson?
8-If OOBEs are nothing but the product of brain chemistry...how does it happen?
9-Why are there NO traces of memory or thoughts found in the brain?
10-The self is not tangible...and yet, it appears to exist...explain that.
I eargerly await your enlightening response... :wink:
I have a few problems with his theory, the main one having to do with the internally imposed rule set on his AUO cellular automata, which seems to be a logical contradiction.
The PUP also makes me uneasy because it backs away from a basic requirement of a scientific hypothesis, mainly that it can be experimentally proven false. Tom says a person can collect data and experimentally prove the existence of psi phenomena, but due to the PUP it doesn't work the other way around. While I accept this may be true since he's saying the basic tenets of the scientific method aren't valid in this case, it would be easier to swallow if he bothered to keep any of this huge volume of experimental data he claims to have amassed during his time at the Monroe Institute.
Sure, if he correctly guessed at a number written on a blackboard one time I'd not accept it as evidence, but if he did it twice that would be a different story. So far this concept of "evidence is only useful to the individual" is just turning a blind eye to human being's ingrained tendency towards confirmation bias and cherry picking of evidence.
I honestly can't give an answer to those questions, bluremi.
But I can point you in the direction to find the answer: http://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/index.php
The folks over on his forum are more than well equipped to provide the answers to the questions regarding Tom's TOE that you might have.
What I do know is that his AUO is one of two "mystical" assumptions that *MUST* exist in order for a connection between the physical and metaphysical can exist. And it's really the bigger of the two assumptions.
He's got some circular logic there:
- I've noticed what appears to be evidence for psi phenomena
- It's REALLY, REALLY convincing. I have tons of evidence and it convinced my scientific and skeptical mind.
- I didn't keep the evidence because it wouldn't be convincing to anyone but myself.
- Because I've demonstrated psi-phenomena to be real, the AUO has to be real.
- From the AUO and other assumptions I can extrapolate the existence of the PUP which explains why evidence of psi phenomena is so hard to create.
- If you try to discover your own evidence, you will find it.
- It's REALLY, REALLY convincing evidence.
- It won't convince anyone but yourself....
etc, etc... Xanth you may have noticed that I've been in some discussions on his forums but the people there strike me as being either very defensive or tending to regurgitate concepts and sound bites from his book without displaying any deeper understanding of what they're talking about.
I find them highly detailed and knowledgeable about MBT theories. Guys like Ted and Bette have Tom's full support.
There *ARE* answers to your questions...
You might have to email Tom directly to get them from the horses mouth, sort-to-speak.
I've generally found that (and please don't take this personally because it applies to myself as well) that any "problems" found with his Theory of Everything usually relates to something not understood about it. You should provide that same list to Tom directly and see what he has to say. :)
What I can tell you is that he didn't write his book to convince anyone. He wrote it so that hopefully, one day, you'll convince yourself through pure experience. :)
Hmmm...blueremi has raised some good points though. Also, his "evidence"...could be a gimmick. He's got an interesting theory going...sure...which so far hasn't been proven. How can he claim to know that something is a fact without any real proof. I suspect portions of his book are there to keep us enthralled too. I've had some interesting Phase experiences...but I don't claim that they are proof of telepathy, precognition or contact with the dead, because I am aware of other possible explanations more rooted in the mundane.
He claims he has a sceptical and scientific mind and yet he embraces the mystical and the paranormal as real occurrences without question and claims that his theoretical model of reality - which is analogous to a computer system - must be true because apparently it explains everything. Even though he says he's not forcing his view on anyone, he is selling it while alluding it to be the absolute truth.
Quote from: Summerlander on July 11, 2011, 18:59:58
I've had some interesting Phase experiences...but I don't claim that they are proof of telepathy, precognition or contact with the dead, because I am aware of other possible explanations more rooted in the mundane.
I wonder if we could do some kind of poll on several categories of well-defined phase experiences and correlate them to each reporter's interpretation. The majority of people who post about them online are the opposite of Summerlander, but maybe that's selection bias at work?
Quote from: Summerlander on July 11, 2011, 18:59:58
Hmmm...blueremi has raised some good points though. Also, his "evidence"...could be a gimmick. He's got an interesting theory going...sure...which so far hasn't been proven. How can he claim to know that something is a fact without any real proof. I suspect portions of his book are there to keep us enthralled too.
That's just it, he doesn't claim any of it is fact. :)
What he does ask is that you retain an open mind while reading it... then go off using the tools he's given you to try and figure it out for yourself.
In any case, his claims are true to only himself. His entire TOE is based upon his many decades of direct experience in the non-physical.
He asks that you find what rings true to you. What you find might agree or contradict his... he's fine with that, because at the end of the day even he doesn't "believe" his own theories. Actually, he doesn't disbelieve them either... he's the living embodiment of his own opinion that you should remain skeptically open. Otherwise, your "theories" will never grow and change as required when new 'data' is brought to light.
You make a good point too, Xanth. There is no point in us arguing about any of this because it is very much elusive. I'm still reading his third book but I will get round to reading the first two.