Near Death and Out of Body Experiences

[The Norseman]

Here’s a couple of question that should be easy for you then:

- What is it about any particular neural process that causes any sensory input to be felt as a particular sensation or experience?
- What physical property differentiates the quality of these experiences?
- How is this process expressed through the biochemistry of neurons?
- What part of the system actually has the experience(s)?
- What are the relevant physical properties of this portion of the system that causes it to be subjectively sensible?
- Why (for example) does the amygdala have the physical dimensions and bio-chemical constitution that it has (and how did it achieve that condition) and in what specific ways do these elements determine its cognitive functionality? When you’re done explaining that, provide equivalent explanations for every other significantly differentiated brain region (modularity of mind...what many claim is evidence that we know how the brain works).

Can you please link to the answers that your theoretical physicist provides to these questions? Thanks.

So answer the question then Nonpareil:

Do the known laws of physics preclude the possibility of OBE’s, NDE’s, psi, etc. etc.

Yes
…or no.

Yes. Read Sean Carroll on the topic and then you can refute his statements here. Use your own words.

Do let me know when you actually have something reasonable to contribute.

Back atcha.

Never a shred of evidence to challenge the claims.

….thus, the claims stand.

That's not how it works.

When Nonpareil presents a statement about theoretical physics I’ll call it an opinion. When someone with a masters degree in theoretical physics presents a statement about such a topic I think it’s a bit more substantial than just an opinion.

Not necessarily. What's the evidence backing up his expert opinion?

Where has ‘love’ been demonstrated to actually occur?

In people, by people. Nowhere else and in no other way. Let me know when you locate some variety of science that has the capacity to measure it. I can unconditionally assure you there is no such thing.

Your assurances are wrong.

What on earth are you rambling about. Did you actually read the paragraph? Where in there is he NOT talking about physics? As you can see above, people have claimed that these events (NDE’s, OBE’s, psi, etc.) cannot occur because they violate the laws of physics. Here we have an individual whose understanding of physics is, by any stretch of the imagination, light years beyond anything you can muster.

Sure, that dude is light years beyond anything I can muster. He doesn't seem to amount to much when compared to his equals or betters, though.

…but his opinions are irrelevant…basically cause you don’t like what they have to say.

Um.... no.

 

[Donn]

Thus you have your reason for not needing to verify the ideomotor effect because it relates only to you.

However, if 50 individuals each were able to report the same data through ideomotor, (<^>) that data can be viewed as more reliable.

That is precisely why I don't report the data. However my claim is still solid. All it takes is others to also do the work.

You don't share your data because you want it to be viewed as unreliable?

Weird.

Yes but still costumes, perhaps even to your dying day.
ideomoter effect gives you a chance to change that. To be undressed and all sign of makeup removed - by that which is actually the real you.

I call this mysticism. Something along the meditation line - looking inwards and striving for enlightenment, without striving, opposites deliquescing into light and all that jazz.

Please know that I spent a portion of my life in the same journey. I have read the words of others who tried the same, and tried some of their ideas. I followed a particular Buddhist teacher into many meditation sessions.

The most I learned was how to make a mean lentil stew. Okay, a few more things too.

I'm sure there is some kind of knowing to be had, diving down like you do, I'm just not sure how to communicate it back out to others. If you cannot change lives and educate - real change, real growth - then you have not found knowledge worth the word.

Perhaps you can be one of the pioneers of this frontier. Perhaps you can map a route down which others can successfully follow 90% of the time. They can observe, note and recall enough detail to cross-confirm with other reports and bring the experience out of a single mind and into an objective discipline.

I have, I think with you, used the cave metaphor before:
There is a cave system, no light penetrates. You stand at the entrance and you shuffle inwards, feeling with your hands. Whatever you are seeking, you are in the dark.

You return and tell others. When they ask, you can only tell of the dark, the fumbling, the strangeness. Your stories do not translate into a map they can follow.

You need to take candles and string. You need to start quartering the cave, start mapping it to show the ways, the blinds, the drops, the sights.

What does not work is simply telling others to go into the dark cave to devote time to blindly shuffling around in the hope of some revelation. We don't all have that kind of time.

It's up to you to make the process simpler, to save us time. If there is something important in the cave and you know it will change us for the better, then you are ethically bound to do a better job.

Or, you know, stop talking about it.

I don't expect you to believe it, but am not subject to accept to your opinions about it which insist things you cannot know because you have not tried.

I don't believe what you report.

I do believe that you meditate in your unique fashion, and that you experience various <whatevers> while under. I don't believe your interpretations of them in terms of what the mind is and is not.

If you were to sincerely try it and immerse yourself in what can be learned by doing so, you will find that what I am claiming is actually real.

If you laid out your system and worked to convince people that it was worth the time, things might be different.

There are a thousand gurus with a thousand systems for mind-diving. They all make the claims you do. They all challenge you to "just try it". None of them have a map they can hold up with pride and publish in a science journal.

Most of them, in fact, are sociopaths and predators who really want your money. (Not accusing you, just a sad fact.)

No. I have personal experience and verification. Something you do not have because you believe there is no real self but only the unreal costumed one.

Personal experience and verification do not rise above the level of noise. You know this now, why can't you face it? It's not admission of defeat.

If you are so sure you are onto something true then work harder man! Show us by the most effective route know to mankind: meticulous and cautious study with objective and reproducible predictions.

Or, you know, stop going on about it.

Consciousness is not some miniature adult human being residing within the mind.

I read you saying the "real self" and the rest follows. I accept it then, when you tell me its not a little human in the mind. Fine.

Don't wax lyrical about what the "real self" is. Start making a map.

And this is called 'science'?

It is not.

Please don't redefine what science is. You know what it is. You are not doing science, yet.
When you tighten your techniques, open the process to critical overview and bow to it, begin to record objective data, start to develop experiments that can show other people reporting what you predicted, then you'll be doing science.

Oh, also, list the ways in which you may be wrong and test everything against them all the time. Don't go down the blind alleys and dead ends in the cave.

Would I be making the claim and encouraging you to sincerely try this method, if that were the case?

I am generous and happy to assume you're genuine. It hurts me not. I wish you the best success and I only want you to spend your time in a more effective manner. If you can bring your knowledge back out of the mine and illuminate the world, then do so.

[re error checking] I agree. I owe that to my self.

Good, thank you.

 

[Donn]

For those who missed it in the other thread, Max Derakshani and his friend Johann Baptista ..

So to answer your question, Donn, he is firmly on the gnat's side of the see-saw, but shouting at the top of his voice that the gnat actually weighs more.

Thanks for that excellent summary.

I wish there was a way to "pin" posts into some personal favourites list. I'd like to ones like this close to hand for future access. I find the posts get swallowed by time, even one page later is beyond the K-T boundary!

Search, pah!

Ah well.

 

[Donn]

Where has ‘love’ been demonstrated to actually occur?

Ha. You get a straight answer to your rude question and then, instead of engaging that topic you deploy your usual non-sequitur about love.

It is to laugh.

Ooh, love.. The nuclear option! They'll never see it coming.

 

[Donn]

Do the known laws of physics preclude the possibility of OBE’s, NDE’s, psi, etc. etc.

Yes
…or no.

As they're are defined right now, fuzzy and vague and all shifty? Who knows? Did the magician really saw the assistant in half on stage and then re-combine her?

We have given you reasons why physics (and other sciences) seat the mind in the brain.

Of course you will continue your shell game. Here's the OBE, where's the disproof? Now watch the Woo. First it's here, and now it's there. Where is it? Where's the OBE and what is your disproof now, eh science? Eh? Eh? Muhahahahaha.

Sigh.

What is love?! Evidence don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.

 

[Pixel42]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is no evidence that the process is intelligent and accept that it is just a random thing which happens because of processes which are not evidently intelligent..

Natural selection is not a random process, but neither is it conscious or intelligent.

Any small change which makes an organism more likely to survive long enough to reproduce will be preferentially passed onto the next generation. Where in that process is there a need for intelligence?

What would YOU accept as evidence of intelligence (and therefore consciousness) being involved in the process?

If intelligence was involved in the process of natural selection the history of life on this planet would look different in two ways:

1. There would be no examples in nature of stupid design. But there are dozens of such examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

2. The fossil record would show a clear progression with no diversions, dead ends or pauses (except in response to major environmental changes). But the record shows the exact opposite. For example, single celled organisms dominated for three billion years before the sequence of events which produced complex multi celled organisms finally occurred; why would an intelligent, conscious driver of evolution have twiddled its thumbs for so long?

 

[Navigator]

You don't share your data because you want it to be viewed as unreliable?

Weird.

No

You said: "We cannot afford to believe you because individuals are unreliable."

I don't share my data for that reason. I would if 50+ individuals using the same process were to do so, as a way of comparing etc.

I call this mysticism. Something along the meditation line - looking inwards and striving for enlightenment, without striving, opposites deliquescing into light and all that jazz.

What is the mystery? I don't understand your position on this, unless you (the fake self) are saying that you lack knowledge regarding your real self. Since it is available to you through this method of communication, and you choose not to, then the mystery is self imposed (by the ego self)

Please know that I spent a portion of my life in the same journey. I have read the words of others who tried the same, and tried some of their ideas. I followed a particular Buddhist teacher into many meditation sessions.

The most I learned was how to make a mean lentil stew. Okay, a few more things too.

I have not mentioned meditation or following others. So are you saying that you tried those things and it is still regarded by you as being mystery?
I don't get the connection you are making here.

I'm sure there is some kind of knowing to be had, diving down like you do, I'm just not sure how to communicate it back out to others. If you cannot change lives and educate - real change, real growth - then you have not found knowledge worth the word.

Ah - I think I see what it is you are saying. No it does not work that way. Following others and relying on their word is no answer to getting you any where nearer to connecting with and communicating with your real self.

Perhaps you can be one of the pioneers of this frontier. Perhaps you can map a route down which others can successfully follow 90% of the time. They can observe, note and recall enough detail to cross-confirm with other reports and bring the experience out of a single mind and into an objective discipline.

Like a scout. Surveying uncharted territory and mapping what is discovered.
No. It is the nature of the ego self to want to be the scout and also the guide, just as it is the nature of the ego self to want to be told how things are and what to believe etc.

There is no real alternative. Every individual who has the basics in life potentially has the opportunity to take the journey themselves. There is much to distract them from even realising they have the opportunity.

I have, I think with you, used the cave metaphor before:
There is a cave system, no light penetrates. You stand at the entrance and you shuffle inwards, feeling with your hands. Whatever you are seeking, you are in the dark.

You return and tell others. When they ask, you can only tell of the dark, the fumbling, the strangeness. Your stories do not translate into a map they can follow.

You need to take candles and string. You need to start quartering the cave, start mapping it to show the ways, the blinds, the drops, the sights.

What does not work is simply telling others to go into the dark cave to devote time to blindly shuffling around in the hope of some revelation. We don't all have that kind of time.

It's up to you to make the process simpler, to save us time. If there is something important in the cave and you know it will change us for the better, then you are ethically bound to do a better job.

Or, you know, stop talking about it.

I am doing this thing already. You have not noticed.

I don't believe what you report.

It is not about belief.

I do believe that you meditate in your unique fashion, and that you experience various <whatevers> while under. I don't believe your interpretations of them in terms of what the mind is and is not.

It is not about belief.

You will never know because you choose not to. So you choose to believe it is not so in order to reinforce your position not to investigate.
What I say is true. What I claim is true. It is not 'meditation. it is communication. Conversation. Integration of the ego self with the true self. A process to which you have no time for. Why don't you just stop at that - in honesty saying "I don't have the time so will not be able to investigate, to see for myself" rather than continue with dishonesty and say "it is your fault for not making it easier for me."?

If you laid out your system and worked to convince people that it was worth the time, things might be different.

As I have said, I have been doing this. The candles have been lit, the path is being illuminated and is being illuminated to that point where all the necessary data to get you on your way is in place.

You have not seen it because you are not really looking for it.

It remains a mystery not because I am being mysterious, but because you choose to remain in ignorance.

There are a thousand gurus with a thousand systems for mind-diving. They all make the claims you do. They all challenge you to "just try it". None of them have a map they can hold up with pride and publish in a science journal.

As you have noted. Such a thing cannot be done if others will not also do it. Remember? Cross referencing, and all that other stuff which must happen before any 'papers' are published?

I am no one's guru. You are your own guru. It is your choice. Cease blaming others and claiming they do not give you enough data to 'make it interesting' or whatever. Your ego self (you know, the self which isn't real) is not interested in developing any relationship with your real self. It is that simple okay? That is the truth.

Most of them, in fact, are sociopaths and predators who really want your money. (Not accusing you, just a sad fact.)

Sadly, while your observation is correct, it lacks the integrity of the broader observation. It chooses through its bias to point the finger at a particular group whilst ignoring other groups which also operate under the same agenda. Not that all groups who do this are as obvious as these 'gurus' you speak of.

Wherever there is wealth unequally distributed, there are the sociopaths and predators wanting your money. It is the nature of the ego personality...a false self expresses those things into the world as 'par for the course'.

If you were genuine about your concerns regarding such behavior, you would extend such protest into every aspect of society where this is happening. not just the religious types.

But, that of itself is not here nor there in relation to you using a direct way (which will cost you no money - there is no one to pay and no one asking for your money) in which to connect with and commune with you real self and is just another excuse on your list of excuses as to 'why' you cannot 'see for yourself'.

Personal experience and verification do not rise above the level of noise. You know this now, why can't you face it? It's not admission of defeat.

If you were to make time and apply effort and thus discovered for yourself that what I am claiming is indeed true, you will be in a position above the noise. Personal verification and experience will give you that. You will understand then that it is not about convincing people that it is true. It is about affording them the opportunity to find out for themselves, should they choose to do so.
Lighting a few candles. Explaining that you cannot experience for others what they can only experience for themselves.

You will know that despite the hoots of derision, the excuses and other noises of protest, that you are correct and they - of their own choice - are not.

If you are so sure you are onto something true then work harder man! Show us by the most effective route know to mankind: meticulous and cautious study with objective and reproducible predictions.

Or, you know, stop going on about it.

What would you like to know?

I read you saying the "real self" and the rest follows. I accept it then, when you tell me its not a little human in the mind. Fine.

Good.

Don't wax lyrical about what the "real self" is. Start making a map.

I am not the one to tell your ego self about your real self.

Please don't redefine what science is. You know what it is. You are not doing science, yet.
When you tighten your techniques, open the process to critical overview and bow to it, begin to record objective data, start to develop experiments that can show other people reporting what you predicted, then you'll be doing science.

How? Explain to me how I can do this thing for you. If you want to see if what I claim is true, YOU need to make the effort. You cannot say 'it is not true because I bring no evidence it is true. what kind of evidence would that be? what would you accept?

Do you see? This is something which can be done fairly simply and intelligently by most individuals. What comes from the process is data which confirms to the individual they are indeed in communion with their real self. the interaction is subjective - it is about the individual for the most part.
If enough individuals were to do this as a project, THEN such could be cross referenced and agreed upon and confirmed. And papers perhaps writen about it.
What you ask from me cannot be done by me alone.

This does not verify that it is thus not science or true, or that it is only true for me and no one else.

So my claim stands. It does not fall down in the face of unrealistic expectations which cannot be done without co-operation of others. You, nor your peers, nor the scientific community can say 'it is false' just because you, your peers and the scientific community are not interested, for reasons which might not even have anything to do with science at all, but with profit and pride and other ego based agenda.

I am generous and happy to assume you're genuine. It hurts me not. I wish you the best success and I only want you to spend your time in a more effective manner. If you can bring your knowledge back out of the mine and illuminate the world, then do so.

You think that is why I am here, to try and convince the skeptics? On the contrary. I like to hear their arguments and fine tune my own knowledge through the interaction. It helps me get a better picture of what is going on.

I remain unconvinced at general skepticism - as unconvinced with that as I am with religion. I see narrow sides and vast middle ground. I see with eyes of understanding gained through interaction with true self.

No, I am not here to convince believers that their concepts are in error. deep down under the surface of their costumes and make-up I know they know I am speaking truth. What I say, when you are reading it is understood by the true self you are. Do you feel that true self whispering to the ego self, or urging the ego self to take a look? To give it a go?

From your expression no, you do not. But maybe in the honesty of your own quiet place, away from your habitual places of outward expression you do. How hard you listen, how much you set aside distractions, that is all your choice. That is the gift the ego self is given.

To make whatever choice it wants to.

The real self will only whisper. And btw - the candles being lit are not showing you the way into the cave, but the way out of the cave.

The bulk of the work is up to you.

 

[Daylightstar]

Okay here is an image of one of the devices I have used, mentioned here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10450658&postcount=805

Thanks for attaching the image. That's some pretty delicate and beautiful artwork you * made there, I have to say.

* I then found your image on:
http://forum.mind-energy.net/forum/skeptiko-podcast-forums/skeptiko-haven/5585-the-ouija-principle
as I did an image of the object in your current avatar on ISF.
Description there matches the one given by you here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10450658&postcount=805

Your response:

...
And no, it is not a 'ouija board' A ouija board looks like this:

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/images/ouija-board.jpg
...

..... appears to not agree with the above mind-energy link where you describe these artworks as ouija boards.

I'll read that link and admire the pictures later, I will likely have a question for you after that.
Thanks for posting the picture though.

 

[Pixel42]

Lots of people have communicated with their own subconscious using a ouija board and got all sorts of strange messages, Navigator. I'm not clear what it is you think we should be concluding from this.

 

[Navigator]

Natural selection is not a random process, but neither is it conscious or intelligent.

Any small change which makes an organism more likely to survive long enough to reproduce will be preferentially passed onto the next generation. Where in that process is there a need for intelligence?

Need?

It is that very process which is intelligent. That process IS an expression of intelligence.

If intelligence was involved in the process of natural selection the history of life on this planet would look different in two ways:

1. There would be no examples in nature of stupid design. But there are dozens of such examples:

What makes you think intelligence also isn't in the process of evolving? Do you think perhaps that intelligence HAS to be seen to be perfect and lacking any signs of stupidity?
What planet are you from?


Earth of course. Why even fools show evidence of intelligence. You can't deny that surely!

But who are we to judge?

Have you not made a stupid decision? Have you not learned from it eventually, even if you make the same stupid decision again and again? Perhaps you have been in a position where you have no choice but to make a decision because your options are that limited?

Extend that to the greater scale of biological evolution and it is easy enough to see that intelligence is involved, even in those things which strictly speaking do not have brains.

Try viewing the whole process as one thing rather than millions of individual 'species' all competing for a slice of the pie. Some things are kept and some are discarded. All completely intelligent in relation to getting a foot hold and hanging on in the experience.

That is how consciousness does things on this planet. It intends to stay the course.

2. The fossil record would show a clear progression with no diversions, dead ends or pauses (except in response to major environmental changes). But the record shows the exact opposite. For example, single celled organisms dominated for three billion years before the sequence of events which produced complex multi celled organisms finally occurred; why would an intelligent, conscious driver of evolution have twiddled its thumbs for so long?

Why do you assume the time things take is indicative of lack of intelligence in the process?

Why do you assume the discarding of some things and the maintaining of others is indicative of lack of intelligence?

 

[Pixel42]

Need?

Yes, need. There is no need to postulate intelligence to explain the observed process. The observed process will work perfectly well without it.

It is that very process which is intelligent. That process IS an expression of intelligence.

A process that can be completely accounted for as the inevitable consequence of unconscious, undirected forces cannot be an expression of intelligence.

To postulate intelligence there needs to be something going on that cannot be explained without doing so. There isn't. Everything we observe can be explained by (unconscious, undirected) natural selection alone.

 

[Navigator]

Lots of people have communicated with their own subconscious using a ouija board and got all sorts of strange messages, Navigator. I'm not clear what it is you think we should be concluding from this.

Please go back a page Pixel. See where I link a picture of a 'ouija board' and then see the picture of my device and have a think about what that indicates and see if you can't at least conclude something from just that.

If, upon thinking about it you don't come up with anything, I will be happy to tell you myself.

As to 'strange messages' I can't say I have had that experience. I can say the communications were not always immediately understood, or even when they were, they were not readily accepted. Don't forget, the ego self is communing with the true self, so there is always going to be misunderstanding, especially in the initial stages of the process, but time and patience and perseverance bring their own rewards.
True self is quite able to coach one along and teach etc.

If you love intelligence (or even your own expectation of what constitutes intelligence) you will eventually 'fall in love' with the true self. Undoubtedly. But that too comes with time and effort, like any good relationship.

 

[Navigator]

Yes, need. There is no need to postulate intelligence to explain the observed process. The observed process will work perfectly well without it.

No. It is not about 'need'. You and I don't NEED to see or not see intelligence in the process. It is there, regardless of our personal need (or lack of).

The process is working. We know that. That I see intelligence in the process has nothing to do with some need within me. It is not need which propels me to acknowledge the intelligence of the process. It is simply obvious that intelligence is there.

Do you need to see lack of intelligence in that process?

A process that can be completely accounted for as the inevitable consequence of unconscious, undirected forces cannot be an expression of intelligence.

And you believe that biological evolution is such a process. I think it has something to do with your need to believe that.
There may well have been a time when the process was not conscious of its existence, but seriously - something which so obviously wants to survive is intelligent. And survive it is doing and has been for a long time now.
It has been directing itself. It is the force that is directing itself.
Did you know that? What direction do you think this force is going? Because it most certainly is going in a direction.

To postulate intelligence there needs to be something going on that cannot be explained without doing so. There isn't. Everything we observe can be explained by (unconscious, undirected) natural selection alone.

I think you believe that nature is not intelligent. Is that what you believe?

 

[Pixel42]

Please go back a page Pixel. See where I link a picture of a 'ouija board' and then see the picture of my device and have a think about what that indicates and see if you can't at least conclude something from just that.

I conclude that you like pretty Ouija boards.

The actual form of the thing is immaterial to its function.

As to 'strange messages' I can't say I have had that experience. I can say the communications were not always immediately understood, or even when they were, they were not readily accepted.

Describes every *genuine Ouija board session I've ever read about.

* ie when no-one was deliberately moving the pointer.

 

[dlorde]

Can you still recall the experience(s) or are they completely gone from your memory?

I remember having the experiences, the salient points of them, and the associated emotions.

Do you believe that your memory of the experience(s) is different from the actual experience?

I think that is pretty much inevitable, given how memory works - and especially for dream experiences.

What is your explanation for your own experience(s)?

They were lucid dreams.

Well we have to be careful when such things as hypnosis are dramatized through media that we take it with a grain of salt, as the saying goes.

Quite. It is still unclear whether hypnosis produces a special mental state (like, for example, tonic immobility), or just a greater than usual relaxation and suggestibility.

Having said as much, when I misplace an item I have this little trick I use. Rather than spend time looking (and re-looking) in places where I think it most possible I placed the item , I simply forget about looking for the item and wander around the house not looking. 9 times out of 10 I find the item quite quickly by not consciously looking for it.

I use that technique for remembering words, especially names that temporarily escape me. It's as if conscious attempts to retrieve them block the operation of the non-conscious processes that do the job.

A proven technique for finding misplaced items more quickly is to continuously repeat the name of the item as you look for it.

 

[Pixel42]

No. It is not about 'need'. You and I don't NEED to see or not see intelligence in the process. It is there, regardless of our personal need (or lack of).

The process is working. We know that. That I see intelligence in the process has nothing to do with some need within me. It is not need which propels me to acknowledge the intelligence of the process.

I'm not talking about personal need, I'm talking about looking for the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts. Parsimony. There is no need to postulate a more complicated explanation when a simpler one suffices.

It is simply obvious that intelligence is there.

In the same way that it is obvious that the earth is flat, that the sun goes round the earth, that there is an angry god inside the volcano, that time and space are absolute quantities etc etc.

Common sense has proved to be a very poor guide to the true nature of the universe.

It has been directing itself. It is the force that is directing itself.
Did you know that? What direction do you think this force is going? Because it most certainly is going in a direction.

There is no certainty about that at all, indeed all the evidence suggests otherwise.

think you believe that nature is not intelligent. Is that what you believe?

Billions of years of evolution have resulted in a very small part of nature becoming intelligent, but the natural process that eventually produced that intelligence was not itself intelligent.

 

[dlorde]

Others scream and yell and insist that this is not true.

Linky?

Perhaps you’d be so kind as to inform Dinwar and dlorde of your recent conversion.

I can't speak for Dinwar, but in my view Nonpareil and I basically agree - we're saying the same thing in different ways. My earlier statements are predicated on quantum field theory being an accurate model of how the world behaves at the ranges and scales relevant to human interaction. In my opinion, the evidence for this is beyond reasonable doubt. As Nonpareil says, it is technically possible that this is not the case.

I don't think you'll find trying to show we contradict each other to be a useful strategy. Try making a persuasive argument instead.

 

[Donn]

You said: "We cannot afford to believe you because individuals are unreliable."

I don't share my data for that reason. I would if 50+ individuals using the same process were to do so, as a way of comparing etc.

Oh, got it now.

What is the mystery? I don't understand your position on this..

What you are talking about is generally known as mysticism. I didn't invent the term.

I have not mentioned meditation or following others. .. I don't get the connection you are making here.

What you describe (your dowsing process) sounds very similar to the practices of eastern and western mystics. Meditation is one form of that.

There is no real alternative. Every individual who has the basics in life potentially has the opportunity to take the journey themselves. There is much to distract them from even realising they have the opportunity.

This is what all mystics say. The lure of this mysterious prize was very strong when I was young (and less informed) but it no longer has any appeal.

I am doing this thing already. You have not noticed.

You are wasting our time. Sorry. Saving time is not what you do here. You spill words and deform meaning and avoid issues.

Of course, "save" in your english probably means "waste", the game is rigged.

It is not about belief.
It is not about belief.

Cute. Equivocation. How novel. You deliberately "misunderstand" the use of "belief" in order to excuse ignoring my point. Lovely dodge.

You win +5 Teflon points for slipperiness.

What I say is true. What I claim is true. It is not 'meditation. it is communication. Conversation. Integration of the ego self with the true self.

So you claim. See how you've gone from a "personal experience" to a loud "it's true"?

You cannot use the word "true" like that. You are declaring that in the common domain where you and I both exist, that what you say (about your personal dowsing experience) is true for both of us.

It is not true for me and that is a contradiction.

You have not established the truth of your "communication" outside of your head. Sorry.

You are stuck.

In future I will use the Pixy notation to mean all that. It looks like this: "No." When you see Pixy notation, bring to mind what I just said.

A process to which you have no time for. Why don't you just stop at that - in honesty saying "I don't have the time so will not be able to investigate, to see for myself" rather than continue with dishonesty and say "it is your fault for not making it easier for me."?

Well, you are the expert. Who the hell else can I ask? You're the high mucky-muck here with your shot glass and your vibes.

If I want Zen, I'll sign-up for it and regard fingers and moons.

As I have said, I have been doing this. The candles have been lit, the path is being illuminated and is being illuminated to that point where all the necessary data to get you on your way is in place.

Well, I'm glad you are using some of my terms, it shows some facility to adapt. If you are indeed mapping the space, that's great. I have not seen anything like it in your posts. Perhaps you are working in seclusion before sharing your map.

You have not seen it because you are not really looking for it.

It remains a mystery not because I am being mysterious, but because you choose to remain in ignorance.

Oh? So, your work is visible but I cannot see it for some reason? Is it shy? I won't hurt it, bring it forth a little more into the light.

As you have noted. Such a thing cannot be done if others will not also do it. Remember? Cross referencing, and all that other stuff which must happen before any 'papers' are published?

Most science starts with individuals. Do you think everyone agreed that feathers and balls fell at the same rate and then voted Galileo to go study it?

Be the Galileo of Psychonauts. (Don't get stuffed in prison!) Start the ball rolling. Create a synthesis of all the mystics who have gone before you. Write an ebook. Something!

Cease blaming others and claiming they do not give you enough data to 'make it interesting' or whatever.

My encouragement is not blame. It's a pity you hear it that way; and telling.

Your ego self (you know, the self which isn't real) is not interested in developing any relationship with your real self. It is that simple okay? That is the truth.

Here's the same truth problem again. It's your truth; not a common truth, just a parochial one.

Can you see that? Does that make sense?

Sadly, while your observation is correct, it lacks the integrity of the broader observation. It chooses through its bias to point the finger at a particular group whilst ignoring other groups which also operate under the same agenda. Not that all groups who do this are as obvious as these 'gurus' you speak of.

Meh. I didn't say "all". The problem is who to trust. The problem is each is an enclave of private knowledge.

If you were to make time and apply effort and thus discovered for yourself that what I am claiming is indeed true, you will be in a position above the noise.

I can't make head or tails of what you are claiming. I ask you to order your system and communicate it, refine it. I ask you to do this and you accuse me of blame.

Can't win.

Personal verification and experience will give you that. You will understand then that it is not about convincing people that it is true. It is about affording them the opportunity to find out for themselves, should they choose to do so.
Lighting a few candles. Explaining that you cannot experience for others what they can only experience for themselves.

Fine, I don't have a problem with that - as long as some introductory effort it put in and the question of trust is handled. I'd be hard pressed to teach someone how to play a guitar if all I did was lay it down and say, "stare at it."

I am not the one to tell your ego self about your real self.

You're very quick to pull-out the "it's true" card. So, yeah, you do tell others stuff all the time.

How? Explain to me how I can do this thing for you.

I'll just repeat what I said before:
When you tighten your techniques, open the process to critical overview and bow to it, begin to record objective data, start to develop experiments that can show other people reporting what you predicted, then you'll be doing science.

If you want to see if what I claim is true, YOU need to make the effort.

Stare at the guitar and it will tell you how to play it.

See how silly that is?

You cannot say 'it is not true because I bring no evidence it is true. what kind of evidence would that be? what would you accept?

A pattern of experience that is supported by many observers. A codifying of the terrain in to a standard language. A means to objectify the subjective experience.

More hands. More feet. More candles. More maps. Less implication, more explanation.

Do you see? This is something which can be done fairly simply and intelligently by most individuals.

I do see, this is standard mystical (aka spiritual) dogma. Sam Harris is a fan. I'm not averse, it's just too fuzzy to know where to start or who to trust.

What comes from the process is data which confirms to the individual they are indeed in communion with their real self. the interaction is subjective - it is about the individual for the most part.

What comes form the process is a datum - but unless it can be replicated it is not data.

If enough individuals were to do this as a project, THEN such could be cross referenced and agreed upon and confirmed. And papers perhaps writen about it.
What you ask from me cannot be done by me alone.

Very good! Yes, it's tough and you might not be the right person. As such, you should avoid using strong truth claims about your experiences.

This does not verify that it is thus not science or true, or that it is only true for me and no one else.

Well, yes - it is not science and it is not "true" in the sense that it's a confirmed truth. It is, in fact, only you. Other individuals have had similar experiences but it's hard to say to what degree they overlap or share any set with each other.

It could start to be a science if you became methodical and doubtful about it. I keep saying this but it never seems to penetrate.

So my claim stands. It does not fall down in the face of unrealistic expectations which cannot be done without co-operation of others.

No.

You, nor your peers, nor the scientific community can say 'it is false' just because you, your peers and the scientific community are not interested, for reasons which might not even have anything to do with science at all, but with profit and pride and other ego based agenda.

No.

You think that is why I am here, to try and convince the skeptics? On the contrary. I like to hear their arguments and fine tune my own knowledge through the interaction. It helps me get a better picture of what is going on.

I figured you're here to earn teflon points. You must be more slippery than greased linoleum by now.

I remain unconvinced at general skepticism - as unconvinced with that as I am with religion. I see narrow sides and vast middle ground. I see with eyes of understanding gained through interaction with true self.

You see the landscape through the only eyes that can survey and weigh truth: your own. Where did we read about this recently? Oh yes, the introspection illusion.

No, I am not here to convince believers that their concepts are in error. deep down under the surface of their costumes and make-up I know they know I am speaking truth.

No.

What I say, when you are reading it is understood by the true self you are. Do you feel that true self whispering to the ego self, or urging the ego self to take a look? To give it a go?

No.

The real self will only whisper. And btw - the candles being lit are not showing you the way into the cave, but the way out of the cave.

I've yet to see any of your candles. So what are you talking about?

The bulk of the work is up to you.

It seems so, including trying to get you to even do the work needed for me to start doing the work.

 

[annnnoid]

(snip)

…as usual, told by the argumentatively challenged, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Complaints, excuses, ad hominemns, strawmen, bare assertions, and hand waving. Perhaps the topic of this thread is beyond the abilities of those participating.

Ha. You get a straight answer to your rude question and then, instead of engaging that topic you deploy your usual non-sequitur about love.

It is to laugh.

Ooh, love.. The nuclear option! They'll never see it coming.

But Donn…it is not a non-sequitur. This will become immediately obvious should any of you provide actual evidence for this magical science that you all keep claiming has the capacity to directly adjudicate the phenomenon.

You seem ever eager to mount a challenge….perhaps you can answer the question then Donn. What variety of science has the capacity to quantify the condition we experience as ‘love’.

No need for yet another demonstration of your scintillating humor. Just answer the question.

If you don’t know the answer, just say…”I don’t know.”

As they're are defined right now, fuzzy and vague and all shifty? Who knows? Did the magician really saw the assistant in half on stage and then re-combine her?

We have given you reasons why physics (and other sciences) seat the mind in the brain.

Of course you will continue your shell game. Here's the OBE, where's the disproof? Now watch the Woo. First it's here, and now it's there. Where is it? Where's the OBE and what is your disproof now, eh science? Eh? Eh? Muhahahahaha.

Sigh.

What is love?! Evidence don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.

…here’s a hint Donn. Where the ‘mind’ is ‘seated’ is a different issue. If you want to address that feel free to do so. The issue I was addressing is whether OBE’s violate the laws of physics (as has been claimed at various times). If they do not then that argument needs to be discarded.

Are you capable of a position on this matter? Do OBE’s violate the laws of physics?

Yes…or no?

If you don’t know how to understand the question…just say “ I don’t understand the question.”

Linky?

I can't speak for Dinwar, but in my view Nonpareil and I basically agree - we're saying the same thing in different ways. My earlier statements are predicated on quantum field theory being an accurate model of how the world behaves at the ranges and scales relevant to human interaction. In my opinion, the evidence for this is beyond reasonable doubt. As Nonpareil says, it is technically possible that this is not the case.

I don't think you'll find trying to show we contradict each other to be a useful strategy. Try making a persuasive argument instead.

…except that in your previous posts you made no mention of the ‘in my opinion’ part. You described the situation as if it were all but resolved (“We know enough about the physics of human scale interactions to know it's not a valid move.”). Others, including Nonpareil have, in the past, made similar definitive statements (or agreed with those who have made them).

Fortunately we have an individual with relevant skills who can set the record straight (interesting that both Dinwar and Nonpareil have strenuously complained that Maaneli is not relevant to the discussion). No doubt everyone here is truly grateful that I have introduced Maaneli’s thoughts on this challenging issue.

 

[Donn]

But Donn…it is not a non-sequitur.

Yeah, it was. It's your usual loop of chasing the story round and round.

What variety of science has the capacity to quantify the condition we experience as ‘love’.

Erosics. If you don't know about this sultry science, I suggest you lather up and seek advice.

…here’s a hint Donn. Where the ‘mind’ is ‘seated’ is a different issue. .. I was addressing is whether OBE’s violate the laws of physics (as has been claimed at various times). If they do not then that argument needs to be discarded.

And, unless you skip, you'd have read recent conversation with Navigator et al. in which the consciousness is postulated to be free of the brain - hence allowing OBEs.

But, meh, whatever makes you feel misunderstood.

You've had several replies to your "Do OBEs violate physics" question, and they all boil down to the usual: yes, mostly aside magic which hides in the fraction of probability that always holds 100% certainty at bay.

You want to hear some other reasoning? It seems so, 'cos you keep at it.

So, is the elephant equal to the gnat?

Simple question.
If you are incapable of feeling that you might learn to dawn to begin to know how to sketch the outline of a start up the side walk to the lawn of knowing how not to answer then just say, "I don't understand the question."
(Also, post an ant so I know you're serious.)