• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Monroe Institute

If they had provided evidence of the virus they wouldn't have been considered Wooish. How do you think we came by the knowledge and why was it accepted into the Mainstream.

Plural of Anecdote is not Data.

WHat happens in another 10 years, 20 years 30 years when your gaps are smaller and there is still no evidence to support OBE?

Not one bit apart from stories?
 
jfish said:
I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong. I'm simply more inclined than most to believe we don't have all the answers to this consciousness issue.
Click to expand...


I certainly don't believe we have all the answers on the issue of consciousness. I don't think you're "more inclined than most" to believe we do, because I'm sure most people, like me, don't think we really have any answers to speak of at all. I listed all the evidence I could think of about the particular aspect of consciousness you raised in the expectation that you or others would dispute, comment and/or add items to either list.
 
In the past 24 hours I've been giving some thought to the conversations we've had over the past week and I've been considering my motives for participating. What I'm about to say is not intended to be taken negatively.

In retrospect I had hoped to find a group of people who, when presented with some challenging studies by credible researchers, would be willing to explore the implications and welcome additional information - perhaps even adding some new insights and experiences of their own. I recognized that my point of view is not the norm and accepted that going in. The reference point of most participants seems to place a much higher priority on being a sceptic than exploring ramifications if some of what is presented is true (not necessarily provable, but potentially true). Consequently, the content of our discussions has not been in the direction I had sought. Again, this isn't intended to be a cricitism. Scepticism is an important element of any investigative effort. For me it seems the balance is too heavily weighted toward rejection rather than exploration.

I've considered whether to start another thread where other people's first hand experiences as reported to me could be shared and see where they might lead our discussion. A decision on that alternative will have to wait until next month. Another option is to create a continuing ed course and try to market the concept to one of the local colleges where I live. The shortcoming in that approach is I might get too many participants at the other end of the spectrum - who accept the material without any critical thinking.

I tend to think I won't get much useful participation (with a couple of exceptions) from this venue. I'm not concerned about the tone some take in responding to my comments. Who the comments reflect on is all dependent on the reader's point of view.

This imagery struck me last night - we spend our lives building wonderful sand castles that are increasingly complex. But a musician I admire once sang "and so castles made of sand wash into the sea, eventually". For me its time to play in the sea and not worry so much about the sand castles others are defending.
 
jfish said:
In the past 24 hours I've been giving some thought to the conversations we've had over the past week and I've been considering my motives for participating. What I'm about to say is not intended to be taken negatively.

In retrospect I had hoped to find a group of people who, when presented with some challenging studies by credible researchers, would be willing to explore the implications and welcome additional information - perhaps even adding some new insights and experiences of their own. I recognized that my point of view is not the norm and accepted that going in. The reference point of most participants seems to place a much higher priority on being a sceptic than exploring ramifications if some of what is presented is true (not necessarily provable, but potentially true). Consequently, the content of our discussions has not been in the direction I had sought. Again, this isn't intended to be a cricitism. Scepticism is an important element of any investigative effort. For me it seems the balance is too heavily weighted toward rejection rather than exploration.

I've considered whether to start another thread where other people's first hand experiences as reported to me could be shared and see where they might lead our discussion. A decision on that alternative will have to wait until next month. Another option is to create a continuing ed course and try to market the concept to one of the local colleges where I live. The shortcoming in that approach is I might get too many participants at the other end of the spectrum - who accept the material without any critical thinking.

I tend to think I won't get much useful participation (with a couple of exceptions) from this venue. I'm not concerned about the tone some take in responding to my comments. Who the comments reflect on is all dependent on the reader's point of view.

This imagery struck me last night - we spend our lives building wonderful sand castles that are increasingly complex. But a musician I admire once sang "and so castles made of sand wash into the sea, eventually". For me its time to play in the sea and not worry so much about the sand castles others are defending.
Click to expand...

Hi - I've looked over the posts in this thread and some of the links and I believe your above interpretation of the situation is flawed.

You have submitted a position that the OBEs have been researched and are valid, and are achieved by some non-specific and as-yet unidentified mechanism. The sceptical enquirer naturally examines the claim and the evidence and says:

"There is insufficient or no current credible evidence to substantiate the conclusion being drawn, nor the mechanism whereby OBE could/would be achievable."

Which part of the above is causing you difficulty? You have formed a belief that others have examined and discovered to be one of your metaphorical sand castles.

If you are geniune in your intent, better evidence and a testable hypothesis would be the way to go, rather than asking for people to tell stories...

Regards,
KE
 
jfish said:
In the past 24 hours I've been giving some thought to the conversations we've had over the past week and I've been considering my motives for participating. What I'm about to say is not intended to be taken negatively.

In retrospect I had hoped to find a group of people who, when presented with some challenging studies by credible researchers, would be willing to explore the implications and welcome additional information - perhaps even adding some new insights and experiences of their own. I recognized that my point of view is not the norm and accepted that going in. The reference point of most participants seems to place a much higher priority on being a sceptic than exploring ramifications if some of what is presented is true (not necessarily provable, but potentially true). Consequently, the content of our discussions has not been in the direction I had sought. Again, this isn't intended to be a cricitism. Scepticism is an important element of any investigative effort. For me it seems the balance is too heavily weighted toward rejection rather than exploration.

I've considered whether to start another thread where other people's first hand experiences as reported to me could be shared and see where they might lead our discussion. A decision on that alternative will have to wait until next month. Another option is to create a continuing ed course and try to market the concept to one of the local colleges where I live. The shortcoming in that approach is I might get too many participants at the other end of the spectrum - who accept the material without any critical thinking.

I tend to think I won't get much useful participation (with a couple of exceptions) from this venue. I'm not concerned about the tone some take in responding to my comments. Who the comments reflect on is all dependent on the reader's point of view.

This imagery struck me last night - we spend our lives building wonderful sand castles that are increasingly complex. But a musician I admire once sang "and so castles made of sand wash into the sea, eventually". For me its time to play in the sea and not worry so much about the sand castles others are defending.
Click to expand...

This is not a fair reaction. You want people to think critically about only certain aspects of OBEs, worried that those who will accept OBEs will not be critical enough and those who don't are too critical and won't accept flimsy evidence. Good luck, but you can't have it both ways.
 
jfish said:
This imagery struck me last night - we spend our lives building wonderful sand castles that are increasingly complex.
Click to expand...
Some of those castles have foundations in reality, and others are just castles in the air.

If you're a serious seeker of the truth, the question you need to ask yourself is: what's the best way to find out which is which?

If comfort rather than truth is what you seek you can choose to live in whichever floating castle most takes your fancy, being careful never to look too closely at the foundations. That's the easy choice, and it's the one most people make. It's not the one most of the members of this forum have made, however.
 
KE - In your next to last sentence if you replace the word "discovered" with "believe", I would think that is a more accurate assessment. Discovered implies some basis of proof. There is no proof that our consciousness does not survive the death of our physical bodies. If there is some proof, cite the studies rather than use your own observations. I think there is evidence that suggests the possibility that perhaps consciousness does continue.

In your last sentence regarding better evidence - the evidence is not sufficient as yet to prove the hypothesis. As I have said my interest is not primarily to discuss how to go about designing testing methods and presenting evidence. Not that that isn't a worthwhile endeavor. If others think I should expend some effort in that direction, then their interests and mine diverge. I want to explore the possibilities of a hypothesis rather than tackle the more challenging task of trying to prove something that is beyond my means to accomplish.

It seems to me that it boils down to different interests. Others want proof which I can't provide. They don't want to consider the implications without proof (with the possible exception of marplots). There is nothing wrong with that perspective. If one doesn't think there is any possibility of a broader reality, why would one want to spend any time discussing it?

Perhaps if/when there is proof, the interests of others' in this thread will more closely coincide with mine. Not knowing when that proof might arise, I don't see that my regular participation will add any value. I wouldn't think people will find fault with that. What I may or may not experience in the Gateway Voyage doesn't seem to be of any interest to most here.
 
jfish said:
KE - In your next to last sentence if you replace the word "discovered" with "believe", I would think that is a more accurate assessment. Discovered implies some basis of proof. There is no proof that our consciousness does not survive the death of our physical bodies. If there is some proof, cite the studies rather than use your own observations. I think there is evidence that suggests the possibility that perhaps consciousness does continue.
Click to expand...

No, the use of the word "discover" was quite intentional: the evidence to substantiate your claim did not survive scrutiny.

Your attempt to turn the burden of proof is an amusing contrivance: if you were serious about this you would not have to resort to such an obvious deflection.

You made the claim, your evidence was found wanting, yet now it's *OUR* job to prove the negative? I lol at your presumption.

Have a nice out-of-pocket experience. Should your experience result in some evidence, I'd love to see it (noting that anecdote =/ evidence), as OBE is an intriguing *possibility*.

KE
 
KE - I never claimed to have any evidence that proved anything. In fact I've said repeatedly that what I've shared doesn't prove anything. I've pointed out some worthwhile studies that warrant consideration. As I noted, whether an individual finds anything of value in the research is a personal choice. From my perspective you have missed the point of my involvement in the discussion.
 
jfish, I am interested in your experience at the MI and i hope you share it here. I am new here so I will reserve comments. i hope this thread is not dead.
 
Rugby said:
jfish, I am interested in your experience at the MI and i hope you share it here. I am new here so I will reserve comments. i hope this thread is not dead.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is dead, we are just waiting for an update.
 
Here’s an update. For readers who need proof of something extraordinary before perceiving any value, I suggest not bothering to read this note. I have no proof to offer – only commentary. This information is intended for people who have an interest in exploring possibilities.
The Monroe Institute’s primary objective is to provide programs that facilitate the exploration of human consciousness. Several times each day we went into individual booths that insulated us from ambient light and sound. While in the booths (CHEC units) we listened to audio programs that guided us into expanded consciousness. Most of us (there were perhaps 2 exceptions) felt we experienced something out of the ordinary. Was this real or just an active imagination creating an experience? I can’t say for sure. In one session I had a sense of 3 dimensionality that was very different from what I experience when I simply visualize in a normal state of consciousness. After each session we gathered in a meeting room and had an opportunity to share what we had experienced.
One evening we had a guest speaker, Joe McMoneagle. Several decades ago the US military got word that the Soviets were developing “remote viewing” capabilities to gather intelligence. Remote viewing allows an individual with sufficient training and skills to observe a location that is separated from the location of the observer’s body. The military realized that, if true, there were significant implications for how to gather intelligence. Skip Attwater was tasked with exploring whether there was any truth to the possibility of remote viewing. He concluded there was and set up a remote viewing unit for the military. Joe was the first person to join the unit. His story is remarkable. We viewed an old television program that tested his abilities. Joe has written some books about his experiences if you would like to know more. Joe shared some rather noteworthy viewings he had.
There was a display in one room showing several bent forks and spoons. There is a graduate program that teaches participants how to focus energy and beliefs to achieve psychokinesis. This display was the result of this particular course.
So what does all this mean? Are we more than physical beings living only one lifetime on this planet? If so, what implications are there? I have my opinions which will influence how I live the remainder of my life. The changes in me will be subtle to most of my circle of friends. There are less expensive opportunities to experience a subset of what is offered in the Gateway Voyage program. Several people who live near me have expressed an interest in an Excursion Weekend. Hopefully that will happen in the first quarter of 2011. The more people who adopt an explorer’s attitude, the more we can help one another ponder the questions posed above.
 
That's it? They put you in a booth and put you to sleep with boring audio and then showed you bent silverware as an inducement to take another course?

What is this obsession with bending silverware, anyway. Is there a silverware bending profession (aside from phony psychic) that I never heard of?

I hope that you do not spend too much of your money on this stuff, Jfish.
 
imjohn said:
What is this obsession with bending silverware, anyway. Is there a silverware bending profession (aside from phony psychic) that I never heard of?
Click to expand...

From a magician's perspective, the advantage of bending silverware (flatware really) along with keys and coins, is that people are familiar with them and they have a cache of normalcy. I might mention that coin bending effects are quite popular and sell well in the magic community. I think they've outperformed keys and silverware simply because they are at hand and bending them doesn't really destroy anyone's could-be-valuable property. It also seems a bit more impossible to bend a disc of metal that you couldn't bend with your hands anyhow.

I've often thought that bending breakable stuff would be more impressive. I've never seen the bent paving brick trick.
 
For sleight of hand bending metal is a neat trick for sure and bending paving bricks would be a ton of win!
 
Exactly my thought -- the win comes in doing the sleight of hand. I can't do the simplest card trick, so I salute those who can pull this stuff off! (Honestly as stage magicians of course.)
 
Anyone take a look at the Monroe Institute's patents? They've held a set for many years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom