Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.skynet.be!newscore.univie.ac.at!newsfeed.ecrc.net!192.108.210.10.MISMATCH!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!netnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: dhaber@oswego.edu Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 23:52:41 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 29 Message-ID: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.195.205 X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jun 24 23:52:41 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) Hello.. I have had both lucid dreams, and OBE's, to some degree. I've never had a very vivid OBE though. Many people say there are obvious differences between OBE's and Lucid Dreams. What are these differences? I personally am extremely sceptical, and I see no reason why it should be believed that OBE's take place anywhere but in your mind. Sure there are tons of books filled with stories of people OBEing and seeing things they couldn't normally see, affecting things in remote places, and all sort of other things, but that doesn't make it true. Most of the books about OBE's are written by people that aren't very skeptical, and usually people who follow spiritualist beliefs, or sometimes something along the line of the teachings of the Cabala.. These people tend not to be very gullible from what I've seen, and I see no reason to believe them. I am sure that they believe a lot of what they say, but that doesn't make it true. Has anyone had any experiences with either Lucid dreams or obe's where something has happened that couldn't be, just "in your head" One last thing.. The experiments in "collective dreaming" have not been very successful from what I've seen and read.. Most information on OBE's say that it is very hard to go to a specific place, and most of the results seem to show that.. The only exception to this is the "landmarks" found in the cabala. There don't seem to be many Cabalists on here.. But if you read some "modern" cabala writings you find a lot of stories about people being able to meet others at "easilly found" places such as the Temple of Malkuth.... Anyone else think this is a good idea? According to most writings on Cabala this is supposbly a very easy place to find.. Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ix.netcom.com!news From: bartma12@ix.netcom.com(Bart Scott) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: 25 Jun 1998 01:55:48 GMT Organization: ICGNetcom Lines: 34 Message-ID: <6msan4$hjm@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: clv-oh39-43.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Jun 24 6:55:48 PM PDT 1998 In <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> dhaber@oswego.edu writes: > >Has anyone had any experiences with >either Lucid dreams or obe's where something has happened that >couldn't be, just "in your head" Well, yes... but considering the rest of your post, you probably wouldn't believe me - and I wouldn't blame you so why bother posting it? >One last thing.. The experiments in "collective >dreaming" have not been very successful from what I've seen and >read.. Most information on OBE's say that it is very hard to go >to a specific place, and most of the results seem to show that.. You haven't been in this NG for long, have you? >The only exception to this is the >"landmarks" found in the cabala. There don't seem to be many Cabalists >on here.. But if you read some "modern" cabala writings you find a >lot of stories about people being able to meet others at "easilly >found" places such as the Temple of Malkuth.... Anyone else think >this is a good idea? According to most writings on Cabala this is >supposbly a very easy place to find.. > >Doug Perhaps it is worth taking a look at. I often find myself in various temples. I never know the names of those places because 'names' are not that important to me - and they often have various translations anyway. Maybe I've been to the Temple of Malkuth already... Bart ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 02:34:02 +0200 Lines: 36 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t5o204p15.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t5o204p15.telia.com Message-ID: <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t5o204p15.telia.com dhaber@oswego.edu wrote in message <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Hello.. I have had both lucid dreams, and OBE's, to some degree. I've never >had a very vivid OBE though. Many people say there are obvious differences >between OBE's and Lucid Dreams. What are these differences? I personally am >extremely skeptical, and I see no reason why it should be believed that OBE's >take place anywhere but in your mind. Hi Doug. The fact that you can see other places with your eyes closed makes OBE real and true. But it is your choice to believe. I say that you may read a number in the next room, and then is it up to you to believe that and some day experience it for yourself... But your subconscious goes wild when you OBE too, so it is hard to distinguish what is real and what is not. You have to stay very focused to keep your subconscious in check. Most people that practice LD also experience OBE. But that doesn't make OBE less true. What I'm trying to say is that the fact that you can see things with your eyes closed that match with the real world makes and OBE real. Not something that goes on in you head.... Regards, Lars ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!firehose.mindspring.net!firehose.mindspring.com!not-for-mail From: "Peter Fellows" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 06:10:54 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 19 Message-ID: <6mt7o8$oi7$1@samsara0.mindspring.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-207-205-163-198.nwrk.grid.net X-Server-Date: 25 Jun 1998 10:11:20 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Doug, To me, it makes sense to talk of OBEs and Lucid Dreaming in terms of destinations, rather than other differentiation's. When you find yourself in a Dreamscape you are Lucid Dreaming, when you find yourself in the physical world (seemingly) out of body, you are having an OBE. Proving that some essential portion of your SELF leaves the body during an OBE would be difficult. How do you track the nonphysical with physical equipment? The old scientific test of trying to view a target only visible from above is naive. You don't have to be outside of the body to do that as has been demonstrated many times in "Remote Viewing" experiments. For myself, I take the simpliest explanation. If, during an OBE, I SEEM to be outside my body, and FEEL like I am outside my body, and RELATE to my environment as if I am outside my body, then I shall assume that I AM outside of my body. Should some scientist prove that to be wrong, fine, till then, it WORKS for me as a useful assumption. Cheers! Peter, "Dreamquest!" www.pipeline.com/~aislinn ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news1.best.com!sdd.hp.com!hp-corv.cv.hp.com!wwproxy.vcd.hp.com!news From: OOBEman Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 07:28:17 -0700 Organization: No Organization Represented Lines: 161 Message-ID: <35925E81.F230FCC9@realm.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: vcspholter2.vcd.hp.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------A9518E71B91B6F961AD7F067" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) --------------A9518E71B91B6F961AD7F067 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well Doug... "Belief" is a BIG part of your "Ability" to complete your objective. If you don't believe something to be true, or at least give it a true "Unbiased" approach, then your success will be limited to your belief to a great extent. Most times your results will be purely "Personal". You will soon be able to Test yourself in certain way's to prove to Yourself that a certain condition has occured. No matter how convincing you may be in telling your experiences to someone else, there will always be Skeptic's. I myself have been able to test myself and found that this phenomenon to be completely true. But you as a skeptic may have to find out for yourself through your own experiences. As far as "finding" someone you know in your OOBE, or having a purely "Vivid" OOBE your success in these area's come with practice and a healthy lifstyle. If you want to find someone that you know, then practice on thinking of and feeling "who" they are, their personality, their being, with this feeling of them, desire to find or be with them. Soon with practice you will have success. "Vivid" OOBE's also come with practice. Most times you are in somewhat of a dreamstate during your OOBE and this meld's with your experience. But also there are purely concious OOBE's in which your are completely awake and aware of every phase of the process. This is sometimes not so easy to achieve, depending on your state of mind. A POSITIVE state of mind and PRACTICE, along with a healthy lifestyle, (i.e. good diet, etc.) are Very Important in your degree of success. Good luck. OOBEman dhaber@oswego.edu wrote: > Hello.. I have had both lucid dreams, and OBE's, to some degree. I've never > had a very vivid OBE though. Many people say there are obvious differences > between OBE's and Lucid Dreams. What are these differences? I personally am > extremely sceptical, and I see no reason why it should be believed that OBE's > take place anywhere but in your mind. Sure there are tons of books filled > with stories of people OBEing and seeing things they couldn't normally see, > affecting things in remote places, and all sort of other things, but that > doesn't make it true. Most of the books about OBE's are written by people > that aren't very skeptical, and usually people who follow spiritualist > beliefs, or sometimes something along the line of the teachings of the > Cabala.. These people tend not to be very gullible from what I've seen, and I > see no reason to believe them. I am sure that they believe a lot of what > they say, but that doesn't make it true. Has anyone had any experiences with > either Lucid dreams or obe's where something has happened that couldn't be, > just "in your head" One last thing.. The experiments in "collective > dreaming" have not been very successful from what I've seen and read.. Most > information on OBE's say that it is very hard to go to a specific place, and > most of the results seem to show that.. The only exception to this is the > "landmarks" found in the cabala. There don't seem to be many Cabalists on > here.. But if you read some "modern" cabala writings you find a lot of > stories about people being able to meet others at "easilly found" places such > as the Temple of Malkuth.... Anyone else think this is a good idea? > According to most writings on Cabala this is supposbly a very easy place to > find.. > > Doug > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading --------------A9518E71B91B6F961AD7F067 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well Doug...

"Belief" is a BIG part of your "Ability" to complete your objective.  If you don't believe something to be true, or at least give it a true "Unbiased" approach, then your success will be limited to your belief to a great extent.
Most times your results will be purely "Personal".  You will soon be able to Test yourself in certain way's to prove to Yourself that a certain condition has occured.  No matter how convincing you may be in telling your experiences to someone else, there will always be Skeptic's.  I myself have been able to test myself and found that this phenomenon to be completely true. But you as a skeptic may have to find out for yourself through your own experiences.

As far as "finding" someone you know in your OOBE, or having a purely "Vivid" OOBE your success in these area's come with practice and a healthy lifstyle. If you want to find someone that you know, then practice on thinking of and feeling "who" they are,  their personality, their being,  with this feeling of them, desire to find or be with them. Soon with practice you will have success.  "Vivid" OOBE's also come with practice. Most times you are in somewhat of a dreamstate during your OOBE and this meld's with your experience. But also there are purely concious OOBE's in which your are completely awake and aware of every phase of the process. This is sometimes not so easy to achieve, depending on your state of mind.  A POSITIVE state of mind and PRACTICE, along with a healthy lifestyle, (i.e.  good diet,  etc.) are Very Important in your degree of success.

Good luck.
OOBEman
 

dhaber@oswego.edu wrote:

Hello..  I have had both lucid dreams, and OBE's, to some degree.  I've never
had a very vivid OBE though.  Many people say there are obvious differences
between OBE's and Lucid Dreams.  What are these differences?  I personally am
extremely sceptical, and I see no reason why it should be believed that OBE's
take place anywhere but in your mind.  Sure there are tons of books filled
with stories of people OBEing and seeing things they couldn't normally see,
affecting things in remote places, and all sort of other things, but that
doesn't make it true.  Most of the books about OBE's are written by people
that aren't very skeptical, and usually people who follow spiritualist
beliefs, or sometimes something along the line of the teachings of the
Cabala.. These people tend not to be very gullible from what I've seen, and I
see no reason to believe them.  I am sure that they believe a lot of what
they say, but that doesn't make it true.  Has anyone had any experiences with
either Lucid dreams or obe's where something has happened that couldn't be,
just "in your head"  One last thing..  The experiments in "collective
dreaming" have not been very successful from what I've seen and read..  Most
information on OBE's say that it is very hard to go to a specific place, and
most of the results seem to show that..  The only exception to this is the
"landmarks" found in the cabala. There don't seem to be many Cabalists on
here..  But if you read some "modern" cabala writings you find a lot of
stories about people being able to meet others at "easilly found" places such
as the Temple of Malkuth....  Anyone else think this is a good idea?
According to most writings on Cabala this is supposbly a very easy place to
find..

Doug

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

  --------------A9518E71B91B6F961AD7F067-- ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: silkdick@aol.com (Silk Dick) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: 25 Jun 1998 12:13:41 GMT Lines: 12 Message-ID: <1998062512134100.IAA21997@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com References: <6msan4$hjm@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader {someone wrote}... > According to most writings on Cabala this is supposbly a very easy place to find.. Oh yeah? I wonder if any Cabalist can actually find their ass with both hands? Pleasant Dreams |-) Silk Richard.Silk@Juno.Com SilkDick@aol.com Pager #615-923-1696 ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:50:29 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 29 Message-ID: <6muk7l$eve$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6msan4$hjm@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.196.39 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jun 25 22:50:29 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) > > Well, yes... but considering the rest of your post, you probably > wouldn't believe me - and I wouldn't blame you so why bother posting > it? Hello.. You are right that I probably wouldn't believe you, but I'm definitly intersting in hereing peoples stories. I probably won't believe anything of that sort until it happens to me, but I do a lot of experimenting.. I do a lot with hypnosis and have tried with slight success to induce obe's in others. In a controlled invironment like that where there is still communication with the person it my be possible to get some intersting results. I'm trying to find someone who's a very good subject for hypnosis to test things like that. I am very skeptical, but I am also open minded. I try to suspend judgement on most things that I can't prove either way, but I have a tendancy to go with the more "rational" side. > You haven't been in this NG for long, have you? It's been a few months now.. I just started posting recently. Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!peer.news-uk.wisper.net!peer.news-uk.wisper.net!netnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: dhaber@oswego.edu Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 23:02:41 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 52 Message-ID: <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.196.39 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jun 25 23:02:41 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) > The fact that you can see other places with your eyes closed makes OBE real > and true. Hello Lars.. I sometimes can have very clear visions of other places while my eyes are closed. That doesn't prove obe's. I have never had a vision that I could prove was clairvoyant, and thus showing what is happening somewhere else. You could find many volumes of books that list case after case of examples of that sort of stuff, but that doesn't prove very much. If you look around enough you can find enough contradictions in the same stories printed in more than one place that it becomes unclear what really happened. > > But it is your choice to believe. > I say that you may read a number in the next room, > and then is it up to you to believe that and some day experience > it for yourself... There has only been one successful case that I am aware of where an OBEr was able to successfuly read a five digit number in another room. It only worked on one occasion, and that was after many tries. While that is very impressive, it would be much more impressive if it was repeated. Something is not proven by occuring once. > What I'm trying to say is that the fact that you can see things with your > eyes closed that match with the real world makes and OBE real. > Not something that goes on in you head.... I'm just curious, Have you ever obe'd or lucid dreamed before? That's not too relevant though. Most people are not able to see things in remote places successfully when obeing. In the many labratory cases that have been done, very few have had any recognizable success. Of course the successful ones are impressive, but they are so seldomly repeated and so I would think that that the results are definitly questionably. It's good to look at things open mindedly, but to a limit. I think you should always try to be a little skeptical of everything. Most of what you read in news papers and books and from other people is somewhat incorrect. If you take everything as being true and take it litteraly you will adventually have many contradicting and incorrect beliefs. I'm not sure if I'm explaining it well, but basically if you remain very open minded for too long, in the end you'll just be very confused. That's a bit irrelevant though. I'm not trying to offend anyone or attack anyones beliefs. Just to have a friendly open conversation. Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!peer.news-uk.wisper.net!peer.news-uk.wisper.net!netnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: dhaber@oswego.edu Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 23:07:01 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 23 Message-ID: <6mul6l$gdr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6msan4$hjm@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <1998062512134100.IAA21997@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.196.39 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jun 25 23:07:01 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) In article <1998062512134100.IAA21997@ladder03.news.aol.com>, silkdick@aol.com (Silk Dick) wrote: > > {someone wrote}... > > According to most writings on Cabala this is supposbly a very easy place to > find.. > > Oh yeah? I wonder if any Cabalist can actually find their ass with both hands? Silk, Have you ever read Cabala.. The original two books, and many writings based on those are the basis of many modern "spiritualist" beliefs. Many of the ideas of the different planes of existance, the different bodies, and all that stuff have originated from Cabala. Are you going to accept that stuff that most of you seem to agree with as being true, and then disregard the rest? Sure, there are lots of stupid things in the cabala, but a lot of it might have great importance in learning about these sort of things. -Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!peer.news-uk.wisper.net!peer.news-uk.wisper.net!news-lond.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!howland.erols.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 23:14:31 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 33 Message-ID: <6mulkn$gpr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6mt7o8$oi7$1@samsara0.mindspring.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.196.39 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jun 25 23:14:31 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) In article <6mt7o8$oi7$1@samsara0.mindspring.com>, "Peter Fellows" wrote: > > Doug, > To me, it makes sense to talk of OBEs and Lucid Dreaming in terms of > destinations, rather than other differentiation's. When you find yourself in > a Dreamscape you are Lucid Dreaming, when you find yourself in the physical > world (seemingly) out of body, you are having an OBE. > I'm a bit confused. You are saying that when you obe you are in the physical world? I guess that really depends which view you take. There are many different views, and off of them many twisted versions of them. A lot of people seem to think of all obe's taking place in the astral plane. They then claim that the astral plane also has this universe in it, and many many other places.. Then there are those who seperate the etheric and the astral. Supposobly they say we are now in the physical. If you project into the etheric you are in the world closest to this one,and so everything will be just how it is in the physical, except you'll be in an etheric body, and so able to move through walls, fly,etc.. And of course the astral plane is a different plane where thought is action.. The astral plane is the "world of the imagination" and all that stuff. It has all the other existances. And then there are times that you slip quickly between the astral and etheric without even knowing it. And there are many other planes. Usually a total of 7 or 10, but sometimes something very different, and sometimes even an infinite number of planes. But of course that's just one view. Do most of you take one of those views, or a completely different one? There are many different ones. What are all of your thoughts on that? Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!worldfeed.gte.net!newsfeed.gte.net!newsfeed2.gte.net.MISMATCH!news.gte.net!not-for-mail From: Trish Pike Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 23:59:02 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 42 Message-ID: <6mv65n$19v$1@news-2.news.gte.net> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6mt7o8$oi7$1@samsara0.mindspring.com> <6mulkn$gpr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust135.tnt2.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: D50C86435686CDDF19D68491 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Doug, There's lots of people who believe that OBEs include a soul that travels on the physical plane. So it would be natural to try and detect this "physical" soul with some type of equipment ... or by determining objects in a different room while out of body. There's another belief out there that states that an OBE is not about a physical soul leaving the body on the physical plane. It's about consciousness, determining the nature of what we believe to be "reality" and what "reality" _means_ to the individual consciousness. It's about determining the source of the environmental information received during an OBE, which many believe does not does come from the physical world, or a dream, or a hallucination ... but possibly from an entirely different source. Take someone like me for example ... I'm not convinced that an OBE revolves around the physical, the astral (in the common thought of the word), a hallucination, or a dream. For some reason, I am compelled to seek another answer. What that is yet, I do not know. I do know the experience, what if feels like, and that the answer lies somewhere where we haven't looked yet. So determining the existance of OBEs by technical proof in labs may be veering off in the wrong direction. Rocks fall from the sky all the time. But if you look for the "God" that threw it, you'll never know anything about meteorites. Trish P>S> ... Doesn't the Cabala have something to do with tarot cards, and the way they are presented? Somehow I associate the two together. Please enlighten me. : ) ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ix.netcom.com!news From: bartma12@ix.netcom.com(Bart Scott) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: 26 Jun 1998 04:00:17 GMT Organization: ICGNetcom Lines: 61 Message-ID: <6mv6ch$d2a@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: clv-oh40-12.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Jun 25 9:00:17 PM PDT 1998 In <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> dhaber@oswego.edu writes: > > > >> The fact that you can see other places with your eyes closed makes >>OBE real and true. >I have never had a vision >that I could prove was clairvoyant, After a while, certain types of people stop 'looking' for proof and just 'see' it. It doesn't need to be proven to them any more - and they don't need to prove it to anyone else. Nobody needs to prove it to you - and the more proof you expect outside of yourself, the less you will see. So... only YOU lose. > There has only been one successful case that I am aware of where an >OBEr was able to successfuly read a five digit number in another room. > It only worked on one occasion, and that was after many tries. After knowing what I know of the net... and people... that one hit could have easily been a fraud. I've also read such an account in one of Susan Blackmore's books. Skeptical, I am... >While that is very impressive, it would be much more impressive if it >was repeated. Something is not proven by occuring once. So... the fact that millions of (sane) people throughout the world, and throughout history, have reported psychic phenomena does not prove that it has happened more than once... okay... ... now.. what was that thing that old man said about 'points of view'? Maybe the 'scientific method' only works with that which is in the physical? >I think you should always try to be a little >skeptical of everything. Fer sher... Next time you stub your toe - prove that you experience pain. OBE is a valid state of human consciousness. Many scientists have made suggestions that ESP is the cause of some hits with OBE. ESP? Are we making some progress? Now scientists accept ESP... but NOT OBE? Yet most scientists don't even know or care about ESP or OBE... Whoopie... What a ridiculous situation to be in when looking for proof of something that may give you reason for acting like something more than a sack of molecules... I must agree that it is foolish not to question. Finding one's self in a position of being mislead can be quite devastating. Warning noted, dhaber. Thanks. I certainly wouldn't want to intentionally mislead anyone. Bart ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!worldfeed.gte.net!newsfeed.gte.net!newsfeed2.gte.net.MISMATCH!news.gte.net!not-for-mail From: Trish Pike Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 20:32:54 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 46 Message-ID: <6n1ef3$dfq$1@news-2.news.gte.net> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6mt7o8$oi7$1@samsara0.mindspring.com> <6mulkn$gpr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6mv65n$19v$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6n14dp$57a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust21.tnt1.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: D50FC11005DBCD8A46D18491 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) dhaber@oswego.edu wrote: > > the wrong direction. Rocks fall from the sky all the time. But if you look > for > > the "God" > > that threw it, you'll never know anything about meteorites. > > Hello.. I see what you are saying but on some level I still disagree. > Science as we know it in recent years has been able to explain many things > without error. Science shows that there are "laws" by which things work, and > these laws cannot be broken.. Taking a scientific approach to these things > of course means closing your mind a little, but it allows you to try and > generate a a system of rules by which things work. Maybe a few hundred > years ago rocks falling from the sky were a mystery, but today we understand > that. OBe's might be a mystery now,but in a few years science might explain > them.. Or of course they might actually be nothign more than something that > happens in ones own mind, in which case science already pretty much has > explained them. But that is all questionable... Right now science believes OBEs are either hallucinations or dreams, because theyhave been unable to find a physical source. But those of us who have had hallucinations and dreams know that there is quite a distinction between those and OBEs, and are completely unsatisfied with the results science has given us. Either science is right, and the thousands of people who have OBEs are wrong ... or there has been some scientific error along the way. Personally, I believe that science is merely looking in the wrong area for "proof", and that the entire experience is more complicated than most make it out to be. Either that, or everyone here in this newsgroup are a bunch of fools, encouraging others to be foolish as well. I know we are not fools. But that's what science currently makes us out to be by ignoring the phenomenon as we experience it. They fail to realize that this is as real to us as waking up and going to work every morning. It's something they must acknowledge before any real answers can be found. Trish ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: dhaber@oswego.edu Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 21:39:04 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 38 Message-ID: <6n14dp$57a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6mt7o8$oi7$1@samsara0.mindspring.com> <6mulkn$gpr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6mv65n$19v$1@news-2.news.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.220.121 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jun 26 21:39:04 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) > the wrong direction. Rocks fall from the sky all the time. But if you look for > the "God" > that threw it, you'll never know anything about meteorites. Hello.. I see what you are saying but on some level I still disagree. Science as we know it in recent years has been able to explain many things without error. Science shows that there are "laws" by which things work, and these laws cannot be broken.. Taking a scientific approach to these things of course means closing your mind a little, but it allows you to try and generate a a system of rules by which things work. Maybe a few hundred years ago rocks falling from the sky were a mystery, but today we understand that. OBe's might be a mystery now,but in a few years science might explain them.. Or of course they might actually be nothign more than something that happens in ones own mind, in which case science already pretty much has explained them. But that is all questionable... > P>S> ... Doesn't the Cabala have something to do with tarot cards, and the way > they > are presented? Somehow I associate the two together. Please enlighten me. : Cabala is Jewish Mysticism. It has nothing to do with tarot. There is a lot about projection in there, under different names though.. They "map out" the astral plane, and it contains a ton of information that might be worth looking into, all though I personally think a lot of it is garbage. Cabala covers many other topics unrelated too.. It's an intersting thing to read about.. Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 22:24:59 +0200 Lines: 106 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t4o204p48.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t4o204p48.telia.com Message-ID: <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.hrz.uni-kassel.de!fu-berlin.de!news-feed.ifi.uio.no!uninett.no!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t4o204p48.telia.com dhaber@oswego.edu wrote in message <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Hello Lars.. I sometimes can have very clear visions of other places while >my eyes are closed. That doesn't prove OBE's. I have never had a vision >that I could prove was clairvoyant, and thus showing what is happening >somewhere else. You could find many volumes of books that list case after >case of examples of that sort of stuff, but that doesn't prove very much. If >you look around enough you can find enough contradictions in the same stories >printed in more than one place that it becomes unclear what really happened. > Maybe not OBE, but maybe Remote Viewing or ESP. At least I regard that as another evidence I put on my list... But it could be a production of your imagination. So unless you saw something you could hardly imagine or something like that, then I have no way of explaining what your experience was. The number of people that can remote view something is enormous, the cases are huge. Everything do I regard as evidence. But I don't quite understand what you mean about contradictions. When one guy said he had a vision of some place, and that place looked the exact same as in his vision, then what is the problem. If one guy remote view to some place and what he saw is fairly correct, then what is the problem?? If two people say they can talk to each other buy telepathy, what more do you need? Do you need to have it broadcasted on international TV? I think you have been reading the wrong stories... > >> >> But it is your choice to believe. >> I say that you may read a number in the next room, >> and then is it up to you to believe that and some day experience >> it for yourself... > > There has only been one successful case that I am aware of where an OBEr >was able to successfully read a five digit number in another room. It only >worked on one occasion, and that was after many tries. While that is very >impressive, it would be much more impressive if it was repeated. Something >is not proven by occurring once. > A 5 digit number, wow, that is a lot. It is so unlikely that the guy could have guessed right, that I regard this as evidence. Even though he didn't manage to replicate his work. But note that this guy is not the only one that has done such a thing. > >> What I'm trying to say is that the fact that you can see things with your >> eyes closed that match with the real world makes and OBE real. >> Not something that goes on in you head.... > > I'm just curious, Have you ever obeyed or lucid dreamed before? That's not >too relevant though. Most people are not able to see things in remote places >successfully when obeing. In the many laboratory cases that have been done, >very few have had any recognizable success. Of course the successful ones >are impressive, but they are so seldomly repeated and so I would think that >that the results are definitely questionably. It's good to look at things >open mindedly, but to a limit. I think you should always try to be a little >skeptical of everything. Most of what you read in news papers and books and >from other people is somewhat incorrect. If you take everything as being >true and take it literally you will adventually have many contradicting and >incorrect beliefs. I'm not sure if I'm explaining it well, but basically if >you remain very open minded for too long, in the end you'll just be very >confused. > I have had one Lucid dream before, that was fun.... I don't know why the success rate in OBE is low, I don't even know if it is low. I have heard that success rate in RV might be as high as 60%. Maybe OBE is just like a bad computer connection. Like a bad cable between two computers, a lot of info is being messed up and stuff like that. But it is a matter of training. Practice create masters... But I have a very open mind, if someone tell me without receiving any payment for it that he can do this and that, then I believe that person. And the more people that tell me the same thing, the more certain do I become of the fact that it really is true. I'm always on the look for more stories that might back up what I have heard. In the end do I believe that anything is possible, and it is. > That's a bit irrelevant though. I'm not trying to offend anyone or >attack anyones beliefs. Just to have a friendly open conversation. > Haven't seen anything that resemble hostility yet... Nice to have you here... Regards, Lars ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 01:27:10 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 79 Message-ID: <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.195.188 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jun 27 01:27:10 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) > looked the exact same as in his vision, then what is the problem. > If one guy remote view to some place and what he saw is fairly correct, > then what is the problem?? > If two people say they can talk to each other buy telepathy, what more > do you need? There are very few recorded cases where something like that happens perfectly.. Have you ever read a book or a newspaper article about a topic you know about, or an event that you happened to be at, or maybe even talked to someone else that was there? You'll find that almost all newspaper articles, books, tv reports, etc, are filled with innacuracies, exagerations, and errors. I've been involved in all sorts of strange thigns that have made the news before, and I have never seen one report, or read one book that covered an event correctly without exagerating something, giving false information, or something of that sort. The problem usually is because the author doesn't know much about the story. Back to the topic at hand. People have a tenndancy to exagerate. Bye the time a story about an obe or clairvoyance get's written it has been told many times, and through many people. This causes exagerations in the stories, and people tend to add their own ideas into it. Even if a story is written by a person that had an experience they tend to exagerate somewhat. Have you ever read any books on occult philosophy? Try reading a few different books by a few different authors.. You'll see what I mean. They tend to cover the same stories, but there are usually plenty of differences here and there.. > A 5 digit number, wow, that is a lot. It is so unlikely that the guy could > have guessed > right, that I regard this as evidence. Even though he didn't manage to > replicate his > work. But note that this guy is not the only one that has done such a thing. It is very impressive, but shouldn't be considered strong evidence. If it was real why wasn't it repeated.. You say that this wasn't the only guy who did such a thing.. (I think it was a female anyway, but that's not important).. It's the only recorded case I've found. I've read many other cases where these things were attempted, but this was the only successful one.. I seem to remember Monroe attempting something similiar without any success.. Actually he suppossbly saw some man that he didn't know was there, but he didn't see the target.. > > But I have a very open mind, if someone tell me without receiving any I see that you have a very open mind. That's good, but what I was trying to say was it might be a bit too open. Of course that's just my view.. I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with me. Just remember that all these things you call evidence aren't perfect. Look through occult history and you'll find a lot of contridictory things. Actually there are some major things in common through completely unrelated stories that I have found, but that doesn't help what i'm trying to say here. Basically, how do you explain people of lets say, different religous beliefs, having experiences based on what they'd expect, and meeting people that they'd expect to meet. Such as a christian having a near death experience and encountering jesus, while any other person of another religion with the ssame experience has happen just what they expect, and meets who they expect to meet? > > Haven't seen anything that resemble hostility yet... I'm just trying to be careful, as I don't want people to get mad at me. I tend to have very strong views of things and there have been times in the past that I have really pissed people off. An example would be a Catholic guy who was trying to convince me of the truth of jesus and god.. I simply took the "socrates method" of asking him questions and making him contradict himself until his arguement fell completlely apart. That made him violently mad at me and he refused to talk to me for a while after... I just don't want to bother anyone like that here. Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 18:40:05 +0200 Lines: 63 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t4o204p40.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t4o204p40.telia.com Message-ID: <3595249d.1@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!naxos!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!uninett.no!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t4o204p40.telia.com dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Even if a story is written by a person that had an >experience they tend to exaggerate somewhat. Have you ever read any books on >occult philosophy? Try reading a few different books by a few different >authors.. You'll see what I mean. They tend to cover the same stories, but >there are usually plenty of differences here and there.. > You have read to much occult philosophy, try to read actual stories that one person have experienced and written down right after the experience. I doubt that you will find many exaggerations in people stories about AP and OBE: I certainly would dream about doing so. If I tried to read a 5 digit number in the other room, and I only got four digit right, then I would go around and tell everyone that I got 5 digits right. And I doubt that others would do so too. You may have to be a bit skeptical in your line of duty, but I mostly read stories that one person have experienced and written down. Not much need to be skeptical about those... > I'm just trying to be careful, as I don't want people to get mad at me. I >tend to have very strong views of things and there have been times in the past >that I have really pissed people off. An example would be a Catholic guy who >was trying to convince me of the truth of Jesus and god.. I simply took the >"Socrates method" of asking him questions and making him contradict himself >until his argument fell completely apart. That made him violently mad at me >and he refused to talk to me for a while after... I just don't want to bother >anyone like that here. > I would first of all not listen to such a guy, nobody can force any religion on me... And if I had to talk to him, then I would probably do that same things... Trying to prove him wrong... Well, if you support such religions, then you should be prepared to get mad too. But I don't think you will manage to piss anyone here off. We are not trying to convince you of anything... we just share... OBE is not a religion, it is just experiences... Religion is just some crap that some people want other to believe in, that this stuff has happen ages ago too... Has not much to do with the present... OBE does... Cheers, Lars ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 19:01:31 +0200 Lines: 34 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t4o204p40.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t4o204p40.telia.com Message-ID: <35952504.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!naxos!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!uninett.no!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t4o204p40.telia.com Shane wrote in message <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33>... >You remind me of what I used to be like - I never believed in any of >this "bullshit". But through curiosity, open mindedness (with a >degree of skepticism), experience and logical thinking I've come to >have the belief systems that I currently have :-) > >Shane It is harder for some people to believe in things than other... Probably because of experiences they have had in their childhood... But I have always been interested in this stuff... I remember one time I saw Beyond 2000 Great show, but I just saw it when I visited some relatives... Don't have it myself.... Anyway, I saw a telepathic experiment that was conducted... Two guys, one man and one reporter from Beyond 2000. They successfully managed to transfer a couple of images.. I got interested, but hadn't access to more info, I didn't even know where to find it.. So several years went by before I'm back in business again... My sisters boyfriend is very skeptical, even in hypnosis. But that is because his grandmother was VERY religious. Cheers, Lars ###### From: "Shane" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 20:47:01 +1000 Lines: 141 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.64.16 Message-ID: <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33> Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!naxos!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.skynet.be!newscore.univie.ac.at!europa.clark.net!208.134.241.18!newsfeed.internetmci.com!139.130.250.2!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nntp.telstra.net!139.134.5.33!139.134.64.16 dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Have you ever read any books on occult >philosophy? Try reading a few different books by a few different >authors.. You'll see what I mean. They tend to cover the same >stories, but there are usually plenty of differences here and >there.. I agree with much of what you said, but I'm a bit miffed at your apparent need to find truly "objective" evidence - you won't find it. I used to get quite frustrated when I would read the contradictions in various books. However, after a while, you gain the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff and you begin to see the common threads emerge. Although individuals' perspectives and techniques are interesting food for thought, it's those common threads that I look for. When I come across an idea for the first time, it's a theory. The more people who say the same thing, the stronger the theory becomes. Then, using my own personal experiences, the theory either works for me or doesn't work for me. If something doesn't work then I file it away in the back of my mind in the "some people believe this but I don't buy it" folder. If something does work then it becomes a personal philosophy or adds to / alters an already existing personal philosophy. As long as a human mind is involved (and there is always a human mind involved), there will always be different perspectives - just look at how Christianity has splintered into different denominations since Christ! They're all based on the same thing ie. the Bible but they all have their own interpretations. There is no such thing as true objectivity when results or experiences require an interpretation. This is true even in science. Results from a controlled double blind experiment are still subject to interpretation. What one person regards as significant may be dismissed by another. In fact, many breakthroughs in science are due to someone looking deeper into something that everyone else regarded as insignificant. Have you heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle and the Pygmalion effect. These are examples of how science is not as objective as most people think. However, I will say that the scientific method is more objective and successful at discovering the workings of the PHYSICAL Universe than philosophy or individual experience, and it's served us well for that purpose. However, the scientific method has a basic flaw when it comes to explaining non-physical things and that is: it is IMPOSSIBLE to design a physical experiment to test the validity of a non-physical phenomenon. The ONLY way for "science" to test the validity of OBE is to rely on empirical data, and physical science doesn't like empirical data because it thinks it's too subjective to be valid. It regards empirical data as only a curiosity which will then need to be tested using a physical, controlled, double blind study. If it fails this then it must be bullshit. Psychology is a bit different becuase it's the study of the mind (not the brain), which is not physical. Some people don't regard psychology as a true science (even though it's a well accepted field of study) because it relies on correlation and interpretation of empirical data. If it didn't, then the "science" of psychology wouldn't exist as they would have, long ago, all come to the conclusion that the mind doesn't exist! Of course the mind exists, but you can't stick someone's mind in a petri dish, a test tube or a particle accelerator! Psychology exists, not because it's scientifically objective, but because it works in explaining the functioning of the mind. The ONLY way the "science" of OBE will advance is by adopting the methodologies of psychology, not the physical sciences. There are many aspects of OBE that are repeatable, but they're all based on experience, not tests like reading numbers in a sealed room (NB: reading things during an OBE is notoriously difficult for some reason). As an example of what I mean I'll ask whether you can prove to me that you dream? You can tell me that you dream and you can show me the data from your Novadreamer goggles that recorded your REM activity but that doesn't prove to me that YOU dream. If you told me you dream, the only thing that makes me believe you is the fact that the rest of the population (including myself) dreams as well. However, let's say that only 10% of the population remember their dreams. Then we'd be in the same boat as trying to prove OBE. I could turn around and say "I don't believe you - I just go blank when I sleep and none of my friends have said they dream. If this dreaming thing was true then don't you think science would have already proven it?". That wouldn't invalidate your experiences of dreaming though. You'd just have no way of proving it to my satisfaction. When you think about it, there's a hell of a lot of things that we all take for granted (because they're so common) which, if subject to "scientific" scrutiny, would fail. >that doesn't help what i'm trying to say here. Basically, how do >you explain people of lets say, different religous beliefs, having >experiences based on what they'd expect, and meeting people that >they'd expect to meet. Such as a christian having a near death >experience and encountering jesus, while any other person of another >religion with the ssame experience has happen just what they expect, >and meets who they expect to meet? That's easily explained. It's because their belief system comes into play. However, the belief system only "taints" the experience to a certain extent - it's like an outer layer. Underneath all that is an underlying "core" experience that will be the same for everyone. BTW, you mentioned in a previous post that you're of the view that OBE's and NDE's only happen to people who have some sort of religious or spiritual belief system. I don't agree with that. There are numerous accounts (more so with NDE's than OBE's) of total atheists having the same experience. Usually, they don't remain atheists for much longer and are forced to totally re-evaluate their belief systems. In relation to OBE's, the examples that come to mind (off the top of my head) are Robert Peterson and William Buhlman. Also, children (who haven't had the time to develop ingrained belief systems) who have had NDE's report the same things as adults. People from different countries report the same things, regardless of their cultures. >> Haven't seen anything that resemble hostility yet... >I'm just trying to be careful, as I don't want people to get mad at >me. I tend to have very strong views of things and there have been >times in the past that I have really pissed people off. An example >would be a Catholic guy who was trying to convince me of the truth >of jesus and god.. I simply took the "socrates method" of asking >him questions and making him contradict himself until his arguement >fell completlely apart. That made him violently mad at me and he >refused to talk to me for a while after... I just don't want to >bother anyone like that here. You remind me of what I used to be like - I never believed in any of this "bullshit". But through curiosity, open mindedness (with a degree of scepticism), experience and logical thinking I've come to have the belief systems that I currently have :-) Shane ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 22:46:58 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 23 Message-ID: <6n3sp2$519$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3595249d.1@d2o204.telia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.195.204 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jun 27 22:46:58 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) > only got four > digit right, then I would go around and tell everyone that I got 5 digits > right. And I doubt > that others would do so too. You may have to be a bit skeptical in your line > of duty, but > I mostly read stories that one person have experienced and written down. Not > much > need to be skeptical about those... > What you are saying is true, to some extent. There are a lot of stories written right after something happened, and those are of course the most reliable, usually. But I'm guess proof through a few peoples personal experiences isn't really enough to convince me. I look more for scientific proof, whatever that may be. I just try to suspend judgement on cases like that until I could find a solid ground to base their truth on. Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.direct.ca!logbridge.uoregon.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 22:58:02 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 47 Message-ID: <6n3tdq$5v8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.195.204 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jun 27 22:58:02 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) > BTW, you mentioned in a previous post that you're of the view that > OBE's and NDE's only happen to people who have some sort of > religious or spiritual belief system. I don't agree with that. There > are numerous accounts (more so with NDE's than OBE's) of total > atheists having the same experience. Usually, they don't remain > atheists for much longer and are forced to totally re-evaluate their Hello.. I like a lot of what you are saying, and agree with a lot of your points. I dont' believe that I said that OBE's only happen to people that have some sort of religious belief system... If I said somethign like that then it wasn't what I meant. I consider myself an athiest, possibly leaning on agnosticism. But I still think and know that it is possible for me to obe. The explination that I accept the most right now is that it's all "in my head", But if that isn't true there will come a time when I will be proven wrong, and I'm looking forward to that time. > You remind me of what I used to be like - I never believed in any of > this "bullshit". But through curiosity, open mindedness (with a > degree of scepticism), experience and logical thinking I've come to > have the belief systems that I currently have :-) From what I've read a little while back in one of Colin Wilson's books I think that the style of thinking is rather common. It seems that most occultists and investigators in the paranormal, and other similiar fields start out very skeptical, but as they progress onward through exploring this stuff they start to believe.. And then according to wilson, by the end of there career they believe too much, and have too many contradictions in their beliefs, and can't explain many things very well because of them.. Knowing this I try to remain skeptical, and not lose that until I have "solid" proof of something that goes against my current beliefs. I actively try to prove myself wrong, and I do many experiments, both on myself, and on others (through hypnosis).. If there is any truth to some of this stuff, there will come a day when something happens that I can not explain.. The fact that after all the research I've done, not a single thing has happened that I can't explain, just increases my skepticism. But I'm not going to stop looking, and so adventually, hopefully, I'll find something.. -Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### From: "Shane" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33> <35952504.0@d2o204.telia.com> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 15:42:52 +1000 Lines: 37 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.64.2 Message-ID: <3595e925.0@139.134.5.33> Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!ozemail!news.mel.aone.net.au!newsfeed-in.aone.net.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!nsw.nntp.telstra.net!139.134.5.33!139.134.64.2 Lars Rune Foleide wrote in message <35952504.0@d2o204.telia.com>... >Shane wrote in message <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33>... >>You remind me of what I used to be like - I never believed in any of >>this "bullshit". But through curiosity, open mindedness (with a >>degree of skepticism), experience and logical thinking I've come to >>have the belief systems that I currently have :-) >> >>Shane > > >It is harder for some people to believe in things than other... >Probably because of experiences they have had in their childhood... > >But I have always been interested in this stuff... Perhaps I need to clarify myself here. I've always been interested in the mysterious side of life. It's just that I don't automatically believe something the first time I hear about it. I was brought up as a Christian, so I never believed in any of these "new age" things. However, at quite a young age, I began to see all the inconsistencies in organised religions and so, to satisfy my need to know, I began doing my own research. Gradually I've developed the beliefs that I currently have. But I don't start off believing something and then finding evidence to back it up. I look into things with an open mind and gradually build up a belief if the evidence and my own experiences satisfies me. Shane ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33> <6n3tdq$5v8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 18:53:12 +0200 Lines: 34 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t4o204p29.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t4o204p29.telia.com Message-ID: <3596748d.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-fra.maz.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!uninett.no!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t4o204p29.telia.com dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6n3tdq$5v8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >The explanation that I accept the most right now is that it's all "in >my head", But if that isn't true there will come a time when I will be >proven wrong, and I'm looking forward to that time. > I was just wondering, do you believe that seeing something, hearing something, feeling something far, far away in time and space is all in your head. Or do you believe that this must be the work of your soul? > >And then according to Wilson, by the end of >there career they believe too much, and have too many contradictions in their >beliefs, and can't explain many things very well because of them.. > I can't seem to understand these contradictions you talk about.... All the paranormal is the work of a soul, an astral body that can do everything a physical body can do and more. It can travel in time and space. It can also talk to other souls and get information from everywhere. Time and space is no limit. I have so far managed to explain everything "paranormal" with this theory. Except ball lightning...but that has nothing to do with the human kind.... Cheers, Lars ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-nyc.telia.net!news.idt.net!netnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 20:36:14 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 58 Message-ID: <6n69fu$taa$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33> <6n3tdq$5v8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3596748d.0@d2o204.telia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.195.165 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jun 28 20:36:14 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) > I was just wondering, do you believe that seeing something, hearing > something, feeling something far, far away in time and space is all > in your head. Or do you believe that this must be the work of your > soul? > What is this soul you keep speeking of? A soul is something that most people will agree is intangible, at least in this physical world, and so that is enough to say that it doesn't exist. I don't really believe in souls, or different bodies. It all seems sort of silly to me. But actually, lets forget that, and assume there is a such thing as a soul. Now how do you explain how the soul allows you to feel things far away, or in the future? Can you explain how this so called soul works? Even a theory? I can't come up with any theories for this that don't seem like pure nonsense.. I could be completely wrong, but I've never experienced clairvoyance, and so I don't know. Actually I sort of have, but nothing major. When I was younger I took out a piece of paper and made some predictions about things that were going to happen in the next month. Some of them were really far out, but all of them came completely true. They were things that I just couldn't have known, like that my neighbors house was going to get broken into, and locations of certain objects. It was weird, but the only time i've ever had such accuracy. Since then I've had visions that seem like clairvoyant visions, but they don't seem to predict anything. Now I can't explain this in any way except that it was just my immagination. It just happened to be correct.. nothing special except a good guess. You say it's the soul? Can you go into more detail as to how that works, because I'd love to have a better understanding of this sort of thing. > I can't seem to understand these contradictions you talk about.... > All the paranormal is the work of a soul, an astral body that can do > everything a > physical body can do and more. It can travel in time and space. It can also > talk > to other souls and get information from everywhere. Time and space > is no limit. > > I have so far managed to explain everything "paranormal" with this theory. > Except ball lightning...but that has nothing to do with the human kind.... What sort of theory is this? It's incomplete. What I mean by this is you just say everything is because of this great soul that we have. I seem to remember primitive tribes and cults (and current cults commonly known as christianity and other such names) that used a very similiar answer, except they attributed everything to a fellow named god. And whenever someone asked questions like I am now they said, "you cannot understand the ways of god".. I can't accept that. If there is a soul then there has to be certain "rules" to how it works, and patterns and such. If there is such a thing then there is a complete way to explain it, meaning how it works, in detail. Just attributing it all to the soul doesn't explain anything. Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ix.netcom.com!news From: bartma12@ix.netcom.com(Bart Scott) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: 28 Jun 1998 21:09:54 GMT Organization: ICGNetcom Lines: 29 Message-ID: <6n6bf2$am0@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33> <6n3tdq$5v8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3596748d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n69fu$taa$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tfx-us3-01.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Jun 28 4:09:54 PM CDT 1998 In <6n69fu$taa$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> dhaber@my-dejanews.com writes: > > > >> I was just wondering, do you believe that seeing something, hearing >> something, feeling something far, far away in time and space is all >> in your head. Or do you believe that this must be the work of your >> soul? >You say it's the soul? Can you go into >more detail as to how that works, because I'd love to have a better >understanding of this sort of thing. This is rather simplistic and incomplete, but I'm taking a break from cleaning up and have to do this fast. Look at a golf ball - it has a single center. Yet its surface is covered with dimples pointing in every direction. Each of those dimples are a seperate point of view. Some are very close to each other, so the view is similar - others are completely opposite. Each dimple is a soul - an individual point of God's view of Itself. When the individual dimple looks back at the center, instead of outward, it has access to all the other points of view. ... of course... this is only one individual point of view... Bart ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33> <6n3tdq$5v8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3596748d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n69fu$taa$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 00:28:44 +0200 Lines: 90 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t8o204p38.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t8o204p38.telia.com Message-ID: <3596c331.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!naxos!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t8o204p38.telia.com dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6n69fu$taa$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > What is this soul you keep speaking of? A soul is something that most >people will agree is intangible, at least in this physical world, and so that >is enough to say that it doesn't exist. I don't really believe in souls, or >different bodies. It all seems sort of silly to me. All living things have a soul/astral body/spirit. This is a theory that can explain a whole lot of things, how people can leave their body and how people can remember past lives. I know a whole lot of things the astral body can do, based on what people have experienced while outside their own body. You say it is intangible, most people agree on that. But do most people agree on OBE, psychic abilities, reincarnation and other paranormal stuff like that? No. They don't, therefore they don't believe in an astral body either. It just doesn't make sense. We are all physical and everything that happen to us is a product of physical laws. Well, I don't buy that. I believe in an astral body. I'm don't know about mental bodies and stuff like that, can't see any reason for believing in that. But I do believe that we have more than one body. If I see a water drop fall, I accept that. I don't need a theory and something that might explain why it falls to believe in that. It just does. The same thing apply to the astral body, it exist. I know what it can do, but I don't know how it works. I know it weight a little. But you how do I explain that our soul can see things far away? Well, our physical body can see things, why shouldn't our astral body be able to do it? It is just like a camera, let's say a wireless camera. It transform information and sends it through the air somehow. Our soul might send the information the same way. Just that it sends it information to our brain at the speed of light (thought). Can someone please tell me how fast information travel at 900 MHz? Anyway, but this construct, or part of our soul, or our whole soul that we send out can manage to view things, sorry, but I don't know how, and then sends the information back to its host. I don't know how it travels in time, I just know it can. You say it sounds silly. I don't know why. But it doesn't sound silly to me, it does sounds quite logical if you ask me. Does a story about ball lightning sound silly to you? I guess it does so until someone tell you how ball-lightning works... I accept the astral body as a fact, work on that, while I'm still trying to figure out how it works. But I'm really not that interested in how it works, I'm more interested in what it does and how I can do it as much as I want for as long as I want. But the how is also nice to know... Cheers, Lars P.S. I need to pack, will be leaving early tomorrow... And I think I managed a sleep 12-13 hours today, it came as a shock to me when I saw much the clock was. But it was fun, I remembered 4 dreams! New record. I just sit in my bed think of something else, when my subconscious just give me clue to another dream I had. I think my subconscious is playing along with my desires. A little hypnosis should help it understand more as to what I want... Will try that on Thursday... ###### From: mpfc@hotmail.com (Steve) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 01:22:52 GMT Message-ID: <3596eb20.5985297@n3.idirect.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33> <35952504.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3595e925.0@139.134.5.33> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 NNTP-Posting-Host: newhopenet-23.idirect.com X-Trace: 29 Jun 1998 01:32:58 GMT, newhopenet-23.idirect.com Organization: "Usenet User" Lines: 36 Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news1.bellglobal.com!island.idirect.com!nemo.idirect.com!newhopenet-23.idirect.com On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 15:42:52 +1000, "Shane" wrote: >Perhaps I need to clarify myself here. I've always been interested in >the mysterious side of life. It's just that I don't automatically >believe something the first time I hear about it. I was brought up as >a Christian, so I never believed in any of these "new age" things. >However, at quite a young age, I began to see all the inconsistencies >in organised religions and so, to satisfy my need to know, I began >doing my own research. Gradually I've developed the beliefs that I >currently have. But I don't start off believing something and then >finding evidence to back it up. I look into things with an open mind >and gradually build up a belief if the evidence and my own experiences >satisfies me. > >Shane Wow... you and I share a similar background.. I too am from a religious background... which I doffed around 1989.. I went to the opposite extreme embracing outright athiesm due to the inconsistencies I found within the literal interpretation of the Bible my particular religion clung to. I have since swung back through agnosticism (not being dogmatic either way as to the existence of God etc) to my present state of belief which is that our concept of God or any gods are very limited to our way of interpreting things which don't fall into easily explained phenomenon within physical reality. I presently see "God" as being "All That Is" which includes everyone and everything that has ever existed, exists and will exist. My belief is that we are just bits of All That Is expressing itself in a yearning to ever become more than it is.... Regards, Steve ###### From: mpfc@hotmail.com (Steve) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 03:11:28 GMT Message-ID: <359705b5.12791234@n3.idirect.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33> <6n3tdq$5v8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3596748d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n69fu$taa$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6n6bf2$am0@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 NNTP-Posting-Host: newhopenet-23.idirect.com X-Trace: 29 Jun 1998 03:21:34 GMT, newhopenet-23.idirect.com Organization: "Usenet User" Lines: 37 Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!feed.nntp.acc.ca!island.idirect.com!nemo.idirect.com!newhopenet-23.idirect.com On 28 Jun 1998 21:09:54 GMT, bartma12@ix.netcom.com(Bart Scott) wrote: >In <6n69fu$taa$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> dhaber@my-dejanews.com writes: >> >> >> >>> I was just wondering, do you believe that seeing something, hearing >>> something, feeling something far, far away in time and space is all >>> in your head. Or do you believe that this must be the work of your >>> soul? > > >>You say it's the soul? Can you go into >>more detail as to how that works, because I'd love to have a better >>understanding of this sort of thing. > >This is rather simplistic and incomplete, but I'm taking a break from >cleaning up and have to do this fast. > >Look at a golf ball - it has a single center. Yet its surface is >covered with dimples pointing in every direction. Each of those >dimples are a seperate point of view. Some are very close to each >other, so the view is similar - others are completely opposite. Each >dimple is a soul - an individual point of God's view of Itself. When >the individual dimple looks back at the center, instead of outward, it >has access to all the other points of view. > >... of course... this is only one individual point of view... > >Bart Jezus Freaking Christ! This has got to be one of the best explanations I have ever heard!!! Regards, Steve ###### From: mpfc@hotmail.com (Steve) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 03:36:35 GMT Message-ID: <35970647.12938213@n3.idirect.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33> <6n3tdq$5v8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3596748d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n69fu$taa$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3596c331.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 NNTP-Posting-Host: newhopenet-23.idirect.com X-Trace: 29 Jun 1998 03:46:41 GMT, newhopenet-23.idirect.com Organization: "Usenet User" Lines: 79 Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!island.idirect.com!nemo.idirect.com!newhopenet-23.idirect.com On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 00:28:44 +0200, "Lars Rune Foleide" wrote: >dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6n69fu$taa$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >> What is this soul you keep speaking of? A soul is something that most >>people will agree is intangible, at least in this physical world, and so >that >>is enough to say that it doesn't exist. I don't really believe in souls, >or >>different bodies. It all seems sort of silly to me. >All living things have a soul/astral body/spirit. It might be more correct to say all living things ARE souls. A soul is not something you possess, which can be potentially lost... it is the essence of what you are, indivisibly you... > >It is just like a camera, let's say a wireless camera. It transform >information >and sends it through the air somehow. Our soul might send the information >the same way. Think of your consciousness and your mind as the starting point of experience... Anywhere you are conscious of being - any environment inside or outside the body - is perceived by your mind. Perception is the key to it all. Thus the "organ" for receiving the data (the mind) is carried throughout all experience, whether in the physical or in OBE states or lucid dreaming. Focus is also key.. It does no good to think that somehow something outside of you acts to transmit information to you. It must be understood that the true key to understanding any experience is that all perception stems from the self.. in effect .. you create your own reality. >Just that it sends it information to our brain at the speed of >light (thought). >Can someone please tell me how fast information travel at 900 MHz? Ummm the speed of light. Radio waves are an extension of the light spectrum and thus travel at 186,000 miles/second - the speed of light. >Anyway, but this construct, or part of our soul, or our whole soul that we >send >out can manage to view things, sorry, but I don't know how, and then sends >the information back to its host. >I don't know how it travels in time, I just know it can. > An "aspect" of the whole soul or "personality" if you will, is what we are, whether OBE or in Physical Reality (PR). If we focus in PR we consider ourselves awake. If on the other hand, some people have found out how to "turn inwards" and focus on the inner world, we either consider ourselves lucidly dreaming or in OBE states. But the important thing to remember is the interconnectedness of the personality and its "oversoul" and the (for lack of a better word) telepathic connection between them. As well, this inner world upon which a person is focused on in an OBE state is outside the regular bounds of the time/space continuum and all of the rules of PR. This is why information seems to be transmitted instantly. >Cheers, >Lars > "When man realizes that he, himself, creates his personal and universal environment in concrete terms, then he can begin to create a private and universal environment much superior to the (present) one, that is a result of haphazard and unenlightened constructions" - Seth, The "Unknown" Reality, Volume Two, Epilogue Regards, Steve ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!naxos!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!ix.netcom.com!news From: bartma12@ix.netcom.com(Bart Scott) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: 29 Jun 1998 15:31:59 GMT Organization: ICGNetcom Lines: 31 Message-ID: <6n8c1f$5pb@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33> <35952504.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3595e925.0@139.134.5.33> <3596eb20.5985297@n3.idirect.com> <35978af1.0@139.134.5.33> NNTP-Posting-Host: tfx-us7-08.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Jun 29 8:31:59 AM PDT 1998 In <35978af1.0@139.134.5.33> "Shane" writes: > >Steve wrote in message <3596eb20.5985297@n3.idirect.com>... > >>Wow... you and I share a similar background.. I too am from a >>religious background... which I doffed around 1989.. I went to the >>opposite extreme embracing outright athiesm due to the >inconsistencies >>I found within the literal interpretation of the Bible my particular >>religion clung to. I have since swung back through agnosticism (not >>being dogmatic either way as to the existence of God etc) to my >>present state of belief which is that our concept of God or any gods >>are very limited to our way of interpreting things which don't fall >>into easily explained phenomenon within physical reality. I presently >>see "God" as being "All That Is" which includes everyone and >>everything that has ever existed, exists and will exist. My belief is >>that we are just bits of All That Is expressing itself in a yearning >>to ever become more than it is.... > >Yep, that's pretty much my idea of "God" as well. "God" is the fabric >and intelligence of the Universe. Nothing is outside "God" - all is >within. > >Shane Many of us here subscribe to 'Pantheism'. So did Jesus... Unfortunately - his followers didn't. Bart ###### From: "Shane" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33> <6n3tdq$5v8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3596748d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n69fu$taa$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 22:13:24 +1000 Lines: 37 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.63.189 Message-ID: <35978aee.0@139.134.5.33> Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-nyc.telia.net!news.idt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!nsw.nntp.telstra.net!139.134.5.33!139.134.63.189 dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6n69fu$taa$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > What is this soul you keep speeking of? A soul is something that most >people will agree is intangible, at least in this physical world, and so that >is enough to say that it doesn't exist. I don't really believe in souls, or >different bodies. It all seems sort of silly to me. Absence of proof (ie. hard, physical evidence) is not proof of absence. This gets back to my point in the other thread. You will never be able to prove the existence of something that is not physical by searching for physical "proof". I don't think the "soul" is intangible at all. It's VERY tangible, just not DIRECTLY physically tangible. If I didn't have a soul then I wouldn't exist and I wouldn't even be writing this - you can't get much more tangible than that! I'd like to ask you 4 questions to see where you're coming from: 1. Do you believe that "you" will continue to exist after your physical death? 2. Do you believe in the idea that something can exist without being physical? 3. Do you believe that the mind and thought is merely a product of electrical and chemical processes in the brain? 4. When you said that you're an occultist, what did you mean by this? Shane ###### From: "Shane" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33> <35952504.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3595e925.0@139.134.5.33> <3596eb20.5985297@n3.idirect.com> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 22:13:51 +1000 Lines: 26 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.63.189 Message-ID: <35978af1.0@139.134.5.33> Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-nyc.telia.net!news.idt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!nsw.nntp.telstra.net!139.134.5.33!139.134.63.189 Steve wrote in message <3596eb20.5985297@n3.idirect.com>... >Wow... you and I share a similar background.. I too am from a >religious background... which I doffed around 1989.. I went to the >opposite extreme embracing outright athiesm due to the inconsistencies >I found within the literal interpretation of the Bible my particular >religion clung to. I have since swung back through agnosticism (not >being dogmatic either way as to the existence of God etc) to my >present state of belief which is that our concept of God or any gods >are very limited to our way of interpreting things which don't fall >into easily explained phenomenon within physical reality. I presently >see "God" as being "All That Is" which includes everyone and >everything that has ever existed, exists and will exist. My belief is >that we are just bits of All That Is expressing itself in a yearning >to ever become more than it is.... Yep, that's pretty much my idea of "God" as well. "God" is the fabric and intelligence of the Universe. Nothing is outside "God" - all is within. Shane ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: gallianoj@aol.com (GALLIANOJ) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Lines: 24 Message-ID: <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 30 Jun 1998 03:16:33 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> > One last thing.. The experiments in "collective >dreaming" have not been very successful from what I've seen and read.. Most >information on OBE's say that it is very hard to go to a specific place, and >most of the results seem to show that.. The only exception to this is the >"landmarks" found in the cabala. >places such >as the Temple of Malkuth... Where is the Temple of Malkuth? BTW, I dont find it hard to go to specific places, it can be done with dedication, practice and applied intention. OBE, LD and RV are varying states of hightened awareness...and when one is getting up out of his/her body it feels damn sure like its not happening in your head! And when one is walking among the spirits of his/her dead or visiting with the likes of Ascended Masters, you could be damn sure you didnt know quite enough to create This! Besides, if you have been reading this group for awhile you will see the similarities in most everyone experience...How can that be?, people from all walks of life in as many different countries, who never spoke or met ..sharing the "Constants" in their highly personal dream lives. I would like to check out this Temple of Malkuth... jean ###### From: "Shane" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33> <35952504.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3595e925.0@139.134.5.33> <3596eb20.5985297@n3.idirect.com> <35978af1.0@139.134.5.33> <6n8c1f$5pb@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 21:16:22 +1000 Lines: 20 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.64.40 Message-ID: <359a2337.0@139.134.5.33> Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nntp.telstra.net!139.134.5.33!139.134.64.40 Bart Scott wrote in message <6n8c1f$5pb@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>... >>Yep, that's pretty much my idea of "God" as well. "God" is the fabric >>and intelligence of the Universe. Nothing is outside "God" - all is >>within. >> >>Shane > >Many of us here subscribe to 'Pantheism'. So did Jesus... >Unfortunately - his followers didn't. > >Bart Ah...so there's a word for that way of thinking. I never knew that - thanks Bart :-) Shane ###### From: bartma12@ix.netcom.com(Bart Scott) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: 2 Jul 1998 02:11:48 GMT Organization: ICGNetcom Lines: 32 Message-ID: <6neq94$4ko@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35919b93.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6mukuh$fus$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35940331.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6n1hpd$p6i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3594d28b.0@139.134.5.33> <35952504.0@d2o204.telia.com> <3595e925.0@139.134.5.33> <3596eb20.5985297@n3.idirect.com> <35978af1.0@139.134.5.33> <6n8c1f$5pb@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> <359a2337.0@139.134.5.33> NNTP-Posting-Host: clv-oh38-11.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Jul 01 9:11:48 PM CDT 1998 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ix.netcom.com!news In <359a2337.0@139.134.5.33> "Shane" writes: > >Bart Scott wrote in message <6n8c1f$5pb@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>... > >>>Yep, that's pretty much my idea of "God" as well. "God" is the >>>fabric and intelligence of the Universe. Nothing is outside "God" - >>>all is within. >>> >>>Shane >> >>Many of us here subscribe to 'Pantheism'. So did Jesus... >>Unfortunately - his followers didn't. >> >>Bart > >Ah...so there's a word for that way of thinking. I never knew that - >thanks Bart :-) > >Shane Believe it or not, I first heard the word 'Pantheism' on a Christian radio talk show where the host was criticizing those who take it as truth. I thought it was rather interesting (even to the point of being funny) that a self proclaimed Christian would get on the radio and denounce, to the world, much of what Jesus taught about God. I learn a lot from Christian radio - even though it seems it is not their intention to teach me such things... Bart ###### From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 02:51:03 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 55 Message-ID: <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.88.151 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jul 03 02:51:03 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!naxos!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!netnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > BTW, I dont find it hard to go to specific places, it can be done with > dedication, practice and applied intention. OBE, LD and RV are varying states > of hightened awareness...and when one is getting up out of his/her body it > feels damn sure like its not happening in your head! And when one is walking > among the spirits of his/her dead or visiting with the likes of Ascended > Masters, you could be damn sure you didnt know quite > enough to create This! Besides, if you have been reading this group for > awhile you will see the similarities in most everyone experience...How can that > be?, people from all walks of life in as many different countries, who never > spoke or met ..sharing the "Constants" in their highly personal dream lives. > I would like to check out this Temple of Malkuth... Hello.. I know how realistic LD's and OBE's seem, but I'm still not convinced that they aren't all in your head. I asked before how you people that actually do OBE know that it's not in your head, and there were no real replies. Sure, it doesn't seem real. But that doesn't mean anything. I am very familiar with what it seems like.. Just about a week ago I had a dream that I woke up, walked out into the hall.. It was then that it occured to me I was dreaming. I started looking around and examing the walls, the floor, and the cealing in detail trying to figure out whether it was real or not. I soon decided that it was to real, I must be awake, and so I lost lucidity and returned to dreaming and continued onward with a very strange dream. I know it seems real, but looks may be decieving. What actually shows that it is? You mention that there are common elements. That also doesn't prove much. I can't remember who wrote it (I think it was Jung) but there was an essay about common elements in dreams explained why people had common elements. Of course I also remember reading one (by Freud? actually I don't think it was him, maybe I got it backwords, or it was someone else) but anyway, it was an essay that first began by talking about common elements in dreams and other states on conciousness, and then it concluded there was a commulative sub concious, or something of that sort. Of course I think that it wasn't a very good essay, for reasons you'll notice if you read it, but it's worth mentioning. Anyway, if it's really something not taking place in your head, then it should be possible to prove? Shouldn't it? What reasons do you have that you believe it's real? I would love to be proved wrong, but there is very little "evidence" and very few good reasons that I hear to why it is real. Perhaps you could help me understand? Thanks -Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### From: A.SIEDLER@t-online.de (Andrea Siedler) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: 3 Jul 1998 12:36:01 GMT Organization: Büro Lines: 68 Message-ID: <6nij7h$tik$1@news02.btx.dtag.de> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Reply-To: a.siedler@gmx.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 022816000362-0001@t-online.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 DT [de]C-DT (Win16; I) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!naxos!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news-feed.ams.telegate.nl!news-feed.sto.telegate.se!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!194.25.2.138!newsfeed00.btx.dtag.de!news.btx.dtag.de!not-for-mail dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > BTW, I dont find it hard to go to specific places, it can be done with > > dedication, practice and applied intention. OBE, LD and RV are varying > states > > of hightened awareness...and when one is getting up out of his/her body it > > feels damn sure like its not happening in your head! And when one is walking > > among the spirits of his/her dead or visiting with the likes of Ascended > > Masters, you could be damn sure you didnt know quite > > enough to create This! Besides, if you have been reading this group for > > awhile you will see the similarities in most everyone experience...How can > that > > be?, people from all walks of life in as many different countries, who never > > spoke or met ..sharing the "Constants" in their highly personal dream lives. > > I would like to check out this Temple of Malkuth... > > Hello.. > > I know how realistic LD's and OBE's seem, but I'm still not convinced that > they aren't all in your head. I asked before how you people that actually do > OBE know that it's not in your head, and there were no real replies. Sure, it > doesn't seem real. But that doesn't mean anything. I am very familiar with > what it seems like.. > > Just about a week ago I had a dream that I woke up, walked out into the > hall.. It was then that it occured to me I was dreaming. I started looking > around and examing the walls, the floor, and the cealing in detail trying to > figure out whether it was real or not. I soon decided that it was to real, I > must be awake, and so I lost lucidity and returned to dreaming and continued > onward with a very strange dream. I know it seems real, but looks may be > decieving. What actually shows that it is? > > You mention that there are common elements. That also doesn't prove much. > I can't remember who wrote it (I think it was Jung) but there was an essay > about common elements in dreams explained why people had common elements. Of > course I also remember reading one (by Freud? actually I don't think it was > him, maybe I got it backwords, or it was someone else) but anyway, it was an > essay that first began by talking about common elements in dreams and other > states on conciousness, and then it concluded there was a commulative sub > concious, or something of that sort. Of course I think that it wasn't a very > good essay, for reasons you'll notice if you read it, but it's worth > mentioning. > > Anyway, if it's really something not taking place in your head, then it > should be possible to prove? Shouldn't it? What reasons do you have that you > believe it's real? I would love to be proved wrong, but there is very little > "evidence" and very few good reasons that I hear to why it is real. Perhaps > you could help me understand? > > Thanks > -Doug Hello to everyone! (First: I am reading this newsgroup the very first time today and I dont know, whether I will have this opportunity to read it again, because the computer is at my work. So please answer me with e-mail too) Wouldnt it be a proove that OBEs are real if people from different countries meet each other, beeing out of their Bodies? Did this happen? Can two people have an appointment "out there"? Greetings Andrea ---------------- a.siedler@gmx.de ###### From: Trish Pike Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 21:26:35 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 35 Message-ID: <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust193.tnt1.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: D50F9B455599CDDC43968491 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.giganews.com!worldfeed.gte.net!newsfeed.gte.net!newsfeed2.gte.net.MISMATCH!news.gte.net!not-for-mail Craig wrote: > [Doug Wrote] > > > > > Anyway, if it's really something not taking place in your head, then it > > should be possible to prove? Shouldn't it? What reasons do you have that you > > believe it's real? I would love to be proved wrong, but there is very little > > "evidence" and very few good reasons that I hear to why it is real. Perhaps > > you could help me understand? > > > > Thanks > > -Doug > > > Hey, I see what you're trying to say Doug, but to let you see how hard > this could be ...... why don't you 'prove' it's all in our heads. :-) > Just as well as it being hard, if not impossible to prove that OBE's are > real, the same can be said for the opposite. Anyway, OBE's, IMO, are > something personal, and the only people, usually, who want proof of > them, really want to disprove them. I can't see any reason that I would > need to prove to anyone that this is a real thing. :-) > > Craig You know, it seems obvious, but you're right Craig. If it's all in the head, then how does it work? Science can't even figure out what dreams are for. They're not even sure what REM sleep is for. Sure, there's a lot of speculation and some nice theories out there .. but nothing concrete. So how can they make such an assumption about OBEs? Trish ###### From: Craig Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 04 Jul 1998 05:39:06 +1000 Organization: Deja Vous Lines: 27 Message-ID: <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.17.165.101 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!nsw.nnrp.telstra.net!not-for-mail [Doug Wrote] > Anyway, if it's really something not taking place in your head, then it > should be possible to prove? Shouldn't it? What reasons do you have that you > believe it's real? I would love to be proved wrong, but there is very little > "evidence" and very few good reasons that I hear to why it is real. Perhaps > you could help me understand? > > Thanks > -Doug > Hey, I see what you're trying to say Doug, but to let you see how hard this could be ...... why don't you 'prove' it's all in our heads. :-) Just as well as it being hard, if not impossible to prove that OBE's are real, the same can be said for the opposite. Anyway, OBE's, IMO, are something personal, and the only people, usually, who want proof of them, really want to disprove them. I can't see any reason that I would need to prove to anyone that this is a real thing. :-) Craig ###### From: Trish Pike Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 04 Jul 1998 09:30:53 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 90 Message-ID: <6nlakv$h1m$1@news-1.news.gte.net> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust94.tnt3.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: D50F9C14089ECD8611CD8491 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.giganews.com!worldfeed.gte.net!newsfeed.gte.net!newsfeed2.gte.net.MISMATCH!news.gte.net!not-for-mail Lars Rune Foleide wrote: > > You know, it seems obvious, but you're right Craig. If it's all in the > head, > >then how does it work? Science can't even figure out what dreams are for. > >They're not even sure what REM sleep is for. Sure, there's a lot of > >speculation and some nice theories out there .. but nothing concrete. So > >how can they make such an assumption about OBEs? > > > > Fact remains that people can see distant places and talk to other people in > their dreams. > This are stuff we need to go by to figure out if it is real or not. People > have experienced > this. And can do it again. > What can I say, it all builds up to the conclusion that it is real. > I don't doubt it, why should you doubt it? Only a small minority of people have ever experienced this Lars. What happenswith the rest of us? It's dangerous not to doubt. Besides .. that wasn't was I was saying. I was referring to the scientific community lumping OBEs together with dreams, when the process of dreams and REM are still a mystery to them as well. How do they justify it? > > > Well, I have found a new theory on what REM-sleep is good for.... > Found this on the magazine "Discover". I've also read this in Discover. Interesting. The only thing that puzzles meis this. They say that the cornea is adequately supplied with oxygen while we are awake. If REM is only necessary for supplying oxygen to the cornea while asleep .. why all the disasterous consequences to those who are deprived of REM sleep? After all, they're awake, and the cornea is being adequately supplied. I think they've run across a beneficial side effect of REM. Or maybe, sleep paralysis does not effect the eye muscles for this specific reason. They're only seeing one small part of the big picture. Trish > > > ------------------ > To Sleep, Perchance to Aerate the Cornea > Ever since researchers first noticed in the 1950s that rapid eye > movement--the jerky motion of closed eyes during sleep--coincides with > dreaming, they have speculated about its function. The most popular > explanation is that REM sleep helps the brain process information we acquire > while awake. But that theory doesn't satisfy David Maurice. How much > information, he asks, does the opossum, which gets about twice as much REM > sleep as an adult human does, need to process? Or a human fetus, which gets > more than eight hours every day? Maurice, a physiologist at Columbia, > believes that REM sleep evolved for a more prosaic purpose--to supply oxygen > to the cornea. > > When our eyes are open, the cornea--a thin, transparent layer of tissue at > the front of the eyeball--is adequately supplied with oxygen. Air also cools > a thin layer at the front of the aqueous humor--the fluid that lies in a > chamber behind the cornea. As this layer cools, it becomes denser and sinks. > This mixing conveys oxygen from the iris, which has a steady blood supply, > to the cornea. But when our lids are shut--and our eyeballs still--the story > is different. Oxygen then moves slowly to the cornea by diffusion from the > iris or from the conjunctiva, the membrane lining the inside of the eyelids. > When Maurice calculated the rate at which oxygen diffuses in a closed eye > from the iris across the stagnant aqueous humor to the cornea, he realized > that it moved too slowly to keep the cornea adequately oxygenated. Only if > the eyeball moves--as it does in REM sleep--could it stir the aqueous humor > enough to aerate the cornea. > > Maurice doesn't deny that REM sleep is linked to dreaming. But he thinks > that the dreams and other phenomena associated with REM sleep result from a > state of partial arousal that may be necessary for our eyes to move. His > theory may explain why REM occurs in fetuses. Lacking cool air to stir the > aqueous humor, their eyes instead move rapidly. "The difference between me > and the sleep people," says Maurice, "is that when they found REM, they > jumped on it and tried to figure out what it's good for. I asked how the > cornea gets its nutrition when the eye is closed. Then I suddenly thought of > REM. Without REM, the cornea would starve and suffocate." > --------------- > > http://www.discover.com/june_story/breakcornea.html ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 14:41:29 +0200 Lines: 72 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t4o204p1.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t4o204p1.telia.com Message-ID: <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t4o204p1.telia.com Trish Pike wrote in message <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net>... >> > Anyway, if it's really something not taking place in your head, then it >> > should be possible to prove? Shouldn't it? What reasons do you have that you >> > believe it's real? I would love to be proved wrong, but there is very little >> > "evidence" and very few good reasons that I hear to why it is real. Perhaps >> > you could help me understand? >> > > You know, it seems obvious, but you're right Craig. If it's all in the head, >then how does it work? Science can't even figure out what dreams are for. >They're not even sure what REM sleep is for. Sure, there's a lot of >speculation and some nice theories out there .. but nothing concrete. So >how can they make such an assumption about OBEs? > Fact remains that people can see distant places and talk to other people in their dreams. This are stuff we need to go by to figure out if it is real or not. People have experienced this. And can do it again. What can I say, it all builds up to the conclusion that it is real. I don't doubt it, why should you doubt it? Well, I have found a new theory on what REM-sleep is good for.... Found this on the magazine "Discover". ------------------ To Sleep, Perchance to Aerate the Cornea Ever since researchers first noticed in the 1950s that rapid eye movement--the jerky motion of closed eyes during sleep--coincides with dreaming, they have speculated about its function. The most popular explanation is that REM sleep helps the brain process information we acquire while awake. But that theory doesn't satisfy David Maurice. How much information, he asks, does the opossum, which gets about twice as much REM sleep as an adult human does, need to process? Or a human fetus, which gets more than eight hours every day? Maurice, a physiologist at Columbia, believes that REM sleep evolved for a more prosaic purpose--to supply oxygen to the cornea. When our eyes are open, the cornea--a thin, transparent layer of tissue at the front of the eyeball--is adequately supplied with oxygen. Air also cools a thin layer at the front of the aqueous humor--the fluid that lies in a chamber behind the cornea. As this layer cools, it becomes denser and sinks. This mixing conveys oxygen from the iris, which has a steady blood supply, to the cornea. But when our lids are shut--and our eyeballs still--the story is different. Oxygen then moves slowly to the cornea by diffusion from the iris or from the conjunctiva, the membrane lining the inside of the eyelids. When Maurice calculated the rate at which oxygen diffuses in a closed eye from the iris across the stagnant aqueous humor to the cornea, he realized that it moved too slowly to keep the cornea adequately oxygenated. Only if the eyeball moves--as it does in REM sleep--could it stir the aqueous humor enough to aerate the cornea. Maurice doesn't deny that REM sleep is linked to dreaming. But he thinks that the dreams and other phenomena associated with REM sleep result from a state of partial arousal that may be necessary for our eyes to move. His theory may explain why REM occurs in fetuses. Lacking cool air to stir the aqueous humor, their eyes instead move rapidly. "The difference between me and the sleep people," says Maurice, "is that when they found REM, they jumped on it and tried to figure out what it's good for. I asked how the cornea gets its nutrition when the eye is closed. Then I suddenly thought of REM. Without REM, the cornea would starve and suffocate." --------------- http://www.discover.com/june_story/breakcornea.html ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: 04 Jul 1998 16:28:49 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6nij7h$tik$1@news02.btx.dtag.de> To: A.SIEDLER@t-online.de (Andrea Siedler) X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 A.SIEDLER@t-online.de (Andrea Siedler) writes: > (First: I am reading this newsgroup the very first time today and I dont > know, whether I will have this opportunity to read it again, because the > computer is at my work. So please answer me with e-mail too) Done so. > Wouldnt it be a proove that OBEs are real if people from different > countries meet each other, beeing out of their Bodies? Did this happen? That experiment has been done, by members of this newsgroup! For the results see: http://members.tripod.com/~Frodpod/obemain -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nlakv$h1m$1@news-1.news.gte.net> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 20:51:12 +0200 Lines: 187 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t4o204p1.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t4o204p1.telia.com Message-ID: <359e79d7.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news.cs.utwente.nl!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t4o204p1.telia.com Trish Pike wrote in message <6nlakv$h1m$1@news-1.news.gte.net>... >> Fact remains that people can see distant places and talk to other people in >> their dreams. >> This are stuff we need to go by to figure out if it is real or not. People >> have experienced >> this. And can do it again. >> What can I say, it all builds up to the conclusion that it is real. >> I don't doubt it, why should you doubt it? > >Only a small minority of people have ever experienced this Lars. What >happenswith the rest of us? It's dangerous not to doubt. > Okay, not many people can do it, but tonz of people don't even try either. In fact, most people don't even know it is doable... Well, remote viewing is easy to believe in. All the available information on RV is enough to make anyone doubt. Here is just a couple of links I got from a mailing list: ----------------- Remote Viewing * ~1. Introduction to Remote Viewing. * Academy of Remote Viewing through Space and Time. : BENEFIT... * Academy of Remote Viewing through Space and Time. : Content... * Academy of Remote Viewing through Space and Time. : ENTER THE PROBABLE ... * Academy of Remote Viewing through Space and Time. : HISTORY * Academy of Remote Viewing through Space and Time. : Home Pa... * Academy of Remote Viewing through Space and Time. : Home Pa... * Academy of Remote Viewing through Space and Time. : How to ... * Academy of Remote Viewing through Space and Time. : PROBABLE... * Academy of Remote Viewing through Time and Space * Counter-Culture - New Science - Remote Viewing Part 1 * Farsight Institute of Scientific Remote Viewing * Hawaii Remote Viewers' Guild * Insight Publishing * ~Mind Travel Plus * Olympus Industrial Products Group * Psitech * Remote view * remote viewing * Remote Viewing * ~Remote Viewing /Mind Control Web Index * Remote Viewing : Inner Vision Target Practice : Feedback on Target IV16 * Remote Viewing at TransDimensional Systems * Remote Viewing Club * Remote viewing the Greys * RoboProbe Technologies, Inc. * Stamper3's Remote Viewing Books * ~The Constantine Report * TransDimensional Systems * ~Viking Remote Viewing, Psychic Self Defence, UFOs and Crop C... * Viking Remote Viewing, Psychic Self Defense, UFOs and Crop C... * Western Institute of Remote Viewing Firedocs Remote Viewing * Firedocs Remote Viewing Collection: PJ's Archives: Info and ... * Firedocs Remote Viewing Collection: PJ's Archives: Rules for the Bullseye Club * Firedocs Remote Viewing Collection: PJ's Archives: Welcome to the ... * Firedocs Remote Viewing Collection: RV / AC Science paper abstracts from the J * Firedocs Remote Viewing Collection: RV / AC Science paper abstracts from the J * Firedocs Remote Viewing: Viewer email group archive, hosted by PJ Gaenir; inte * The Firedocs Remote Viewing Collection : PJ's Archives: Media & Politics: Psi- * The Firedocs Remote Viewing Collection : PJ's Archives: Media: The Truth About * The Firedocs Remote Viewing Collection: PJ's Archives: Transcript: Ed Dames in Controlled Remote Viewing * Controlled Remote Viewing * Controlled Remote Viewing Home Page * Controlled Remote Viewing Home Page Ameritel Site * CRV: Articles & Papers on CRV * CRV: Media Announcements Menu * Links to Other Pages Misc. Commercial Sites * ~Discussion Forum On Ufo's, ET's, Paranormal, and the Unexpla... * Dragnwng69's Home Page 3 * King Salmon Guides * PSI TECH - Table Of Contents * PSI TECH Inc. * RiverSong Adventures * ~The Emergence Of Project "Scanate" Misc. Internet Provider Sites * ~MindNet Journal - Vol. 1, No. 35 * Personal Power: Elmer Green Studied Wild Talents Of Jack Schwarz! ... Misc. Educational Institution Sites * The Morphing Grid: Power Ranger WWW Homepage Misc. Non-Profit Sites * :: The Farsight Institute :: ------------------ And RV is about traveling is space and time. So if you believe in RV, then you also believe that it is possible to travel to the future and the past, and at different locations. Our subconscious has somehow access to this information. Most people that believe in RV also believe in a soul, and life after death. >> Well, I have found a new theory on what REM-sleep is good for.... >> Found this on the magazine "Discover". > >I've also read this in Discover. Interesting. The only thing that puzzles meis >this. They say that the cornea is adequately supplied with oxygen while >we are awake. If REM is only necessary for supplying oxygen to the cornea >while asleep .. why all the disastrous consequences to those who are deprived >of REM sleep? After all, they're awake, and the cornea is being adequately >supplied. > This was the first Discover-magazine I read :) The thing about conscious computers attracted me. (And I have discovered that creating a conscious computer is possible, but almost as difficult as creating a human.) A human is highly complicated, so is an animal. Meaning that a computer with artificial intelligence also need to be highly complicated and advanced. (The article can be found on the web) Anyway, it make sense that we need REM to give the cornea the necessary oxygen supply, but I don't think that is the full story. The human kind has evolved for many, many thousand years. We where all fish a long time ago, do anyone know if fish sleep with their eyes open? There is oxygen in water, but it is mixed with hydrogen, so I doubt that the manage to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen so that I might make use of the oxygen. So maybe we should rule out the fish since it is not living on the surface... Well, so REM-sleep have two purposes, to give the eyes oxygen and in protein-synthesis. (Memory and learning) But we may dream in non-REM too... Cheers, Lars P.s. I have finally read over 450 emails and a couple of hundred newsmessages... I'm back in business.... ###### From: 7@newsguy.com (7) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 04:44:40 GMT Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 14 Message-ID: <359f03be.15076531@enews.newsguy.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-961.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.wli.net!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 02:51:03 GMT, dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote: > >Hello.. > > I know how realistic LD's and OBE's seem, but I'm still not convinced that >they aren't all in your head. I asked before how you people that actually do >OBE know that it's not in your head, and there were no real replies. I could explain it to you. But first you have to prove that you are not just something in my head. Why should I explain anything to a figment of my imagination. 7 ###### From: bartma12@ix.netcom.com(Bart Scott) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: 5 Jul 1998 14:21:05 GMT Organization: ICGNetcom Lines: 29 Message-ID: <6no24h$26o@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359f03be.15076531@enews.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: clv-oh38-12.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Jul 05 7:21:05 AM PDT 1998 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-nyc.telia.net!feeder.qis.net!netnews.com!ix.netcom.com!news In <359f03be.15076531@enews.newsguy.com> 7@newsguy.com (7) writes: > >On Fri, 03 Jul 1998 02:51:03 GMT, dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote: > >> >>Hello.. >> >> I know how realistic LD's and OBE's seem, but I'm still not >>convinced that they aren't all in your head. I asked before how you >>people that actually do OBE know that it's not in your head, and >>there were no real replies. > >I could explain it to you. But first you have to prove that you are >not just something in my head. Why should I explain anything to a >figment of my imagination. > >7 Very good, 7... Ummm... it *is* in our head - that's what we've been trying to tell you. There is no reality outside of our heads. All of reality exists within our conscious grasp. Clarity depends on the individual. Mystical experiences are available to everyone. What you do with them is what counts. Bart ###### From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 02:15:29 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 43 Message-ID: <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.195.172 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jul 06 02:15:29 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.wli.net!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > > Hey, I see what you're trying to say Doug, but to let you see how hard > > this could be ...... why don't you 'prove' it's all in our heads. :-) > > Just as well as it being hard, if not impossible to prove that OBE's are > > real, the same can be said for the opposite. Anyway, OBE's, IMO, are > > something personal, and the only people, usually, who want proof of > > them, really want to disprove them. I can't see any reason that I would > > need to prove to anyone that this is a real thing. :-) > > > > Craig > > You know, it seems obvious, but you're right Craig. If it's all in the head, > then how does it work? Science can't even figure out what dreams are for. > They're not even sure what REM sleep is for. Sure, there's a lot of > speculation and some nice theories out there .. but nothing concrete. So > how can they make such an assumption about OBEs? > > Trish > Hello. Both you and craig are correct, sort of. It's very hard to prove what's goign on in someones head. It's not definitly true that science hasn't figured out what dreams are for. There are theories, and adventually the theories will be changed around a little here and there, and one will be accepted as truth. Some people believe in the area of dreams it's already been done, and there are tons of books that try and explain it, in many different ways. As for OBE's, I would say it's much safer to assume that it's all in your head. By saying it's all in your head you are also explaining certain types of UFO abductions, and NDE's. You are explaing a lot of weird experiences that people have had. By saying that you are really leaving your body, you are not explaining anything. You are just creating many more questions. I am just going with the more likely answer. It might be better to suspend judgement, but I don't understand why anyone would go with the much less likely answer? I think it's definite which one is more likely? Of course that doesn't prove anything. But why go with the less likely answer? -Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 02:18:30 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 23 Message-ID: <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.195.172 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jul 06 02:18:30 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > > Fact remains that people can see distant places and talk to other people in > their dreams. > This are stuff we need to go by to figure out if it is real or not. People > have experienced > this. And can do it again. > What can I say, it all builds up to the conclusion that it is real. > I don't doubt it, why should you doubt it? > What is this fact you speak of? I don't know anyone who claims to be able to talk to other or see distant places in their dreams? Do you? I've read books by people who thought they could, but they never seemed to get consistent results, and never seemed to be able to accomplish anything definite, or get any hard evidence. I see there as being very little if any proof worth even considering. Why are you so sure that it is real? -Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### From: mpfc@hotmail.com (Steve) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 04:13:38 GMT Message-ID: <35a04eac.36410129@n3.idirect.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 NNTP-Posting-Host: omennet32.idirect.com X-Trace: 6 Jul 1998 04:22:17 GMT, omennet32.idirect.com Organization: "Usenet User" Lines: 30 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!feed.nntp.acc.ca!nntp.cadvision.com!island.idirect.com!epsilon!nemo.idirect.com!omennet32.idirect.com On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 02:18:30 GMT, dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > >> >> Fact remains that people can see distant places and talk to other people in >> their dreams. >> This are stuff we need to go by to figure out if it is real or not. People >> have experienced >> this. And can do it again. >> What can I say, it all builds up to the conclusion that it is real. >> I don't doubt it, why should you doubt it? >> > >What is this fact you speak of? I don't know anyone who claims to be able to >talk to other or see distant places in their dreams? Do you? I've read >books by people who thought they could, but they never seemed to get >consistent results, and never seemed to be able to accomplish anything >definite, or get any hard evidence. I see there as being very little if any >proof worth even considering. Why are you so sure that it is real? > >-Doug After listening to the experiences of the people in this NG, why are you still unsure that it isn't real... Regards, Steve ###### From: mpfc@hotmail.com (Steve) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 04:17:05 GMT Message-ID: <35a04f33.36544436@n3.idirect.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 NNTP-Posting-Host: omennet32.idirect.com X-Trace: 6 Jul 1998 04:25:44 GMT, omennet32.idirect.com Organization: "Usenet User" Lines: 56 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!nntp.cadvision.com!island.idirect.com!epsilon!nemo.idirect.com!omennet32.idirect.com On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 02:15:29 GMT, dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > >> > Hey, I see what you're trying to say Doug, but to let you see how hard >> > this could be ...... why don't you 'prove' it's all in our heads. :-) >> > Just as well as it being hard, if not impossible to prove that OBE's are >> > real, the same can be said for the opposite. Anyway, OBE's, IMO, are >> > something personal, and the only people, usually, who want proof of >> > them, really want to disprove them. I can't see any reason that I would >> > need to prove to anyone that this is a real thing. :-) >> > >> > Craig >> >> You know, it seems obvious, but you're right Craig. If it's all in the >head, >> then how does it work? Science can't even figure out what dreams are for. >> They're not even sure what REM sleep is for. Sure, there's a lot of >> speculation and some nice theories out there .. but nothing concrete. So >> how can they make such an assumption about OBEs? >> >> Trish >> > >Hello. Both you and craig are correct, sort of. It's very hard to prove >what's goign on in someones head. It's not definitly true that science >hasn't figured out what dreams are for. There are theories, and adventually >the theories will be changed around a little here and there, and one will be >accepted as truth. Some people believe in the area of dreams it's already >been done, and there are tons of books that try and explain it, in many >different ways. As for OBE's, I would say it's much safer to assume that >it's all in your head. By saying it's all in your head you are also >explaining certain types of UFO abductions, and NDE's. You are explaing a >lot of weird experiences that people have had. By saying that you are really >leaving your body, you are not explaining anything. You are just creating >many more questions. I am just going with the more likely answer. It might >be better to suspend judgement, but I don't understand why anyone would go >with the much less likely answer? I think it's definite which one is more >likely? Of course that doesn't prove anything. But why go with the less >likely answer? > >-Doug > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum Probably the best way you can obtain proof is to actually try and go OOB yourself.. I'm not sure if they are possible or not as I have never had an OBE, but I find the anecdotal evidence compelling and the facts of my own limited experience with altered states intriguing enough to try and experiment.... nothing to lose, everything to gain... Regards, Steve ###### From: Trish Pike Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 09:41:11 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 64 Message-ID: <6nqjvt$efq$1@news-1.news.gte.net> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust183.tnt2.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth: D50F811F159CCD8B46D18491 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.nyu.edu!worldfeed.gte.net!newsfeed.gte.net!newsfeed2.gte.net.MISMATCH!news.gte.net!not-for-mail dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote: > Hello. Both you and craig are correct, sort of. It's very hard to prove > what's goign on in someones head. It's not definitly true that science > hasn't figured out what dreams are for. There are theories, and adventually > the theories will be changed around a little here and there, and one will be > accepted as truth. Theories. That's all. And at any given time one of those theories they acceptas fact can be knocked out of the ball park ... just like quantum physics did to Newtonian physics at the start of this century. The great order of the universe tripped on the mat and came crumbling down at their feet. Suddenly things like time travel became possible. And I'm not talking metaphysics, I'm talking _science_. > Some people believe in the area of dreams it's already > been done, and there are tons of books that try and explain it, in many > different ways. As for OBE's, I would say it's much safer to assume that > it's all in your head. By saying it's all in your head you are also > explaining certain types of UFO abductions, and NDE's. You are explaing a > lot of weird experiences that people have had. By saying that you are really > leaving your body, you are not explaining anything. You are just creating > many more questions. I am just going with the more likely answer. It might > be better to suspend judgement, but I don't understand why anyone would go > with the much less likely answer? I think it's definite which one is more > likely? Of course that doesn't prove anything. But why go with the less > likely answer? > > -Doug > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum Because Doug, we have all come to this conclusion based on our own experiences. And when we get together and compare notes on these experiences, we find that they are all very similar indeed. If anything, there's only one major dispute ... and that's whether or not an astral body exists. Some of us believe that it does ... some of us believe in a universal consciousness that includes all space and time, and the ability to "tune in" to different aspects of this consciousness without ever having to "leave" the body. Many people who have not had the experience are "lumpers". Afraid of what we have to say, and decide to take the "safe" route and lump it all under the same category as UFO abductions, and the like. So it's swept under the carpet and forgotten about. The implications are too complicated to think about. We can't forget. We can't look away. We live it. It's a part of our lives. And every fibre of our being tells us that the simple explanations are _not_ right. Even when we try to force ourselves to accept the idea that it's all in our brains (as I have done, and many regulars in this group can attest) it all just dissipates in light of the next experience we have. Trish ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 22:39:36 +0200 Lines: 324 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t5o204p31.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t5o204p31.telia.com Message-ID: <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!uninett.no!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t5o204p31.telia.com dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote in message >What is this fact you speak of? I don't know anyone who claims to be able to >talk to other or see distant places in their dreams? Do you? I've read >books by people who thought they could, but they never seemed to get >consistent results, and never seemed to be able to accomplish anything >definite, or get any hard evidence. I see there as being very little if any >proof worth even considering. Why are you so sure that it is real? > Thought they could? Consistent results? Anything definite? Hard evidence? In gods name, what have you been reading??? I have only been in this business for a couple of months, and I have already seen many people that are capable of creating reproducable results. Here is a few books about shared/mutual dreaming: -------------------- Campbell, Jean. Dreams Beyond Dreaming. Virginia Beach: The Donning Co., 1980. Campbell, Jean. "Beyond Dreaming," Dream Network Bulletin/Dream Craft. Vol.2, No. 7 (1983). pp. 1-2. Donahoe, James J. Dream Reality. Oakland, CA: Bench Press, 1974. Donahoe, James J. Enigma. Oakland, CA: Bench Press, 1979. Magallon, L.L. "The Lucidity Project: An Experiment in Group Dreaming," Dream Network Bulletin. Vol.4, No.5 (1985) pp.10-11. Magallon, L.L. Mutual Dreaming. NY: Pocket Books, 1997. Magallon, L.L. & B. Shor "Shared Dreaming: Joining Together In Dreamtime," in S. Krippner, Ed., Dreamtime & Dreamwork. Los Angeles: Jeremey P. Tarcher, 1990. pp. 252-260. Shor, Barbara. "The Promise of Shared Dreaming," Gnosis. No. 22, Winter 1992. pp. 36-42. Shor, Barbara. "Shared Dreaming," Dream Network Bulletin. 7/1 (1988). pp. 14-15. Szot, Francis Louis. "Communal Lucid Dreaming: An Introductory Technique," Lucidity Letter. 7/2 (1988). pp. 93-96. ---------------------- You might also want to check out this link: http://members.aol.com/caseyflyer/fbnc/fbnc08.htm This was found on alt.dreams.lucid ----------------- Subject: Re: Collective dreaming!? ...sure. From: "Ian Wilson" Date: 1998/06/12 Message-ID: <01bd959d$97ac56a0$d89022cf@deathlord> Newsgroups: alt.dreams.lucid > Anyone have any cool stories to share, or better yet evidence to this!? I have shared dreams since I was 16 years old. 10 years later I still share an occasional dream. Not as easy as it sounds. But my friends like it. Cheers, Ian ------------------- From "Course in consciousness by Ian Wilson": ------------------- We need to look at two types of dreams, the subjective dream that you think is subjective and exclusive to you. And the objective dream which very few on this planet know about and where I am about to loose most of you who have never shared in this type of dream before. But please, forgive the possible shock to your beliefs about dreams when I discuss shared dreaming. Most advanced dreamers I know about this. Most of the beginners are happy just to even have a dream let alone share one. The apparent subjective dream usually entails your mind working out your fantasies, fears, anxieties and stress. Maybe you dream part of what you did that day in some illogical chaotic manner. Perhaps there was a girl or a guy you wanted to be with and your dream contained some fantasy where that wish was granted. On the most part, you wake up and hopefully remember. If you do not, read the up coming section where we discuss dream recall, and dreaming techniques. The objective dream which I am introducing early because I want to start to open your minds with the possibilities should you not have had this type of dream before is what we can only label, "Shared Dreams". Shared dreams are pretty much exclusive to people who tend to dream a lot with some level of lucidity and some good level of recall. From personal experience with shared dreaming, since I have shared dreams with people over the last 10 years gives me about this to say on it… By experience, if one person (usually it was me) was fully conscious (Lucid) in the dream. [Lucid dreaming is where your normal waking consciousness, the part that you are right now, is fully awake and aware except you are in a dream, not your normal waking physical reality. You can be analytical, creative, change and control the dream or just observe. You wake with full memory and clarity knowing you were fully conscious in a dream environment] And the other participant was semi-lucid and somehow managed to retain some memory of the dream environment. For both individuals, the normal standards for observation apply. Both had a point in the dream setting where they observed the dream, and both had ability to clearly filter in the dream's environment so that upon waking each individual involved would remember key elements of that dream environment as if it was a physical one where both parties had just gone. No matter what the case, consciousness was the key to shared dreaming. So to share a dream effectively, a lucid state is the most optimum potential we have when desiring to explore this naturally occurring ability. The only thing is; until now, most of you have never shared a dream, let alone knew it was possible. I don't want you to automatically believe that people share dreams until you yourself gather enough personal evidence to prove it to yourself. For now, keep an open mind for the possibilities of what others are experiencing. If you are a person who has shared dreams then you stand like a lot of us who have knowing fully the reality of this experience and can look forward to more positive growth towards a better understanding of these states. My hopes is you gain enough courage, knowledge and understanding about dreams in this course that you can comfortably move into these layers of dreams where we can meet. I'd sure like to meet some of you in these states. I will cover the majority of this in up coming chapters. ------------------- Another post by Ian Wilson: ------------------- Subject: Re: Shared Dream Question From: "Ian Wilson" Date: 1998/06/08 Message-ID: <01bd9288$55a92d40$cc9022cf@deathlord> Newsgroups: alt.dreams [More Headers] [Subscribe to alt.dreams] > First, contact Linda magallon, author of mutual dreaming. She has several > projects, including a class on creative dreaming and the fly-by-night club for > dreamers who explore the fun side of dreaming. caseyflyer@ao.com > You can get to her web site via the ED resources list > www.dreamgate.com/dream/resources/online97.htm > Select magallon That is a great Dream Resource page. Is it ok if I post a link to it on my Web Page? It is ironic that you mentioned Linda's book, I had just picked it up a few days ago. I have read it quite a bit. It's the first attempt at a serious look at shared dreaming. However she seems hesitant to confirm that a "Mutual" Dream environment can be fully shared with 100% accurate perception on both parties. My personal experience with friends to whom I have shared dreams with has verified at least to me that there is a definite 100% accuracy potential depending on the dreamers in the fields. > Also, the intuition network runs a mail list that practices intentional > mutual dreaming and related projects. see www.intuition.org look under the > discussion lists for dreams@intuition.org I will definitely check this out. Shared Dreaming is one of the main areas of interest in my dream studies. It's good to see more people focussing on these issues in the dreaming spectrum. I feel it is one of the next fluid steps in our Human growth and consciousness. Thanks for the Site, and let me know about any of the shared dreams you have had. Thanks > - Richard > rcwilk@aol.com ------------------------ Might just as well add this one too: ------------------------ Subject: Re: Shared Dream Question From: "Ian Wilson" Date: 1998/06/03 Message-ID: <01bd8ea8$c56f5660$LocalHost@deathlord> Newsgroups: alt.dreams [More Headers] [Subscribe to alt.dreams] > While staying at my place in rooms at opposite ends of the house, my best > friend and I shared a dream. At least, we dreamt of the same man. He > was a complete stranger, whom we couldn't associate to any shared > experience, far older than we and who wore what seemed to be period > clothing. Did the man wear brown clothing much like a robe with a hood. Was his hair grey slightly bald, and did he have a grey moustach and goutea? Kind of looks like (bit is not) Sean Connery? > We have never shared a dream before or after this. You have no way of verifying this, but if it is the same person of whome I am thinking than I have met this man. And so has my friend. And to be very honest, he was in the very first shared dream that I have had. I believe his name may be "Sojourn". He's quite spiritual and very helpfull. I just think he looks like Sean Connery in Monk's clothing. (Assuming that it is the same guy...and that is a big assumption) I have shared dreams over the last 10 years. I would be happy to answer any questions on how to share dreams you may have. And if you see this man again for what ever reasons, tell him "Hi" from Todd and Ian. Keep working with him, he's really cool. > We've been extremely curious of this, and wondered if anyone could offer > any insight? That is the best I can do for now. I am hopeful that it is an old spititual friend of ours. ------------------ As for seeing distant places in a dream, that makes it an out of body experience. This was a reply to one of my posts when I first got here: ----------------- Subject: Re: What is REALLY OBE? From: linda Date: 1998/05/05 Message-ID: <354FF03E.16535B9F@digital-ventures.com> Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body [More Headers] [Subscribe to alt.out-of-body] I will try to briefly describe a few OBEs that might meet Lars requirements: I ask my daughters to help with my experiment by placing folded notes with messages on their bedroom wall. Like one might put up a Christmas card. I told them not to hint at the contents and I didn't go in their room for a few weeks while I tried to OBE and read the notes while out of body. The first time I could seem to focus on the writing enough to read it, but the second time I tried I was able to read some of the notes. I really can't understand why, if I could read some, I couldn't read all of the notes but I couldn't. This one happened 12 years before. I was in the hospital having a baby. It didn't go well and there were major repairs that need to be made after the delivery. I hadn't been anesthetized and a nurse was hollering for me to be still so they could do their thing. I was in considerable pain. I heard a voice softly saying " Linda, remember, you can imagine your awareness above your body." Well, I didn't remember any such thing. I had never had an OBE or even heard of it. I was somewhat desperate so I tried. I don't think I did it, I think who ever was talking to me made it happen. Anyway, I felt like I was in a loud train going through a tornado and then I was floating up close to the ceiling. I wasn't sure if I was alive or not. I felt concerned about the baby and was suddenly in the hall outside the delivery room. My mother was looking through a window at my baby. I stood behind her and watched for a while. Then my father came down the hall with a thermos of coffee for mother and they talked. My younger brother came a little while later. He was on his lunch break from high school. My husband and his family were in a waiting room some distance away. I went down there and he was asleep on a couch. Any way, to make a long story shorter. As soon as I was back in my body and in my room, I had mother write my experience in a notebook for me and I ask her not to comment until I had finished telling it to her. It all matched perfectly to what was really happening. It was much longer and more detailed than what I have written here, but you get the idea. Linda ---------------- Where did Linda go by the way? I haven't seen here for a while.... I have read many, many more stories then this. Like one guy that was in an accident, he got something over his head, and went unconscious. But he also left his body. And could see what was happening outside his body as it was happening. He could hear his friends talking in the phone, he could see the ambulance arriving and stuff like that. Now this was a genuin OBE. I hope you get the picture, Lars P.s. I'm reading a book now about Telepathy. It has been written by a norwegian psychic. This woman has many, many years of experience with this. She can in normal waking state see into the future, find death people or missing people. She can remote view, get information from objects. Move objects with her mind. I think I will finish the book tonight. Quite amazing book. She also says that his sense is in our forehead. Our third eye. What I found interesting is that she was tested with EGG, and her activity behind her forehead was so high that the experiment couldn't proceed. It is this sense we use when we go OOB too. You know the sliver cord that is connected to our forehead. A highly protected sense. She also say that these signals are transported through the air as radio waves are. She has difficulties recieving when she is under ground. This mean that we are dealing with some sort of radio waves. I'm not sure what, but I have good reasons to know that I will find out within a few months, maybe weeks. My wild guess it that it travel on the 44,1 Khz. I can feel that I'm very close to the answer.... But something that might be difficult to figure out is how on earth we might get info from the future.... Cheers, Lars ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: 07 Jul 1998 00:46:01 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 176 Message-ID: References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 dhaber@my-dejanews.com writes: > > > Hey, I see what you're trying to say Doug, but to let you see how hard > > > this could be ...... why don't you 'prove' it's all in our heads. :-) > > > Just as well as it being hard, if not impossible to prove that OBE's are > > > real, the same can be said for the opposite. > > You know, it seems obvious, but you're right Craig. If it's all in the head > > then how does it work? Science can't even figure out what dreams are for. > Hello. Both you and craig are correct, sort of. It's very hard to prove > what's goign on in someones head. Particularly hard to attribute subjective experiences to the observable data. Actually impossible. > As for OBE's, I would say it's much safer to assume that > it's all in your head. Safer if you take the current scientific dogma as base. See below. > By saying it's all in your head you are also > explaining certain types of UFO abductions, and NDE's. You are explaing a > lot of weird experiences that people have had. They can be also explained with other bases. See below. > By saying that you are really > leaving your body, you are not explaining anything. You are just creating > many more questions. What answer doesn't generate more questions? :-) Growth happens this way. > I am just going with the more likely answer. Again. More likely to the belief system you have adopted. > It might be better to suspend judgement, Sure. But find an human that will do that, sceptic or occultist. Its in the construction that we search for certainty. Missing that is also in the construction. > but I don't understand why anyone would go > with the much less likely answer? Perhaps because it is relative to their belief system the more likely one? OK. I have some time free, so here a long post to explain that: From Saulus to Paulus, or from Sceptic to Believer Up to about 2 years ago I was the typical sceptic. You know the "its all bunk that violates the laws of physics" type. Note: I am using the term sceptic as parapsychics and occultists do, for the "all not explained by science is wrong" type (strictly a cynist, but that term is not wide known), not for an real sceptic (one who decides impartially, not based on dogma). What changed it? Surprisingly science! Or rather the scientific mindset (real scepticism, critical thinking) combined with the attention to details that is common among engineers (I am an EE in Computing, Programmer, Sysadmin), particularly of the "hackish" tape. I had read all the claims and regarded them as nonsense. Having a bad run in with religon as child did that. I was taught the "god as old man and judge on the cloud" type of christianity. And that if one believed in god one would be helped by him. After falling out of shool (despite really believing this stuff, or rather because of believing it and blaming faillure on outside) I went into the other direction. Science as the only right thing. All else is bunk. Then thinking about computers, brains, information processing, artificial intelligence, the electrical side of chemistry, radio, etc it dawned on me 2 years ago, that at least telepathy may be real. Explainable * by biological radio (nerves emit radio waves like every pulsing electrical system, nerves also react to external electrical fields, and the brain is to large extent an signal filtering device). That was an out-of-the-blue event while contemplating while doing cross-country skiing (regular movements, quiteness, nature). * Note the "not explainable = not existant" formula in there. That opened the floodgates, as the obvious question popped up: what else can be potentially explained this way? Clairvoyance (radar), telekinesis (added force from properly times radio waves). Occultists: no sneering, this was the first attempt at escape. Of course I still regarded OBE, NDE etc as psychological. Second came: what exists that I have no explanation for. This fit in with awareness of the limits of knowledge (due to the subjectivity of all experiences). That comes from being a programmer and knowing all too good how to handle limited information. First awareness, that above formula is essentially attributing omniscience to ones self (or at least ones teachers). I had to face that denial only derived from believes and that science is also only a belief system. Yes, that is so. For example gravitation theory is an belief. The only observation (and so knowledge) is that things fall in direction "downwards". The dea/model that things have "mass" and accelerate towards other "masses" is purely an intellectual construct of the brain. Following from a growing misstrust in the absolute truth of the scientific teachings and from understanding subjectivity came the third question: why do I trust one teaching and not the other? And it boiled simply down to what group of people I grew up with. Accident of space and time. Not an logical choice. So I look for an logical one. Such as many people experiencing it. In the meantime I had read more about psychic claims. Paterns of repetition showed up. And they demanded acceptance as phenomena, even if the explanations offered by the claimants may be bunk. Then I stumbled on a book about researched ghost cases (such as multiple identical haunts happening to independant victims). And that clashed with the belief of it all "being in the brain", because here personal features (of the dead) stayed on without an body. That violated for me the basic rule of information, requiring an carrier, processing an processor. So the search started for an possible "alternate processor". This made OBE and NDE to phenomena with 2 competing theories: "in the brain" and "out of the brain". So I applied the scientific method used on Newton vs Einstein: find cases where the 2 theories predict different and see which hits nearer home. And DON'T simple chose the theory that has longer personal belief on its side, or more time invested in working out its consequences. "Out of the brain" won. I could simply not produce an "in the brain" theory for ghosts that was not just as "ridiculous" (for an materialist) as the idea of an independant soul. Most attempts based on the living person communicating telepathically with the future. A no-no for me at that time (time increases constantly, also why would one do this?). Other attempts had the ghost running on the brains of other people it knew, moving on when they die (but this would make the ghosts identity fade from brain to brain, not stay as observed). Of course I had no theory of how "out of body" souls work, what processor they run on. But that was less objectionable as above monstrosities. Then I stumbled on the Seth book mentioned a few posts ago. Bingo! It sort of all just fell into place. No internal contradictions, no contradiction to observation, just the need to sacrifice some dogma I was fastly losing belief in, such as: only matter exists. To accept that matter is itsself an "program" with souls the processor (them having yet an other layed (god?) beneath them). So today I am a believer in select psychic and occult phenomena and in some of the explanations for it. -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 01:18:37 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 36 Message-ID: <6nuhdd$e0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6nqjvt$efq$1@news-1.news.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.89.130 X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jul 08 01:18:37 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > And when we get together and compare notes on these experiences, we find that > they are all very similar indeed. If anything, there's only one major dispute > ... and > > Many people who have not had the experience are "lumpers". Afraid of what we > have to say, and decide to take the "safe" route and lump it all under the same > category as UFO abductions, and the like. So it's swept under the carpet and > forgotten about. The implications are too complicated to think about. > Hello.. You say that when you compare notes you find that the experiences are very similiar. Tne reason "lumpers" as you call them probably catagorize in the same thing with UFO abductions is rather simple. The experiences are extremely similiar. Meaning UFO abduction (of a certain type) are extremely similiar to OBE's and take place under the same circumstances. Let's push all that aside though.. Just because similiar things occur to different people, does that really prove anything? All it proves is that different people think similiarly? Doesn't it? If you really are having awareness out of your body, then why is it so difficult to bring back information, or meet others? The only reason I don't believe, is because I can't answer questions of this type. It might be something that I have to discover on my own, but any ideas you may have might help. As for quantum physics.. So far I read one book on it, and it was pretty bad.. (The book).. It was basically one persons futuristic views of society. I'll try to find something better. I've been looking for the ones you mentioned, but haven't found them yet. Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 01:27:24 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 36 Message-ID: <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.89.130 X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jul 08 01:27:24 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > > Thought they could? > Consistent results? > Anything definite? > Hard evidence? > > In gods name, what have you been reading??? > > I have only been in this business for a couple of months, and I have > already seen many people that are capable of creating > reproducable results. > > Here is a few books about shared/mutual dreaming: I've already read a lot of those and a lot of that stuff. I've also read a lot that ends in failure, and I try to look at both sides. Almost all of the people that claim to be successful are either religious, or spiritualists of a sort. Those people are usually not the least bit sceptical, and accept anything as truth. They tend to only speak of success, and to ignore the more common failures as if they never happened. I still keep the view that nothing definite has come out of anyones experiences. It is very hard to argue out a view through a newsgroup. At least in my style of arguing it is, and I don't think we should anyway. We both are going to believe what we believe, until proved wrong. I'm going to be gone from this newsgroup for a while (in a few days I'll leave).. But when I come back I'll try to start posting about more stuff that we can all accept and learn about, rather than arguing and accomplishing nothing.. Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com><1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com><6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au><6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 02:58:19 +0200 Lines: 34 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t8o204p12.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t8o204p12.telia.com Message-ID: <35a2c3ba.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t8o204p12.telia.com Neil Franklin wrote in message ... >Up to about 2 years ago I was the typical skeptic. You know the "its >all bunk that violates the laws of physics" type. > >Then thinking about computers, brains, information processing, >artificial intelligence, the electrical side of chemistry, radio, etc >it dawned on me 2 years ago, that at least telepathy may be real. >Explainable * by biological radio (nerves emit radio waves like every >pulsing electrical system, nerves also react to external electrical >fields, and the brain is to large extent an signal filtering device). > Here is a typical example that being a skeptic doesn't pay off, it just slow down the process. I'm a non-skeptic that got the same results as you within a month or two. This is because I jump into things with a fully open mind and explore and dig as much as I can. An ongoing case for information. There is little or nothing I regard as false. But could you supply some more info about the biological radio? I'm deep into this these days. Trying to join the pieces together and develop a theory on how telepathy works. Did you know that the intelligence agencies in the states have developed a computer that you may control with telepathy? I must say that NSA know a lot... more than most people can imagine... Cheers, Lars ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 04:44:04 +0200 Lines: 47 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t8o204p12.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t8o204p12.telia.com Message-ID: <35a2dd13.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-nyc.telia.net!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t8o204p12.telia.com dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote in message >I've already read a lot of those and a lot of that stuff. I've also read a >lot that ends in failure, and I try to look at both sides. Almost all of the >people that claim to be successful are either religious, or spiritualists of >a sort. Those people are usually not the least bit skeptical, and accept >anything as truth. They tend to only speak of success, and to ignore the >more common failures as if they never happened. I still keep the view that >nothing definite has come out of anyones experiences. It is very hard to >argue out a view through a newsgroup. At least in my style of arguing it is, >and I don't think we should anyway. We both are going to believe what we >believe, until proved wrong. I'm going to be gone from this newsgroup for a >while (in a few days I'll leave).. But when I come back I'll try to start >posting about more stuff that we can all accept and learn about, rather than >arguing and accomplishing nothing.. > There will always be failures, like a child learning to walk. I haven't heard of one child managing it in one try. I doubt that one accomplish 100% the first tries when it comes to telepathy, remote viewing and PK either. So do as me, try to look at those who success and try to prove the same things to yourself, meaning, try to experience it yourself. I will try, not trying that hard at the moment, but I will try. That is what I find most interesting. I have pretty much lately discovered what is possible, I want to move to techniques and how all this is possible. I like to find scientific explanations to it all. To the very least detail. Even how you might get info from the future. I want to know how the brain works, how everything works. I want to look at everything and know how it works, just as I look at water and how that it is just hydrogen and oxygen. But we might continue our discussion when you get back. The truth is near, Lars ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: 08 Jul 1998 22:51:05 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 103 Message-ID: References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com><1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com><6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au><6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a2c3ba.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 "Lars Rune Foleide" writes: > Neil Franklin wrote in message ... > >Up to about 2 years ago I was the typical skeptic. You know the "its > >all bunk that violates the laws of physics" type. > > > >it dawned on me 2 years ago, that at least telepathy may be real. > >Explainable * by biological radio (nerves emit radio waves like every > >pulsing electrical system, nerves also react to external electrical > >fields, and the brain is to large extent an signal filtering device). > > Here is a typical example that being a skeptic doesn't pay off, it just > slow down the process. I'm a non-skeptic that got the same results as > you within a month or two. Of course people chose to be sceptic because they have experiences that make them believe that that is the better way. Humans are to an VERY large extent creatures of random experience who build up their belief systems on these prejucies. Becoming aware of the randomness of ones beliefs and trying to overcome them is in my book the most important thing that has happened to me. > But could you supply some more info about the biological radio? > I'm deep into this these days. Trying to join the pieces together and > develop a theory on how telepathy works. Well, for one: I have given up this theory, so it may not be a good base. But anyway: Nerves are conductors for electrical signals (impulses). Every Impulse consists of accelerating (and after deaccelerating) of electrically charged particles (in this case ions K+ Na+). Doing so generates electromagnetic waves emmiting from the nerves. Thoughts (assuming for now telepathy = mind reading) are patterns of data processing in the brain (a big lot of nerves). Each of these nerves produces its waves, all of them producing an wave pattern. This can actually be measured (in very low detail) with an EEG (Electroencephalograph). Normal processes of seeing or hearing are based on sensing organs (eyes, ears) taking up data from the environment and generating electrical pulses that represent this data. The brain then evaluates these pulses to extract patterns from these. The Idea I had, was now that the waves coming from an other person would vibrate the particles in the recievers nerves and as such "superimpose" their paterns onto these. With the propper "pattern extraction formula" the brain (or most likely some specialised part of it) could extract the other ones thoughts from this. The reason I thought that this was a good theory was because learning the neccessary "formula" would be difficult but not impossible, such making the low occurance of natural (= accidental) pschics and the difficulty of learned psychics explainable. I the meantime I have given up this theory on 3 accounts: - The radio signals would diminish in distance (factor 4 for double distance), telepathy doesn't seem to become more difficult at distance - Radio waves travel with light speed, while telepathy seem to be immediate, according to all I have read - Spirits and Ghosts seem to interact with the world entirely by telepathy. And they do not have brains (nor a body) to emit radio waves from. So there must be an different mechanism, which is most likely also the one used by psychics At the moment I am still working out the consequences of the Sethian cosmology on giving an explanation for telepathy. But not having an theory doesn't really bother me any more. Not being an Skeptic any more I can live without an explanation. Simply finding out what happens, how one can get it to happen and what one can do with it is far more important to me. > Did you know that the intelligence agencies in the states have developed > a computer that you may control with telepathy? Ghosts and Poltergeists have interacted with normal PCs. I have even heard the claim that an Wiccan accidently erased the BIOS EPROM of her PC with an ceremony she did in the same room :-). I also know of an guy in Chechia who has made an telekinesis operated switch that he then connected to an computer. He can switch his computer on remotely by telekinesis and the log in to it over the phone line. So an entire TK keyboard should not be too dificult. If TK triggering of transistors is possble then why not make an grid of them and convert their signals into commands. The Chechia thing found in: Psychic Discoveries, Sheila Ostrander + Lynn Schroeder > I must say that NSA know a lot... more than most people can imagine... So does the KGB, according to above book (about ex east block stuff). -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: 08 Jul 1998 22:55:42 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 dhaber@my-dejanews.com writes: > Almost all of the > people that claim to be successful are either religious, or spiritualists of > a sort. Those people are usually not the least bit sceptical, and accept > anything as truth. But OTOH if one does not believe in something being possible, then one will never achieve it. SO all others not doing it can not be regarded as proof of non-existance. > They tend to only speak of success, and to ignore the > more common failures as if they never happened. I still keep the view that > nothing definite has come out of anyones experiences. It is very hard to If you want OBE reports from someone tolally non religious, try: http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/obe-obsv-peterson.html OBE Observations (Bob Peterson) > and I don't think we should anyway. We both are going to believe what we > believe, until proved wrong. Read above, it proves your belief as wrong. > I'm going to be gone from this newsgroup for a > while (in a few days I'll leave).. I hope you still get this post. > But when I come back I'll try to start > posting about more stuff that we can all accept and learn about, Such as above Web page. -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 01:18:24 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 87 Message-ID: <6o1jks$83m$1@news-1.news.gte.net> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6nqjvt$efq$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6nuhdd$e0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust151.tnt1.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net X-Auth: D50EC11F089BCDD613CD8491 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub.northeast.verio.net!worldfeed.gte.net!newsfeed.gte.net!newsfeed2.gte.net.MISMATCH!news.gte.net!not-for-mail dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6nuhdd$e0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > > >> And when we get together and compare notes on these experiences, we find that >> they are all very similar indeed. If anything, there's only one major dispute >> ... and >> >> Many people who have not had the experience are "lumpers". Afraid of what we >> have to say, and decide to take the "safe" route and lump it all under the >same >> category as UFO abductions, and the like. So it's swept under the carpet and >> forgotten about. The implications are too complicated to think about. >> > >Hello.. > > You say that when you compare notes you find that the experiences are very >similiar. Tne reason "lumpers" as you call them probably catagorize in the >same thing with UFO abductions is rather simple. The experiences are >extremely similiar. Meaning UFO abduction (of a certain type) are extremely >similiar to OBE's and take place under the same circumstances. Hmmmmm ... Ok. I'm listening. Open my mind a little here though. I'm having a real hard time relating my OBE experiences to what I would expect a UFO abduction to be like. I can certainly see how a person who is unfamiliar with OBEs has a spontaneous one that leads to an experience where the person may assume they are being abducted. But even in my earlier years, when I didn't even know what an OBE was ... my first thought while having the experience was "Wow, I'm out of my body" ... rather than, "Wow, I've been abducted by aliens." I'm not really seeing the association here at all. Let's push >all that aside though.. Just because similiar things occur to different >people, does that really prove anything? All it proves is that different >people think similiarly? Doesn't it? If you really are having awareness out >of your body, then why is it so difficult to bring back information, or meet >others? The only reason I don't believe, is because I can't answer questions >of this type. It might be something that I have to discover on my own, but >any ideas you may have might help. As for quantum physics.. So far I read >one book on it, and it was pretty bad.. (The book).. It was basically one >persons futuristic views of society. I'll try to find something better. I've >been looking for the ones you mentioned, but haven't found them yet. Doug, I understand fully what you mean here. "Belief systems" can be a primary motivator. And belief systems don't prove anything at all. As it is, I don't have proof for you. It may be that we never will have physical proof, because it may be something that does not exist in the physical .. not even in the brain. It's like trying to prove life after death. How can we do it? All we can do is die, and see what happens. If OBEs do not occur in the physical, how could we possibly give physical proof? Keep trying for the QP books. I have a very strong feeling that they may help. They may not help give you the proof of OBE existance, but they may help you understand why many people think it could be so. And please ... try to discover it, as you said, on your own. If you are ever able to have an OBE, you will become a very valuable asset to all of us who do. You'll be able to retain a sense of objectivity, whereas many people are so blown over by the experience, they will seek any belief system and settle on that one answer alone .. never pondering any others. Greetings from Florida .................... Trish capuchin@gte.net silencexx@hotmail.com ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 01:33:10 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 51 Message-ID: <6o1kgl$rp7$1@news-1.news.gte.net> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust151.tnt1.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net X-Auth: D50EC11E0484CD9C50978491 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub.northeast.verio.net!worldfeed.gte.net!newsfeed.gte.net!newsfeed2.gte.net.MISMATCH!news.gte.net!not-for-mail dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > > >> >> But OTOH if one does not believe in something being possible, then one >> will never achieve it. SO all others not doing it can not be regarded >> as proof of non-existance. > >Just because you believe something is not possible, does not mean you will >never achieve it. If you condition someone to believe that if they jump up >in the air they will just keep floating up for ever and ever, that doesn't >mean when they jump up they really will keep floating. Just like everyone >else they'll fall to the ground, regardless of their belief that they >can't... That's not a very good example, but I think you'll get my point. > > >> >> > and I don't think we should anyway. We both are going to believe what we >> > believe, until proved wrong. >> >> Read above, it proves your belief as wrong. >> > >How exactly does it prove my beliefs wrong? Nothing gets proved right or >wrong at all. Why do you automatically except that web page as truth? > >-Doug > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum Doug ... Try taking a different perspective. Try looking at "how" OBEs _could_ be possible ... rather than looking at how they can't be possible. With your objective way of looking at things, you may be able to come up with an idea that hasn't previously been thought of. Take a chance on it. Greetings from Florida .................... Trish capuchin@gte.net silencexx@hotmail.com ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 01:42:52 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 36 Message-ID: <6o1l2r$9mq$1@news-1.news.gte.net> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com><1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com><6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au><6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a2c3ba.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6o19j9$3mt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust151.tnt1.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net X-Auth: D50EC119519ACDD74DD18491 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.giganews.com!worldfeed.gte.net!newsfeed.gte.net!newsfeed2.gte.net.MISMATCH!news.gte.net!not-for-mail dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6o19j9$3mt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > > >> Here is a typical example that being a skeptic doesn't pay off, it just >> slow down the process. I'm a non-skeptic that got the same results as >> you within a month or two. >> This is because I jump into things with a fully open mind and explore and >> dig as much as I can. An ongoing case for information. >> There is little or nothing I regard as false. >> >It's possible to be both a skeptic and open minded. What that means is you >don't accept anything as truth, without good reason. I would see this as the >better way to "explore" because you don't get caught up with believing obvious >garbage. A way of looking at things is of course all opinion. > Yes, but you do come into problems when the "good reason" you apply as a measure for objectivity suddenly becomes false. Once upon a time we had "good reason" to believe that the world was flat. Once upon a time we had "good reason" to believe that the earth was the center of the solar system. Anything other than this was considered "obvious garbage" back then as well. "Good reason" can also be seen as "lack of further insight". Greetings from Florida .................... Trish capuchin@gte.net silencexx@hotmail.com ###### From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 02:23:36 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 27 Message-ID: <6o19j9$3mt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com><1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com><6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au><6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a2c3ba.0@d2o204.telia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.89.167 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jul 09 02:23:36 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > Here is a typical example that being a skeptic doesn't pay off, it just > slow down the process. I'm a non-skeptic that got the same results as > you within a month or two. > This is because I jump into things with a fully open mind and explore and > dig as much as I can. An ongoing case for information. > There is little or nothing I regard as false. > It's possible to be both a skeptic and open minded. What that means is you don't accept anything as truth, without good reason. I would see this as the better way to "explore" because you don't get caught up with believing obvious garbage. A way of looking at things is of course all opinion. > Did you know that the intelligence agencies in the states have developed > a computer that you may control with telepathy? > That is not really the least bit true (unless you are thinking of something completely different than what I think you are).. It's not controlled by telepathy. it's controlled by brain waves. Basically you can make it do different things based on what brain waves patterns you are sending out. It's the same concept as bio-feedback, and has nothing to do with telepathy. Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 02:49:55 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 30 Message-ID: <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.89.167 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jul 09 02:49:55 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > > But OTOH if one does not believe in something being possible, then one > will never achieve it. SO all others not doing it can not be regarded > as proof of non-existance. Just because you believe something is not possible, does not mean you will never achieve it. If you condition someone to believe that if they jump up in the air they will just keep floating up for ever and ever, that doesn't mean when they jump up they really will keep floating. Just like everyone else they'll fall to the ground, regardless of their belief that they can't... That's not a very good example, but I think you'll get my point. > > > and I don't think we should anyway. We both are going to believe what we > > believe, until proved wrong. > > Read above, it proves your belief as wrong. > How exactly does it prove my beliefs wrong? Nothing gets proved right or wrong at all. Why do you automatically except that web page as truth? -Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: 09 Jul 1998 20:59:05 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 75 Message-ID: References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 dhaber@my-dejanews.com writes: > > > > But OTOH if one does not believe in something being possible, then one > > will never achieve it. SO all others not doing it can not be regarded > > as proof of non-existance. > > Just because you believe something is not possible, does not mean you will > never achieve it. That depends on what "it" is. If you tell someone from childhood up that they are stupid they will believe it and so never try to be intelligent, and so not be intelligent. The same applies to all mental disciplines (and even to some physical ones (sport)). Psychic abilities and OBE are mental disciplines (both in the in-the-brain and the out-the-brain interpretations), so this rule applies here. > If you condition someone to believe that if they jump up > in the air they will just keep floating up for ever and ever, that doesn't > mean when they jump up they really will keep floating. Just like everyone > else they'll fall to the ground, regardless of their belief that they > can't... If I had said "if one believes in something being possible, then one will achieve it"* then that critique would be on target. But that is not what I said, so it misses widely. *interestingly many scientific psychologists do bang around that statement. > That's not a very good example, but I think you'll get my point. Was the "that" refering to my text or to your text? If to yours, then it definitely was a bad example. And no I did not get it. Actually I think there is evidence that you missread my original statement and were trying to say that the statement you thought it to be was wrong. > > > and I don't think we should anyway. We both are going to believe what we > > > believe, until proved wrong. > > > > Read above, it proves your belief as wrong. > > How exactly does it prove my beliefs wrong? Your claim was: "there exists no successfull case with the exeption of religious people", which I assume to be a statement of something you believe. That page reports an successfull case of an non-religious person. Proves that belief wrong. Q.E.D. > Nothing gets proved right or wrong at all. On an philosophical level I will agree with that. Nothing is provable, not even gravitation theory, let alone QP. But most people accet things as "proven" when they have accured often/always* whenever tested properly. This is known as an statistical proof. * depending on what is being proved always or often are required. > Why do you automatically except that web page as truth? I don't exept anything. I just present that page as an example. Note that 1 successfull example is sufficient to break an "never" claim. That was simple one case I had handy in my bookmarks file. -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 00:39:07 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 69 Message-ID: <6o6q30$5ni$1@news-2.news.gte.net> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1kgl$rp7$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6ldb$9dd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust42.tnt3.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net X-Auth: D50EC60450D8CDDB4EC98491 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.skynet.be!newscore.univie.ac.at!btnet-peer!btnet!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.251.127.50!worldfeed.gte.net!newsfeed.gte.net!newsfeed2.gte.net.MISMATCH!news.gte.net!not-for-mail dhaber@oswego.edu wrote in message <6o6ldb$9dd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > > >> Doug ... >> >> Try taking a different perspective. Try looking at "how" OBEs _could_ be >> possible ... rather than looking at how they can't be >> possible. With your objective way of looking at things, you may >> be able to come up with an idea that hasn't previously been >> thought of. Take a chance on it. >> >> Greetings from Florida .................... >> Trish > > >I personally do try to take that view of looking at how they can be. The >only reason I sound the other way is because it seems like a lot of people in >this group unquestinably believe in the reality of obe's, and I'd much rather >present questions to make them question the reality than to add on to their >beliefs. It might not be the right thing, and I might not come across as >showing the views that I really have, but I think that it's a good way of >doing things here? > >Doug > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum Yes, but people's unquestioning belief in OBEs is being backed up by personal experience. This newsgroup wasn't created for us to all sit back and weave tall tales for each other's amusement. And in a sense, it's not an unquestioning belief ... we are simply asking different questions than the ones you ask. But you confuse me Doug. You ask us to explain to you exactly "how" OBEs are not a product of the brain ........ but you yourself can not tell us specifically "how" OBEs _are_ a product of the brain. If it's all in the head, then tell me how it works. What brain chemicals or horomones are used? ... what synapses fire? ... what part of the brain produces it? ... why does it occur? ... Is it something that occurs randomly, in response to some faulty mechanism ... or does it have a specific purpose, and if so, what is that purpose? If you can't answer these questions then how would you expect us to believe you? Or even give your idea consideration? After all, we are basing our ideas on what we experience. You are applying practical logic on a situation that's not practical at all. You have little to no personal experience with the subject. And you supply no details to support your conclusion. (Not stating this as a flame, just to make a point) You're not the first person to approach the group with such a line of questioning. Actually, I did the same thing when I first entered the group, which some of the veterans here can attest to. But you can't ask us to do what you can't do yourself. Greetings from Florida .................... Trish capuchin@gte.net silencexx@hotmail.com ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 00:49:38 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 79 Message-ID: <6o6qmo$isq$1@news-2.news.gte.net> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6nqjvt$efq$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6nuhdd$e0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1jks$83m$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6l84$8qs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust42.tnt3.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net X-Auth: D50EC6040E87CD8753D18491 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!howland.erols.net!worldfeed.gte.net!newsfeed.gte.net!newsfeed2.gte.net.MISMATCH!news.gte.net!not-for-mail dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6o6l84$8qs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Hello.. If you want to see what I mean with that you might be intersted in >reading books about ufo abductions.. There are a few different "types". The >type that I am talking about is probably the most common, and I have even >known several people that have experienced these and the next day looked >really freaked out and sworn that they were abducted by aliens. Someone once >posted an URL to an essay written on the similarities of OBE's and >abductions, and that might be helpful for explaining more, but I'll try to >explain. Basically this type of UFO abduction starts out with a person being >very relaxed, usually lying in bed or sitting on a couch or chair very >comfortably.. Just like a spontaneous OBE. There are a lot of similarities >with floating feelings, and people feeling as if they are being pulled upward >(although not neccisarly out of their bodies). There are a ton of similiar >elements, but even if that is not enough, there is more. Just as DXM (and >several other drugs) can be used to cause OBE's they could also be used to >cause UFO abductions. Now of course there are some weirdos who do this and >believe the DXM is summoning the aliens or something just a strange and far >out.. But I think that they are just getting into a state of mind where >their subconcious is playing a bigger role, and their imagination is going a >bit wild. There are just too many similarities to throw this away, and I >reccomend to anyone that can cause obe's to try getting abducted. By the >theories that I follow, it shouldn't be that hard to do. I reccomend if >possible knowing as little as possible about UFO abductions first, and then >after experiencing it, read about it, and look for similarities between other >cases, and between obe's. I've never heard of anyone intentionally causing a >UFO abduction (except through drugs), but if my way of seeing this has any >truth, then it should be possible. Ok .. so you're talking about non physical UFO abductions then. I can see the association now. But if what you're saying is true .. and it's all in the brain, then don't you think it's about time they figured out how it works? Especially since it effects so many people? Heck, they can figure out how time travel could be possible, but they're not able to figure out the human brain. I just don't get it. >I just want to mention that I have had some success with obe's. I'm not sure >if I've mentioned much here before, but I've been semi successful, but never >fully. The best success that I had would best fit the definition of etheric >projection. Basically I was lying down in one room of a house, while >picturing myself in another, and then a really strange powerful feeling came >over me, and I could have sworn that I could see as if I was in the other >room. Unfortunatly that surprised me quite a bit and I haven't been able to >reproduce it. I do a lot of experimenting, and I've recently started taking >better notes of all my experiments (involving hypnosis, meditation, drugs, >questioning others about their experiences, and a ton of other stuff.) I >think I'm pretty close to having success at hypnotising people into >projecting, but I won't be sure until it happens, and right now I'm trying to >find a better subject to use. It's hard to find a willing subject for these >kinds of experiments, but eventually I'll find someone around here that would >be intersted. If I have any good results I'll be sure to post them. Skip others, and concentrate on yourself. That would be my suggestion. Hypnotizing someone else won't be helpful enough until you have your own experiences to compare it to. Greetings from Florida .................... Trish capuchin@gte.net silencexx@hotmail.com ###### From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 03:13:07 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 72 Message-ID: <6o6l84$8qs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6nqjvt$efq$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6nuhdd$e0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1jks$83m$1@news-1.news.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.195.169 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jul 11 03:13:07 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!news-feeds.jump.net!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > Hmmmmm ... Ok. I'm listening. Open my mind a little here though. > I'm having a real hard time relating my OBE experiences to what > I would expect a UFO abduction to be like. I can certainly see how > a person who is unfamiliar with OBEs has a spontaneous one > that leads to an experience where the person may assume they > are being abducted. But even in my earlier years, when I didn't > even know what an OBE was ... my first thought while having > the experience was "Wow, I'm out of my body" ... rather than, > "Wow, I've been abducted by aliens." > > I'm not really seeing the association here at all. > Hello.. If you want to see what I mean with that you might be intersted in reading books about ufo abductions.. There are a few different "types". The type that I am talking about is probably the most common, and I have even known several people that have experienced these and the next day looked really freaked out and sworn that they were abducted by aliens. Someone once posted an URL to an essay written on the similarities of OBE's and abductions, and that might be helpful for explaining more, but I'll try to explain. Basically this type of UFO abduction starts out with a person being very relaxed, usually lying in bed or sitting on a couch or chair very comfortably.. Just like a spontaneous OBE. There are a lot of similarities with floating feelings, and people feeling as if they are being pulled upward (although not neccisarly out of their bodies). There are a ton of similiar elements, but even if that is not enough, there is more. Just as DXM (and several other drugs) can be used to cause OBE's they could also be used to cause UFO abductions. Now of course there are some weirdos who do this and believe the DXM is summoning the aliens or something just a strange and far out.. But I think that they are just getting into a state of mind where their subconcious is playing a bigger role, and their imagination is going a bit wild. There are just too many similarities to throw this away, and I reccomend to anyone that can cause obe's to try getting abducted. By the theories that I follow, it shouldn't be that hard to do. I reccomend if possible knowing as little as possible about UFO abductions first, and then after experiencing it, read about it, and look for similarities between other cases, and between obe's. I've never heard of anyone intentionally causing a UFO abduction (except through drugs), but if my way of seeing this has any truth, then it should be possible. > > And please ... try to discover it, as you said, on your own. If you are > ever able to have an OBE, you will become a very valuable asset > to all of us who do. You'll be able to retain a sense of objectivity, > whereas many people are so blown over by the experience, they > will seek any belief system and settle on that one answer alone .. > never pondering any others. > I just want to mention that I have had some success with obe's. I'm not sure if I've mentioned much here before, but I've been semi successful, but never fully. The best success that I had would best fit the definition of etheric projection. Basically I was lying down in one room of a house, while picturing myself in another, and then a really strange powerful feeling came over me, and I could have sworn that I could see as if I was in the other room. Unfortunatly that surprised me quite a bit and I haven't been able to reproduce it. I do a lot of experimenting, and I've recently started taking better notes of all my experiments (involving hypnosis, meditation, drugs, questioning others about their experiences, and a ton of other stuff.) I think I'm pretty close to having success at hypnotising people into projecting, but I won't be sure until it happens, and right now I'm trying to find a better subject to use. It's hard to find a willing subject for these kinds of experiments, but eventually I'll find someone around here that would be intersted. If I have any good results I'll be sure to post them. Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### From: dhaber@oswego.edu Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 03:15:55 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 26 Message-ID: <6o6ldb$9dd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1kgl$rp7$1@news-1.news.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.195.169 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jul 11 03:15:55 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > Doug ... > > Try taking a different perspective. Try looking at "how" OBEs _could_ be > possible ... rather than looking at how they can't be > possible. With your objective way of looking at things, you may > be able to come up with an idea that hasn't previously been > thought of. Take a chance on it. > > Greetings from Florida .................... > Trish I personally do try to take that view of looking at how they can be. The only reason I sound the other way is because it seems like a lot of people in this group unquestinably believe in the reality of obe's, and I'd much rather present questions to make them question the reality than to add on to their beliefs. It might not be the right thing, and I might not come across as showing the views that I really have, but I think that it's a good way of doing things here? Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### From: silkdick@aol.com (Silk Dick) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Lines: 12 Message-ID: <1998071112133200.IAA19603@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 11 Jul 1998 12:13:32 GMT References: <6o6ldb$9dd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!surfnet.nl!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <6o6ldb$9dd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dhaber@oswego.edu writes: > but I think that it's a good way of doing things here? gee, are you sure"!" Pleasant Dreams |-) Silk Richard.Silk@Juno.Com SilkDick@aol.com Pager #615-923-1696 ###### From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 17:52:54 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 58 Message-ID: <6o88pl$g1j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1kgl$rp7$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6ldb$9dd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6q30$5ni$1@news-2.news.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.195.178 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jul 11 17:52:54 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!feed2.news.erols.com!erols!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!204.238.120.130!news-feeds.jump.net!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > Yes, but people's unquestioning belief in OBEs is being backed up > by personal experience. This newsgroup wasn't created for us to > all sit back and weave tall tales for each other's amusement. And in a > sense, it's not an unquestioning belief ... we are simply asking > different questions than the ones you ask. > > But you confuse me Doug. You ask us to explain to you exactly "how" > OBEs are not a product of the brain ........ but you yourself can not > tell us specifically "how" OBEs _are_ a product of the brain. If it's > all in the head, then tell me how it works. What brain chemicals or > horomones are used? ... what synapses fire? ... what part of the brain > produces it? ... why does it occur? ... Is it something that occurs > randomly, in response to some faulty mechanism ... or does it have > a specific purpose, and if so, what is that purpose? > > If you can't answer these questions then how would you expect us > to believe you? Or even give your idea consideration? After all, > we are basing our ideas on what we experience. You are applying > practical logic on a situation that's not practical at all. You have > little to no personal experience with the subject. And you supply > no details to support your conclusion. (Not stating this as a flame, > just to make a point) > > You're not the first person to approach the group with such a line > of questioning. Actually, I did the same thing when I first entered > the group, which some of the veterans here can attest to. But you > can't ask us to do what you can't do yourself. Trish, You are correct, and make many valid points. I don't know the workings of the brain well enough to explain in detail how it could be a hallucination. But I do have more experience with altered states of conciousness than you know about. I have been studying that stuff for a little while now, and have done many experiments and have recieved results that makes me very sure that it is possible to have very vivid and lucid hallucinations in a dream like state, where you might swear that you are not dreaming. And just as all of you base your ideas on your experiences, I base my ideas on mine. Maybe I am not at a point now where I should be expressing my views so much, because I can't back them up with much proof. Hopefully within a few months I'll be able to accomplish something interesting to think about. I still say that it is much more probable that OBE's are a product of the brain, than being "real". But that doesn't prove anything, because nothing is being explained either way. I mean no harm to anyone, and I'm not trying to "attack" anyones beliefs. I'll try to avoid these little debates from now on. -Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 18:00:45 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 26 Message-ID: <6o898c$gsf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6nqjvt$efq$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6nuhdd$e0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1jks$83m$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6l84$8qs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6qmo$isq$1@news-2.news.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.195.178 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jul 11 18:00:45 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!europa.clark.net!206.229.87.25!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!204.238.120.130!news-feeds.jump.net!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > Skip others, and concentrate on yourself. That would be my suggestion. > Hypnotizing someone else won't be helpful enough until > you have your own experiences to compare it to. I do try on my self, but according to most of the information I've found, certain medications that I am taking might make it difficult to achieve the relaxed, and "trance" states neccessary for such things as OBE's, remote viewing, and many other things.. And so until I'm off of the medication I probably won't accomplish much on my own. I've found at least 5 sources that mention something about the medication effecting these states, and so although it's not definite, it's definitly possible. Despite that I still try, but I haven't had as much success as many other people. I've been able to explain the process of OBEing to friends before, and through my explination they've been able to accomplish it rather easilly. I still can't usually get very far. I still could lucid dream, and so that's the only closely related thing I could do right now. I have learned a lot by experimenting with others, and although it might not be my personal experience, it is experience that is useful in understanding these things. At least I think it is. Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 21:55:22 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 36 Message-ID: <6o94rp$9m9$1@news-1.news.gte.net> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6nqjvt$efq$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6nuhdd$e0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1jks$83m$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6l84$8qs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6qmo$isq$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o898c$gsf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust222.tnt1.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net X-Auth: D50EC9411198CDD74D998491 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-fra.maz.net!news-lond.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!howland.erols.net!worldfeed.gte.net!newsfeed.gte.net!newsfeed2.gte.net.MISMATCH!news.gte.net!not-for-mail dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6o898c$gsf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > > > >I do try on my self, but according to most of the information I've found, >certain medications that I am taking might make it difficult to achieve the >relaxed, and "trance" states neccessary for such things as OBE's, remote >viewing, and many other things.. And so until I'm off of the medication I >probably won't accomplish much on my own. I've found at least 5 sources that >mention something about the medication effecting these states, and so >although it's not definite, it's definitly possible. Despite that I still >try, but I haven't had as much success as many other people. I've been able >to explain the process of OBEing to friends before, and through my >explination they've been able to accomplish it rather easilly. Alrighty then! Hmmm. That's pretty amazing that the friends you explained it to were able to accomplish it with relative ease. For most people, it doesn't come easy, as I'm sure many of the people here in this group can relate to the endless tries, and mornings waking to frustration. I'd really be interested in hearing how you've created such success, especially being a skeptic. You may be able to help some others here with some insight. Thanks, Greetings from Florida .................... Trish capuchin@gte.net silencexx@hotmail.com ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 22:36:46 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 100 Message-ID: <6o979d$45f$1@news-1.news.gte.net> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1kgl$rp7$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6ldb$9dd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6q30$5ni$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o88pl$g1j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust222.tnt1.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net X-Auth: D50EC9425A8CCDDA15C68491 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!worldfeed.gte.net!newsfeed.gte.net!newsfeed2.gte.net.MISMATCH!news.gte.net!not-for-mail dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6o88pl$g1j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > >Trish, > > You are correct, and make many valid points. I don't know the workings of >the brain well enough to explain in detail how it could be a hallucination. Well, you're in the same boat we are then. We'd like to do the same with our ideas, but unfortunately we aren't able to .. yet. Worse for us though. Skeptics come across as being practical, and we come across as appearing fanatical. Very frustrating. >But I do have more experience with altered states of conciousness than you >know about. I have been studying that stuff for a little while now, and have >done many experiments and have recieved results that makes me very sure that >it is possible to have very vivid and lucid hallucinations in a dream like >state, where you might swear that you are not dreaming. And just as all of >you base your ideas on your experiences, I base my ideas on mine. Really? Well then finally we get to the meat and potatoes! I thought we'd be picking at the salad all night. : ) Maybe I am >not at a point now where I should be expressing my views so much, because I >can't back them up with much proof. Hopefully within a few months I'll be >able to accomplish something interesting to think about. It's ok to express your ideas without proof, as long as you don't demand proof from others who aren't able to provide it easily either. We may never even be in a position to provide physical proof .. if the entire process is not physical, then no proof would be available. But I would sincerely be interested in hearing about your experience, and experiments with altered states of consciousness. I may not fully agree with you so far .. but I can open my mind. I thrive on learning from all types of situations. If you don't feel comfortable posting them in the newsgroup, you can always contact me through e-mail. Perhaps we can enlighten each other. > > I still say that it is much more probable that OBE's are a product of the >brain, than being "real". But that doesn't prove anything, because nothing is >being explained either way. *exactly* So here we both sit on the fence, facing in opposite directions, chins in palms, sharing a Coke ... and thinking "Where do we go from here?" It's like I stated earlier ... they're able to show how time travel is possible, but they're not able to figure out an OBE or even a dream? To me, that sounds extremely unpractical. I'm wondering if it's because there really is no physical evidence to be found of the OBE process in the brain. There may be side effects, but no actual origin. I'd love to be able find out as much about the "brain on OBE" as I can. If I find the cause there, that's fine by me. It wouldn't take the magic out of the experience ... I'd be awed at the power of the brain, and it would lead me to wonder exactly what else the human brain is capable of. If no cause can be found, then it would simply emphasize what I already believe to be true ... that the origin of OBEs is not "in the head". But honestly ... I haven't the foggiest idea of where to even begin to look. I've searched the libraries, bookstores, and internet for information about the physical brain during altered states of consciousness. I can't find anything that provides any detail. Only general, common, information. Nothing at all that explains how it all works. I mean no harm to anyone, and I'm not trying >to "attack" anyones beliefs. I'll try to avoid these little debates from now >on. Sure you are. Well .. I wouldn't say "attack". But at least you're trying to dig down and figure it out. Debates can get touchy at times, but that's ok. It's because we all feel strongly about our viewpoints. And it's not personal at all .. it's about the topic. But that's how progess is made! So don't back off. Pull up your sleeves and dig in deeper. If my ideas can't hold up, then they should be "attacked". Same with yours, and anyone else's. I'm not being attacked .. my idea is. Progress! Progress! grrrrrrrrrrr! : ) Greetings from Florida .................... Trish capuchin@gte.net silencexx@hotmail.com ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1kgl$rp7$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6ldb$9dd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6q30$5ni$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o88pl$g1j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 02:49:26 +0200 Lines: 25 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t4o204p49.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t4o204p49.telia.com Message-ID: <35a80849.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-fra.maz.net!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t4o204p49.telia.com dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote in message > I still say that it is much more probable that OBE's are a product of the >brain, than being "real". But that doesn't prove anything, because nothing is >being explained either way. I mean no harm to anyone, and I'm not trying >to "attack" anyones beliefs. I'll try to avoid these little debates from now >on. > Doug, can you please answer this question: Do you believe that there is such a thing called telepathy? Some OBE might be explained as a product of the brain, but I want to know if you believe there is something paranormal going on in this world we live in. Cheers, Lars ###### From: silkdick@aol.com (Silk Dick) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Lines: 27 Message-ID: <1998071203091900.XAA16630@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Date: 12 Jul 1998 03:09:19 GMT References: <6o979d$45f$1@news-1.news.gte.net> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-fra.maz.net!news-lond.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <6o979d$45f$1@news-1.news.gte.net>, "Trish" writes: >But honestly ... I haven't the foggiest idea of where to even begin >to look. I've searched the libraries, bookstores, and internet for >information about the physical brain during altered states of >consciousness. I can't find anything that provides any detail. Only >general, common, information. Nothing at all that explains how it >all works. well, if you mean drugs / hallucinogens, why bother? I know from viewing chromatographic scans that after enough pot (or LSD), that massive areas of the brain which are NORMALLY colorful and healthy / active, are instead cold and black (brain dead). these cells cannot be replaced (short of fetal tissue implants). other than that, there is so LITTLE hard facts about how the brain works, that 99% of it is all speculative, at best. Sure, we understand *areas* of the brain, even the chemical processes of certain areas, but HOW do you "see" an image? Hmmm!? Pleasant Dreams |-) Silk Richard.Silk@Juno.Com SilkDick@aol.com Pager #615-923-1696 ###### From: "Shane" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1kgl$rp7$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6ldb$9dd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6q30$5ni$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o88pl$g1j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o979d$45f$1@news-1.news.gte.net> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 16:48:19 +1000 Lines: 29 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.64.56 Message-ID: <35a85f6a.0@139.134.5.33> Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-fra.maz.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!btnet-peer!btnet!newsfeed.direct.ca!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.mel.aone.net.au!newsfeed-in.aone.net.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.net!139.134.5.33!139.134.64.56 Trish wrote in message <6o979d$45f$1@news-1.news.gte.net>... >Sure you are. Well .. I wouldn't say "attack". But at least you're trying >to dig down and figure it out. Debates can get touchy at times, but >that's ok. It's because we all feel strongly about our viewpoints. And >it's not personal at all .. it's about the topic. But that's how progess >is made! > >So don't back off. Pull up your sleeves and dig in deeper. If my ideas >can't hold up, then they should be "attacked". Same with yours, and >anyone else's. I'm not being attacked .. my idea is. Progress! >Progress! grrrrrrrrrrr! : ) But no progress can be made when neither side can provide the *type* of proof that the other side demands. If Doug wants *physical* proof of OBEs then he's not going to find it if OBEs are a non-physical phenomena. Then the debate will be pointless. That doesn't mean that questions shouldn't be asked though. It just means that there's no point in looking for your lost keys in Sydney when you've lived your entire life in Melbourne. Shane ###### From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 15:15:28 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 34 Message-ID: <6od8ag$da6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6nqjvt$efq$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6nuhdd$e0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1jks$83m$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6l84$8qs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6qmo$isq$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o898c$gsf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o94rp$9m9$1@news-1.news.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.195.172 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jul 13 15:15:28 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!news-feeds.jump.net!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > Alrighty then! Hmmm. That's pretty amazing that the friends you > explained it to were able to accomplish it with relative ease. For > most people, it doesn't come easy, as I'm sure many of the people > here in this group can relate to the endless tries, and mornings > waking to frustration. I'd really be interested in hearing how you've > created such success, especially being a skeptic. You may be > able to help some others here with some insight. > My explinations were rather simple, and didn't involve anything spiritual, opening of chakras, or anything like that. It was basically just practicing meditation, a bit of self hypnosis, and trying to get into trance states. I also have given people bootleg hemisync tapes which they said have helped, but some have been just as successful without them. My method of trying to OBE is more along the lines of just practicing meditation. You practice not for the purpose of OBEing, but that is something that could come out of it. I have not reccomended drugs to anyone, although that would probably help. I've stuck to explinations involving nothing more than meditation, and sometimes visualisation. Visualisations like floating, flying, or moving quickly through a tunnel have seemed to bring intersting results. My explinations are not much different from those found in numerous books, essays, and documents on obe's. The only big difference is I simplify it and leave out all the spiritualist stuff. I have also experimented with hypnosis on others to induce obe's, but results there so far have been very inconclusive. Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### From: dhaber@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 15:26:07 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 41 Message-ID: <6od8uf$e4s$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1kgl$rp7$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6ldb$9dd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6q30$5ni$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o88pl$g1j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a80849.0@d2o204.telia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.195.172 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jul 13 15:26:07 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I ;Nav) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter.cosy.sbg.ac.at!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-feeds.jump.net!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > Doug, can you please answer this question: > > Do you believe that there is such a thing called telepathy? > > Some OBE might be explained as a product of the brain, but I want to > know if you believe there is something paranormal going on in this world > we live in. At this point in time I try to suspend judgement on that, because I see no reason to believe in it. I've done experiments with somnibulistic (hypnotised) people involving telepathy, but have had no success at all. I've only tried a little so far, and so that doesn't conclude anything. I've read some stories about hypnotised people using telepathy with great results, but I haven't yet been able to repeat them at all. I have never seen anything that I would consider paranormal or unexplainable, and that is partially why I am a skeptic. I've heard lots of strange stories from other people, and I've been able to explain most of them in some form. A book that I just started reading today, Fire in the Brain, shows a lot of views similiar to mine. It talks about all kinds of hallucinations and so far each case has been concluded as nothing more than a hallucination. It is an interesting book, and also covers some intersting drug experiments. Most of the strange stories I've heard from others (others that I know believe what they are saying) can be explained as types of hallucinations, and this book goes into further detail of that. In other words I don't believe in "paranormal" stuff. I would like to, but I've never seen anything of that sort, and so I try to suspend judgement. As for telepathy, it's probably the easiest to believe in, but I've had no personal experiences involving it, and so I don't know enough to say whether it is "true or false".. Doug -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 22:52:32 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 59 Message-ID: <6oegun$lrm$1@news-1.news.gte.net> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6nqjvt$efq$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6nuhdd$e0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1jks$83m$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6l84$8qs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6qmo$isq$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o898c$gsf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o94rp$9m9$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6od8ag$da6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust151.tnt3.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net X-Auth: D50E95121686CD8252CD8491 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub.northeast.verio.net!worldfeed.gte.net!newsfeed.gte.net!newsfeed2.gte.net.MISMATCH!news.gte.net!not-for-mail dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6od8ag$da6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > > >> Alrighty then! Hmmm. That's pretty amazing that the friends you >> explained it to were able to accomplish it with relative ease. For >> most people, it doesn't come easy, as I'm sure many of the people >> here in this group can relate to the endless tries, and mornings >> waking to frustration. I'd really be interested in hearing how you've >> created such success, especially being a skeptic. You may be >> able to help some others here with some insight. >> > > >My explinations were rather simple, and didn't involve anything spiritual, >opening of chakras, or anything like that. It was basically just practicing >meditation, a bit of self hypnosis, and trying to get into trance states. I >also have given people bootleg hemisync tapes which they said have helped, >but some have been just as successful without them. My method of trying to >OBE is more along the lines of just practicing meditation. You practice not >for the purpose of OBEing, but that is something that could come out of it. >I have not reccomended drugs to anyone, although that would probably help. >I've stuck to explinations involving nothing more than meditation, and >sometimes visualisation. Visualisations like floating, flying, or moving >quickly through a tunnel have seemed to bring intersting results. My >explinations are not much different from those found in numerous books, >essays, and documents on obe's. The only big difference is I simplify it and >leave out all the spiritualist stuff. I have also experimented with hypnosis >on others to induce obe's, but results there so far have been very >inconclusive. > > >Doug > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum Keeping the process simple seems to have it's merits then. I don't even involve meditation with my techniques anymore. I have found the best success by just becoming aware of my body as it falls asleep. Rather than "forcing" an OBE, the whole process seems to just "unfold" to me. It's much more personal than involving series of techniques, or having a set ritual. Once you are aware of the process, it seems to come naturally. Thanks for your input. Greetings from Florida .................... Trish capuchin@gte.net silencexx@hotmail.com ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1kgl$rp7$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6ldb$9dd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6q30$5ni$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o88pl$g1j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a80849.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6od8uf$e4s$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 03:27:26 +0200 Lines: 46 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t7o204p37.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t7o204p37.telia.com Message-ID: <35aab37b.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.ecrc.net!newsfeed.nacamar.de!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t7o204p37.telia.com dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote in message > > In other words I don't believe in "paranormal" stuff. I would like to, but >I've never seen anything of that sort, and so I try to suspend judgement. As >for telepathy, it's probably the easiest to believe in, but I've had no >personal experiences involving it, and so I don't know enough to say whether >it is "true or false".. > Hope you will find your answer to your prayers soon... I rely on what other people say and scientific studies. I strongly recommend you to read this book "The Conscious Universe". http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0062515020/002-8008790-5610427 The author is a director a research center for psi. http://www.psiresearch.org/ I believe while trying to do all the paranormal stuff myself. Well, if I get the time. I regard that as better than not believe and don't care. But you are a strange case, you are caught in the middle. You do not believe, but you are still trying :) Well, you are trying anyway... A tips, you need to get those victims down to 7.83 Hz. That is a very deep hypnotic state... The subject should have a much theta activity at 7.83 Hz as possible. But it also need to be in phase, will get back to that when I have more info on it. DHEA gives an increase in Theta activity. DHEA decrease fast the older you get. (A hormone) Regards, La ###### From: J L Williams Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:29:57 +0100 Message-ID: <1998071411295775767@zetnet.co.uk> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6nqjvt$efq$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6nuhdd$e0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1jks$83m$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6l84$8qs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6qmo$isq$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o898c$gsf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o94rp$9m9$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6od8ag$da6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6oegun$lrm$1@news-1.news.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: user-10003900.zetnet.co.uk X-Mailer: ZIMACS Version 1.20c 10003900 Lines: 40 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!ibm.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!user-10003900.zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail The message <6oegun$lrm$1@news-1.news.gte.net> from "Trish" contains these words: <> > Keeping the process simple seems to have it's merits then. I don't even > involve meditation with my techniques anymore. I have found > the best success by just becoming aware of my body as it falls asleep. > Rather than "forcing" an OBE, the whole process seems to just "unfold" to > me. It's much more personal than involving series of > techniques, or having a set ritual. Once you are aware of the process, > it seems to come naturally. Hi Jim here, apart from the little noise and a zap in between my eyes the first night when I tried asking for help (like someone suggested) I have had no further luck at all? :-(( I have tried getting into the frame of mind ie. my body is going to sleep but my mind is staying awake awake and ---- I had the lightest sleep of my my life! I always sleep like a log usually, that is my problem. My mind is asleep before my body is. Any one got any ideaszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Jim |-) > Thanks for your input. > Greetings from Florida .................... > Trish > capuchin@gte.net > silencexx@hotmail.com ###### From: Linda Stead Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 22:51:31 +0000 Organization: Oregon Public Networking Lines: 35 Message-ID: <35ABE0F3.5C32@jeffnet.org> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6nqjvt$efq$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6nuhdd$e0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1jks$83m$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6l84$8qs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6qmo$isq$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o898c$gsf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o94rp$9m9$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6od8ag$da6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6oegun$lrm$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <1998071411295775767@zetnet.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: jeffnet.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win95; I) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!cs.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!not-for-mail J L Williams wrote: > > The message <6oegun$lrm$1@news-1.news.gte.net> > from "Trish" contains these words: > > <> > > > Keeping the process simple seems to have it's merits then. I don't even > > involve meditation with my techniques anymore. I have found > > the best success by just becoming aware of my body as it falls asleep. > > Rather than "forcing" an OBE, the whole process seems to just "unfold" to > > me. It's much more personal than involving series of > > techniques, or having a set ritual. Once you are aware of the process, > > it seems to come naturally. > > Hi Jim here, > apart from the little noise and a zap in between > my eyes the first night when I tried asking for help (like someone > suggested) I have had no further luck at all? :-(( > I have tried getting into the frame of mind ie. my body is going to > sleep but my mind is staying awake awake and ---- I had the lightest > sleep of my my life! > I always sleep like a log usually, that is my problem. My mind is > asleep before my body is. Any one got any ideaszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. > > Jim |-) > For me timing is everything. If I do the simple awarenss and affirmations as I go to sleep at night, nothing happens. But when I set my alarm clock for 4:30 AM, get up and get a drink or sit and read for a few minutes then settle back in to do those same things, I get results. Not every night but perhaps one out of 3 tries. ls ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:58:18 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 58 Message-ID: <6oi8qc$gc1$1@news-1.news.gte.net> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6nqjvt$efq$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6nuhdd$e0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1jks$83m$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6l84$8qs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6qmo$isq$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o898c$gsf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o94rp$9m9$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6od8ag$da6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6oegun$lrm$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <1998071411295775767@zetnet.co.uk> <35ABE0F3.5C32@jeffnet.org> <1998071511381875767@zetnet.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust19.tnt1.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net X-Auth: D50E994D128BCD8943918491 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!howland.erols.net!worldfeed.gte.net!newsfeed.gte.net!newsfeed2.gte.net.MISMATCH!news.gte.net!not-for-mail J L Williams wrote in message <1998071511381875767@zetnet.co.uk>... >The message <35ABE0F3.5C32@jeffnet.org> > from Linda Stead contains these words: > ><<>> >> > I always sleep like a log usually, that is my problem. My mind is >> > asleep before my body is. Any one got any ideaszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. >> > >> > Jim |-) >> > > >> For me timing is everything. If I do the simple awarenss and >> affirmations as I go to sleep at night, nothing happens. >I'm glad I'm not alone :-) > > But when I set >> my alarm clock for 4:30 AM, >This is my usual wake-up time. And whilst I can lay there enjoying >the luxury of that lovely comfy feeling, I have no ability to oob > Sometimes I can LD at this point but rarely, I am too awake! > > get up and get a drink or sit and read for a >> few minutes then settle back in to do those same things, I get results. >> Not every night but perhaps one out of 3 tries. > >> ls > >Thanks for your reply ls and I know what your going to suggest-set my >alarm for 3.30 then make the tea and-------------nope! I enjoy my >sleep tooooo much. >Pleasant radiations >Jim > > > Jim .. you've got to train the mind to stay awake, at least until sleep paralysis starts. From there your unconcsious desire to OBE may take over an you'll find yourself having one. Each time you see those pink elephants start crossing your vision focus in on them. Don't pull back, because you'll wake yourself up. Direct your attention on them, with the full knowledge that it's hypnogogic imagery .... with luck, the "whoosh" should come along within a few seconds and scoop away your awareness just before you fall asleep. But even if the conditions are right, it won't happen every time. So don't get discouraged .. just keep trying. Greetings from Florida .................... Trish capuchin@gte.net silencexx@hotmail.com ###### From: J L Williams Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:38:18 +0100 Lines: 34 Message-ID: <1998071511381875767@zetnet.co.uk> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6nqjvt$efq$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6nuhdd$e0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1jks$83m$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6l84$8qs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6qmo$isq$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o898c$gsf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o94rp$9m9$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6od8ag$da6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6oegun$lrm$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <1998071411295775767@zetnet.co.uk> <35ABE0F3.5C32@jeffnet.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: user-10003900.zetnet.co.uk X-Mailer: ZIMACS Version 1.20c 10003900 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!ibm.net!news.freedom2surf.net!peer.news.th.u-net.net!u-net!demeter.clara.net!news.clara.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!user-10003900.zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail The message <35ABE0F3.5C32@jeffnet.org> from Linda Stead contains these words: <<>> > > I always sleep like a log usually, that is my problem. My mind is > > asleep before my body is. Any one got any ideaszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. > > > > Jim |-) > > > For me timing is everything. If I do the simple awarenss and > affirmations as I go to sleep at night, nothing happens. I'm glad I'm not alone :-) But when I set > my alarm clock for 4:30 AM, This is my usual wake-up time. And whilst I can lay there enjoying the luxury of that lovely comfy feeling, I have no ability to oob :-( Sometimes I can LD at this point but rarely, I am too awake! get up and get a drink or sit and read for a > few minutes then settle back in to do those same things, I get results. > Not every night but perhaps one out of 3 tries. > ls Thanks for your reply ls and I know what your going to suggest-set my alarm for 3.30 then make the tea and-------------nope! I enjoy my sleep tooooo much. Pleasant radiations Jim ###### From: J L Williams Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:18:03 +0100 Message-ID: <1998071516180375767@zetnet.co.uk> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6nqjvt$efq$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6nuhdd$e0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1jks$83m$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6l84$8qs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6qmo$isq$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o898c$gsf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o94rp$9m9$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6od8ag$da6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6oegun$lrm$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <1998071411295775767@zetnet.co.uk> <35ABE0F3.5C32@jeffnet.org> <1998071511381875767@zetnet.co.uk> <6oi8qc$gc1$1@news-1.news.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: user-10003900.zetnet.co.uk X-Mailer: ZIMACS Version 1.20c 10003900 Lines: 46 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.nacamar.de!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!user-10003900.zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail The message <6oi8qc$gc1$1@news-1.news.gte.net> from "Trish" contains these words: > Jim .. you've got to train the mind to stay awake, at least until sleep > paralysis starts. From there your unconcsious desire to OBE may > take over an you'll find yourself having one. Each time you see those > pink elephants start crossing your vision focus in on them. Hello Trish, actually I don't drink enough to see the pink elephants-honest:-)) But this could be remedied quite easily :-) Don't pull > back, because you'll wake yourself up. I see what your saying, it might make sense for me to go to bed earlier actually because most of the time I am sleeping before I get there |-) Direct your attention on them, > with the full knowledge that it's hypnogogic imagery .... with luck, the > "whoosh" should come along within a few seconds and scoop away > your awareness just before you fall asleep. I aught to have recorded the conditions leading up to the first time I tried (as per earlier post) when I got the buzzing etc. > But even if the conditions are right, it won't happen every time. So don't > get discouraged .. just keep trying. Yes I will certainly keep trying, I think I might need to try the meditation path, I believe that there may be things blocking my progress. If I can find out I will call in Dyno-Rod and clear it pronto :-) > Greetings from Florida .................... > Trish Pleasant radiations Jim > capuchin@gte.net > silencexx@hotmail.com ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:18:46 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 64 Message-ID: <6oj2k6$bpc$1@news-1.news.gte.net> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6nqjvt$efq$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6nuhdd$e0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1jks$83m$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6l84$8qs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6qmo$isq$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o898c$gsf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o94rp$9m9$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6od8ag$da6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6oegun$lrm$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <1998071411295775767@zetnet.co.uk> <35ABE0F3.5C32@jeffnet.org> <1998071511381875767@zetnet.co.uk> <6oi8qc$gc1$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <1998071516180375767@zetnet.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust177.tnt1.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net X-Auth: D50E9A4708DECD8C50C38491 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!pln-w!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!newsfeed.wli.net!howland.erols.net!worldfeed.gte.net!newsfeed.gte.net!newsfeed2.gte.net.MISMATCH!news.gte.net!not-for-mail J L Williams wrote in message <1998071516180375767@zetnet.co.uk>... >The message <6oi8qc$gc1$1@news-1.news.gte.net> > from "Trish" contains these words: > >> Jim .. you've got to train the mind to stay awake, at least until sleep >> paralysis starts. From there your unconcsious desire to OBE may >> take over an you'll find yourself having one. Each time you see those >> pink elephants start crossing your vision focus in on them. > >Hello Trish, actually I don't drink enough to see the pink >elephants-honest:-)) But this could be remedied quite easily :-) Hahahaha ... see, that solution was found real quickly, wasn't it? : ) > > Don't pull >> back, because you'll wake yourself up. > >I see what your saying, it might make sense for me to go to bed >earlier actually because most of the time I am sleeping before I get there |-) Well, yes, that's a good idea. Besides, we don't want you falling down in the hallway on the way to bed. It's uncomfortable, and causes neck cramps. ; ) > > Direct your attention on them, >> with the full knowledge that it's hypnogogic imagery .... with luck, the >> "whoosh" should come along within a few seconds and scoop away >> your awareness just before you fall asleep. > >I aught to have recorded the conditions leading up to the first time >I tried (as per earlier post) when I got the buzzing etc. Go back and try writing them down now. Having a dream journal is good for those who can do it. Personally, I've never been able to. Technically, I haven't even logged my OBEs up until recently. But it doesn't have to be consistant (ie not every day) ... just as an informal recollection of certain experiences. Having something tangible to work with can't hurt .. it can only help. > >> But even if the conditions are right, it won't happen every time. So don't >> get discouraged .. just keep trying. > >Yes I will certainly keep trying, I think I might need to try the >meditation path, I believe that there may be things blocking my >progress. If I can find out I will call in Dyno-Rod and clear it pronto :-) > Meditation can help. And so can your acknowledgement of whatever is blocking you. Actually, acknowledgement is the biggest step. If I can offer any further help .. let me know ....... Greetings from Florida .................... Trish capuchin@gte.net silencexx@hotmail.com ###### From: "J.Rauh" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:01:59 +0200 Organization: instant solutions Lines: 19 Message-ID: <35AD0AB7.66AC7089@geocities.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6npc01$oc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6nqjvt$efq$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6nuhdd$e0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1jks$83m$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6l84$8qs$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6qmo$isq$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o898c$gsf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o94rp$9m9$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6od8ag$da6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6oegun$lrm$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <1998071411295775767@zetnet.co.uk> <35ABE0F3.5C32@jeffnet.org> <1998071511381875767@zetnet.co.uk> <6oi8qc$gc1$1@news-1.news.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: ahelbig.dialup.fu-berlin.de (160.45.221.225) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Access: 16 17 19 X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 900536425 3382 (none) 160.45.221.225 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!fu-berlin.de!ahelbig.dialup.fu-berlin.DE!not-for-mail > Jim .. you've got to train the mind to stay awake, at least until sleep > paralysis starts. From there your unconcsious desire to OBE may > take over an you'll find yourself having one. Each time you see those > pink elephants start crossing your vision focus in on them. Don't pull > back, because you'll wake yourself up. Direct your attention on them, > with the full knowledge that it's hypnogogic imagery .... with luck, the > "whoosh" should come along within a few seconds and scoop away > your awareness just before you fall asleep. The best and most accurate description i have found which exactly matches some of my own experiences esp. from the last week ! Great ! Problem: I still do not know if this was an LD or an OBE ? (Oups, i just see you write "unconscious desire to OBE" ... so it must have been one ?) greets ###### From: Ken Czepelka Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 23:55:47 -0600 Organization: Sound Sculpture Lines: 182 Message-ID: <35AD95E3.B0BCF4@soundsculpture.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1kgl$rp7$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6ldb$9dd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6q30$5ni$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o88pl$g1j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a80849.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6od8uf$e4s$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm1-ppp136-189.privatei.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.71.60.1!newsfeed.frii.net!beetle.privatei.com!not-for-mail dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > At this point in time I try to suspend judgement on that, because I see no > reason to believe in it. > I have never seen > anything that I would consider paranormal or unexplainable, and that is > partially why I am a skeptic. Yes you have. We all have. It's quite simple, but may be one of the most difficult things to think about because it is something we don't nomally see from the proper perspective. I swore I would never try and explain this here because it's practically impossible to do so without a properly designed web page to back it up but it's so essential that I suppose I'll give it a shot since I doubt I'll get around to the web page any time soon. There is one thing that is very very wrong with the materialistic view of awareness. But it's also very difficult to explain. There are a number of analogies that I have come up with but none can really do it properly. Still, I'll use one, a new one. I'll call it "The property syndrome". Everything has a property. Something is blue, something is hot, and so on. Properties have one unique thing about them that is unmistakable. They can be transferred to another object or be reproduced in another object and there is no way to tell the difference between the two upon final examination. For example; an object is hot, another is cold. How do we transfer the properties of the first to the second? Put the hot one in the fridge and the cold one in the oven and the properties have transferred. It wouldn't surprise me if right now you were a little surprised that I didn't go through with an example of actually transferring the heat from the first over to the second and vice versa. But why? The end result is the same. The hot one is now cold and the cold one is now hot. An object is blue, another is red. Soak the blue one in red paint and the red one in blue paint and once again their properties are transferred. And so on and so on. The fact is, an object cannot have a property that cannot be assumed by another object, at least in theory. And once a second object has the property of the first, that object becomes indistinquisable from the first. Just as if the property were transferred. No difference between the two methods that is detectable by any means. Now lets say that two objects are conscious, self aware. These are (supposedly) properties of the two objects. Doesn't matter how it comes about, a brain, electrical activity, chemical activity, whatever. Nonetheless, the awareness is a property of the object. Now like all properties of objects, this must be transferrable, either by actually transferring the property, or creating the property in the other object so that it is the same as in the first. Again, there is no difference. This is the same as either tranferring heat from one object to the next or just simply heating the next. The end result is the same. An indistiguishable property. So let us proceed to transfer this awareness. Just how might we go about this? Well we could take one of two approaches. The first might be to simply transfer the awareness from one to the other in the same way one might transfer heat from one to the other. Perhaps through an astral vehical such as a soul. Unfortunately, this is not allowed in the materialistic view of the awareness since the awareness is a product of the pattern of the activity in the brain (the processing of the software) or for some similar reason. But all is not lost. If the property of the first object can be recreated in the second, then a transfer could still be completed, since there is no difference between transference and imitation. Let's go for the gusto and do the electrical and chemical patterns. Transfer the entire complex of electrical and chemical activity patterns from one brain to another. Surely this will transfer the awareness from the first to the second. But wait something just went wrong. The transfer was complete, but the first object still has the same pattern as it always did! OH NO. Both objects are "hot". Both objects have the same properties. Both objects now have the same awareness. What a dilema! Now both objects see each other as well as themselves. The thought of one is the thought of the other. What one hears the other hears. What one touches the other touches. Even though they may be thousands of miles apart. But this is impossible! And so it is. The simple fact is there is no evidence that any of us share the awareness of any other individual on this planet. (Except perhaps fleetingly) So awareness cannot be a property of an object. Well if it's not a property, then just what is it? A distinct possesion comes to mind. It seems we can possess awareness. Since it cannot be shared or imitated, it must not be a property of who we are but rather something that is connected to who we are, quite literally. But now there is another paradox. Let's just assume for a moment that the argument so far holds. Then there is most certainly another paradox. If our awareness is something we "possess" like an etheric body for example, rather than something that is a "property" of ourselves, then this means that the possesion is a separate personally singular thing, just like our bodies are. If this is the case then we now run into the problem of (what is called (bear with me)) infinite regression. The possesion, (lets just call it the astral body for now to make things simple), has to be examined on it's own merits just like the body did. The Astral body, has either a "property" of awareness or it "posesses" awareness, just like the physical body does. We can use the same arguments as above to explain why the Astral Body does not have the properties of awareness, otherwise we could take those properties and re-create them in another astral body so that the two astral bodies now had the same properties and hence the same awareness. Same problem as before. Therefore, we have to conclude that the Astral Bodies also do not have properties of awareness, but rather "possess" awareness, just like the physical bodies. Following this route, we see that the Astral bodies must themselves have Astral Bodies, and those Astral bodies must have their own Astral bodies and why does this remind me of Barthalomule Cubbins (Was that his name? You know, the guy that couldn't take his hat off to the king because when he did, there would be an identical hat right underneath it?) Nope, this won't work either. So what is left is something that can bypass this paradox. Seems to me there is only one explaination that can fit here. That is to give awareness the status of being only singular in nature. That is to say there is only one awareness in all of the universe. There can't be two. There can only be one to be paradox free. Yes I know, some further explaination is needed here (most certainly needs a good web site). But what the heck. Let's test this out. One awareness. First this will take a little bit of explaining. By one awareness you must recognize that I mean something a little different than what you might expect. By one awareness I do not mean a singular point of view. Looking out your own eyes for example. I also do not mean a singular location. Being where you are right now for example. It's a bit more complicated than that but not much. What I do mean is an awareness that cannot have a location or a point of view. Impossible? Not really. A simple example would be a person with no senses. No sight to distinguish location, no sense of touch to distinguish whether one was on earth or floating in space. Nothing that could distinguish location, or time, period! This type of awareness would have no sense of self. There would be no self. In the example I give there would only be life or death, but there would be nothing else. By life or death I mean there would be awareness or there would be none, and that is all. But even this is debateable, and that being the case I guess even life or death would make no difference. There would be nothing that could give this awareness location or time and as a result, it would be quite impersonal. In any case, let me continue. If this consciousness is singular in nature, then there would be no duplication (not allowed by definition), so the dilemma of reproducing the same awareness by replicating brain patterns would be eliminated. For it would not be the brain patterns that would create the awareness but rather the brain patterns that would determine what a particular aspect of the awareness was thinking at the time. In fact the brain patterns could be transferred over to another brain as described earlier, and the thought would still occur in the singular awareness, and perhaps even twice if it were a duplicated pattern, but there would be no dilemma since the awareness is not created by the pattern but simply acts upon it. I'm going to stop now, since if any of you have actually gotten to this sentence than you are probably either doing speed or have thought about this before so you already know where I'm going with it, or you have unbeliveable tolerance to rambling text. Also it's late and I really want to go to bed. Comments welcome. Ken "The speed of time is one second per second." -unknown "Black holes are where God divided by zero." -unknown "Everything should be as simple as possible but not one bit simpler." -Albert Einstein ###### From: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 23:04:42 GMT Organization: UUNET UK server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET UK) Lines: 12 Message-ID: <35ae86b8.1340389@news.dial.pipex.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1kgl$rp7$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6ldb$9dd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6q30$5ni$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o88pl$g1j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a80849.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6od8uf$e4s$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35AD95E3.B0BCF4@soundsculpture.com> <35ae78cc.0@d2o204.telia.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: userk761.uk.uudial.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!bore.news.pipex.net!pipex!not-for-mail "Lars Rune Foleide" wrote to Ken Czepelka: >But I find it fascinating that you spend a lot of time on writing a lot of >stuff that >nobody understand, except Bart maybe. I speed read the whole stuff, I'm not >a person with a bunch of time, so I have to have some priorities. >Well, I didn't even fetch your point when I got to the end. >Maybe I'll read it a bit slower next time..... >Keep up the good work.... Lars, you are so sweet; sincere and honest and optimistic! Bless you, JHM. ###### From: "Lars Rune Foleide" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1kgl$rp7$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6ldb$9dd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6q30$5ni$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o88pl$g1j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a80849.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6od8uf$e4s$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35AD95E3.B0BCF4@soundsculpture.com> Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 00:06:08 +0200 Lines: 36 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3105.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3105.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: t5o204p43.telia.com X-NNTP-Posting-Host: t5o204p43.telia.com Message-ID: <35ae78cc.0@d2o204.telia.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!uninett.no!newsfeed50.telia.com!d2o204.telia.com!t5o204p43.telia.com Ken Czepelka wrote in message > >But wait something just went wrong. The transfer was complete, but the >first object still has the same pattern as it always did! OH NO. Both >objects are "hot". Both objects have the same properties. Both objects >now have the same awareness. What a dilemma! Now both objects see each >other as well as themselves. The thought of one is the thought of the >other. What one hears the other hears. What one touches the other >touches. Even though they may be thousands of miles apart. > >But this is impossible! And so it is. The simple fact is there is no >evidence that any of us share the awareness of any other individual on >this planet. (Except perhaps fleetingly) So awareness cannot be a >property of an object. Well if it's not a property, then just what is >it? > One type of Remote Viewing is connecting with an another persons senses. You see what that person sees, you hear what it hear, etc. So it is not impossible. But I find it fascinating that you spend a lot of time on writing a lot of stuff that nobody understand, except Bart maybe. I speed read the whole stuff, I'm not a person with a bunch of time, so I have to have some priorities. Well, I didn't even fetch your point when I got to the end. Maybe I'll read it a bit slower next time..... Keep up the good work.... Cheers, Lars ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: 18 Jul 1998 01:16:29 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 280 Message-ID: References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1kgl$rp7$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6ldb$9dd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6q30$5ni$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o88pl$g1j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a80849.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6od8uf$e4s$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35AD95E3.B0BCF4@soundsculpture.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Ken Czepelka writes: > dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > I have never seen > > anything that I would consider paranormal or unexplainable, and that is > > partially why I am a skeptic. > Yes you have. We all have. It's quite simple, but may be one of the > most difficult things to think about because it is something we don't > nomally see from the proper perspective. Actually dhabers problem is far deeper. _All_ people only see events (or actually the changes in light/sound/etc emmited by or influenced by matter moving (I am deliberatly taking an entirely materianlistc point here). All explanations of "why" it is happening (as opposite to "what" is happening) are per neccessity of nature (sensing organs and brain) only attempts to construct an explanation of what is happening IN TERMS OF ones momental collection of theories of how the world works. As these theories are themselves derived from statistical analysis of events, and of random contact to other humans who have the same limits, they can never be regarded as conclusive. Paranormal or unexplainable simply means "no explaination constructable in my system" and is therefore more an artefact of brain than an actual thing in nature. That is perhaps why people can not agree on it. > I swore I would never try and > explain this here because it's practically impossible to do so without a > properly designed web page to back it up but it's so essential that I > suppose I'll give it a shot since I doubt I'll get around to the web > page any time soon. Now where do I know _that_ one from? > Everything has a property. Actually everything hac _many_ (a very large number) of properties. See below for why this is an important difference. > on. Properties have one unique thing about them that is unmistakable. > They can be transferred to another object or be reproduced in another > object Which are 2 different actions. "Transfer" implies that the _same_ _thing_ moves. A property is not a thing, so one can not transfer it. Reproduced implies altering what is already there to resemble, that can be applied to an property. > and there is no way to tell the difference between the two upon > final examination. For simple properties such as heat this may well be so. For complexer ones it would depend on replication fidelity. > wouldn't surprise me if right now you were a little surprised that I > didn't go through with an example of actually transferring the heat from > the first over to the second and vice versa. But why? The end result > is the same. The hot one is now cold and the cold one is now hot. But then it ceases to be an transfer (heat or rather energy can be transfered, because it consists of particles (actually converts to particles and then back)). OTOH replicating gives heat, but that is not the same heat, just the same amount of heat. > An object is blue, another is red. Soak the blue one in red paint and > the red one in blue paint and once again their properties are > transferred. Their surface reflectivity to light has been replicated. But "their properties" (implying all of them) have not been replicated (such as weight, or more to the point their colour after being scratched). > And so on and so on. The fact is, an object cannot have a > property that cannot be assumed by another object, at least in > theory. If theory contradicts practise then it is either incomplete or wrong. I don't like either. > And once a second object has the property of the first, that object > becomes indistinquisable from the first. So long one does not scratch it :-). > Just as if the property were transferred. Nope. Because reflectivity can not convert to particles and back. Particularly because it is an emergent property of many particles (see Quantum Electrodynamics). > No difference between the two methods that is detectable > by any means. Other than scratching :-). > Now lets say that two objects are conscious, self aware. These are > (supposedly) properties of the two objects. Hmmm. What about the distinction between fundamental properties and emergent properties? > Doesn't matter how it comes > about, a brain, electrical activity, chemical activity, whatever. > Nonetheless, the awareness is a property of the object. Emergent. See below for importance. > Now like all > properties of objects, this must be transferrable, either by actually > transferring the property, No transfer possible, as it is emergent. > or creating the property in the other object > so that it is the same as in the first. Surface recreation is not equal to "volume" identity. > Again, there is no difference. Or there is, beneath the surface. > So let us proceed to transfer this awareness. Emergent, so not "particle-ise-able", so no transfer. > Just how might we go > about this? Well we could take one of two approaches. The first might > be to simply transfer the awareness from one to the other in the same > way one might transfer heat from one to the other. Perhaps through an > astral vehical such as a soul. Unfortunately, this is not allowed in > the materialistic view of the awareness since the awareness is a product > of the pattern of the activity in the brain (the processing of the > software) or for some similar reason. Yes. Exactly. > But all is not lost. If the > property of the first object can be recreated in the second, copy brain1 brain2 ? :-) That will be an interesting piece of software. Particularly the device drivers. > then a > transfer could still be completed, since there is no difference between > transference and imitation. Let's go for the gusto and do the electrical > and chemical patterns. Transfer the entire complex of electrical and > chemical activity patterns from one brain to another. Surely this will > transfer the awareness from the first to the second. Actually that would be right if you had said replicate, not transfer. Bits (or more precice bit-patterns) are identically and indistinguishably replicatable. But that is no transfer. BTW: computer networks allways replicate and then delete the original bits. The only things transfered are the electrons carrying the signals which encode the data (more precise the signals are transfered, the electrons only wobble but do not drift in any sensible network system). > But wait something just went wrong. The transfer was complete, but the > first object still has the same pattern as it always did! That comes from forgetting the delete! A bug!!! > OH NO. Both > objects are "hot". Both objects have the same properties. Both objects > now have the same awareness. What a dilema! Now both objects see each > other as well as themselves. The thought of one is the thought of the > other. Nope, no identity, just parallel processing. To be precise MIMD emulating SIMD. Oops, I should really stop using computer science terminology here. > What one hears the other hears. Assuming they both have the same input, else they will diverge soon. > What one touches the other touches. Unlikely as they can't be in the same position in time-space. And that guarantees that the input will be different. > But this is impossible! Luckily physics prevent it from happening. Pauli exclusion principle. > And so it is. The simple fact is there is no > evidence that any of us share the awareness of any other individual on > this planet. (Except perhaps fleetingly) I accept this one. A approximate simulation of the other would be the upper limit. > So awareness cannot be a > property of an object. Well if it's not a property, then just what is > it? Thanks to the logic being broken this conclusion is not neccessary. > A distinct possesion comes to mind. It seems we can possess awareness. > Since it cannot be shared or imitated, it must not be a property of who > we are but rather something that is connected to who we are, quite > literally. And so this one is also not neccessary. > But now there is another paradox. Tip: Paradoxes usually are an good sign of an logic error somewhere. Remember the greeks and Achilles overtaking the turtoise? Nature does not have any paradoxes. It simply _IS_ and _does_. [Rest of argumentation snipped as its base has been lost] > Let's test this out. It does not fly (pun noticed, was not intended). > I'm going to stop now, since if any of you have actually gotten to this > sentence than you are probably either doing speed or have thought about > this before so you already know where I'm going with it, or you have > unbeliveable tolerance to rambling text. No speed, no clue, just lots of tolerance. O.K. it helps to know that such texts (when in the right mood) can be excellent comedy. > Comments welcome. And coming... > "Black holes are where God divided by zero." > -unknown Division by zero error. Abort, retry, ignore? - crash. Hmmm, seems that god does not use Microsoft. -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### From: Ken Czepelka Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 12:11:54 -0600 Organization: Sound Sculpture Message-ID: <35B236EA.1367560@soundsculpture.com> References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1kgl$rp7$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6ldb$9dd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6q30$5ni$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o88pl$g1j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a80849.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6od8uf$e4s$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35AD95E3.B0BCF4@soundsculpture.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm1-ppp136-199.privatei.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) Lines: 319 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!ibm.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!newsfeed.nacamar.de!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.Stanford.EDU!newsfeed.concentric.net!priori!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!beetle.privatei.com!not-for-mail Neil Franklin wrote: > > Ken Czepelka writes: > > dhaber@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > I have never seen > > > anything that I would consider paranormal or unexplainable, and that is > > > partially why I am a skeptic. > > Yes you have. We all have. It's quite simple, but may be one of the > > most difficult things to think about because it is something we don't > > nomally see from the proper perspective. > > Actually dhabers problem is far deeper. _All_ people only see events (or > actually the changes in light/sound/etc emmited by or influenced by > matter moving (I am deliberatly taking an entirely materianlistc point > here). If you are referring to events that are detectable by the human senses (the commonly known ones), then I would agree completely with what you say here. But I do not believe the only events one can see are limited to the physical (as we commonly know it) so I have to disagree with this. > > All explanations of "why" it is happening (as opposite to "what" is > happening) are per neccessity of nature (sensing organs and brain) > only attempts to construct an explanation of what is happening IN > TERMS OF ones momental collection of theories of how the world works. Agreed. This is why I am offering an alternate explaination. One that does not generally fit into the more easily understandable and more natural theories. > > As these theories are themselves derived from statistical analysis of > events, and of random contact to other humans who have the same > limits, they can never be regarded as conclusive. But the materialistic view suffers from the same problems. There is no definite correlation between the chemical and electrical actions of the brain and self awareness. This is only a theory. No one really knows for sure if self awareness ceases when the brain ceases to function, and only until this can be proven can the materialistic view be taken as fact. > > Paranormal or unexplainable simply means "no explaination > constructable in my system" and is therefore more an artefact of brain > than an actual thing in nature. That is perhaps why people can not > agree on it. I can't agree with this. If the brain is currently the only physical object capable of interacting with paranormal events, or as I would prefer to say, with events in nature that don't normally interact with anything but a complex pattern such as the brain, then it is obviously the only tool we would be able to use to detect such events. That does not make them an artifact. > > Everything has a property. > > Actually everything hac _many_ (a very large number) of > properties. See below for why this is an important difference. Agreed, I should have stated this properly. > > on. Properties have one unique thing about them that is unmistakable. > > They can be transferred to another object or be reproduced in another > > object > > Which are 2 different actions. "Transfer" implies that the _same_ > _thing_ moves. A property is not a thing, so one can not transfer it. > Reproduced implies altering what is already there to resemble, that > can be applied to an property. It is an important part of my argument to realize that this is not always the case. The best example I can give you here is the actions of sub atomic particals as best expressed by Richard Feynman and his diagrams. If you are unfamiliar with his work, Feynman crated diagrams to show how subatomic particals can change from one partical to another partical, or from one partical to two other particals, then change back again to the original partical. It is unclear what is actually happening in these cases but it seems that the particals either change their properties then change them back again, otherwise they disappear and as a result cause the creation of the new particals, which in turn disappear and cause the creation of a new (original) partical. The question is, is the starting and ending partical the same partical that only chanted it's properties and then changed back, or are the starting and ending particals actually two different particals that do not exist in time together. And the more important question is, is there even a difference? If one cannot distinquish between two particals and they cannot exist in time together, then are they different or are they the same or is this even a valid question. This is the heart of what I am trying to say here. > > > and there is no way to tell the difference between the two upon > > final examination. > > For simple properties such as heat this may well be so. For complexer > ones it would depend on replication fidelity. Replication fidelity is of course important, as is spacial and time locations. > > > wouldn't surprise me if right now you were a little surprised that I > > didn't go through with an example of actually transferring the heat from > > the first over to the second and vice versa. But why? The end result > > is the same. The hot one is now cold and the cold one is now hot. > > But then it ceases to be an transfer (heat or rather energy can be > transfered, because it consists of particles (actually converts to > particles and then back)). OTOH replicating gives heat, but that is > not the same heat, just the same amount of heat. No, heat transfer and replication of heat are the same thing. When you transfer heat, you are not transferring heat at all, you are causing the activity of molocules in the source to slow down and the activity of the destination to speed up. There is no transfer of particals, there is simply a changeover in activity. > > An object is blue, another is red. Soak the blue one in red paint and > > the red one in blue paint and once again their properties are > > transferred. > > Their surface reflectivity to light has been replicated. But "their > properties" (implying all of them) have not been replicated (such as > weight, or more to the point their colour after being scratched). I will abandon my weaker analogy or color here and continue. > > And so on and so on. The fact is, an object cannot have a > > property that cannot be assumed by another object, at least in > > theory. > > If theory contradicts practise then it is either incomplete or > wrong. I don't like either. Where does theory contradict practice? In the case of heat transfer I have explained how transfer and replication are the same, and I still hold fast that there is no difference between replication and transfer, but I must add here that time is important too. It is just like the old magicians trick, a coin in one hand seems to magically disappear and reappear in the other. The magician knows these are two different coins, the audience thinks it's the same coin. If in fact the two coins did not actually exist at the same time, the magician would not be sure they were different coins. In fact he would not be able to know. > > > And once a second object has the property of the first, that object > > becomes indistinquisable from the first. > > So long one does not scratch it :-). Again I must add that it is important they do not exist at the same time. > > Now lets say that two objects are conscious, self aware. These are > > (supposedly) properties of the two objects. > > Hmmm. What about the distinction between fundamental properties and > emergent properties? I am not familiar with emergent properties, but I gather from your discussion you are referring to properties that are a result of combinations of fundamental properties, a kind of "greater than the sum of the parts" type of phenomenon. Is this corrrect? > > > Doesn't matter how it comes > > about, a brain, electrical activity, chemical activity, whatever. > > Nonetheless, the awareness is a property of the object. > > Emergent. See below for importance. > > > Now like all > > properties of objects, this must be transferrable, either by actually > > transferring the property, > > No transfer possible, as it is emergent. If the fundamental properties are transferred, wouldn't the emergent properties also be transferred, or is it more a "Chaos" type phenomenon where the emergent cannot be replicated even if the fundamental is the same? At this point I am going to have to redirect the discussion since my intent was to make a distinction between the two schools of thought that either the self awareness is something that can be transferred in a vehical such as an astral body, or it can be transferred without the use of a vehicle by the theories that I subscribe to. You have entered with the point of view that there is no transferrece possible because self awareness is an emergent property. I don't want to discuss whether transfer is possible or not. This would be a great discussion, but not at this time. I would however like to discuss transferrence without a vehical and if you want to take this stance (you would of course have to move from a materialistic view to the current paraphychological view), then I would enjoy continuing with this. Are you up to it? Is anyone? There are still some sections here that are worth commenting about regarless of your position. > > > But all is not lost. If the > > property of the first object can be recreated in the second, > > copy brain1 brain2 ? :-) That will be an interesting piece of > software. Particularly the device drivers. Hahahaha! > > > then a > > transfer could still be completed, since there is no difference between > > transference and imitation. Let's go for the gusto and do the electrical > > and chemical patterns. Transfer the entire complex of electrical and > > chemical activity patterns from one brain to another. Surely this will > > transfer the awareness from the first to the second. > > Actually that would be right if you had said replicate, not transfer. > > Bits (or more precice bit-patterns) are identically and > indistinguishably replicatable. But that is no transfer. Agreed. Again I was arguing against the case of an astral vehical, but switching over to your view for the remainder of this post. So lets replicate. By this I mean perfectly. Everything including brain mass and chemical composition, current state of chemical balance, resulting electrical activity, etc, etc. Now you say above that the result would be transfer of awareness from the first to the second. If the original was left intact (after all we did do a copy brain1, brain2) then the original awareness would now be located in two places. How do you explain this? Or as I see, the nature of the phenomenon needs to be gone into with a little more finesse. Which I will do here. > > > What one hears the other hears. > > Assuming they both have the same input, else they will diverge soon. No, I was being very literal here. If awareness is duplicated by replication of the brain and it's activity, then the awarenesses are identical. I literally mean that when one touches ones finger to a flame, the other, hundreds of miles away, will feel that pain. The awarenesses are the same. Not two awarenesses, for that would imply flawed replication. The same awareness. > > > What one touches the other touches. > > Unlikely as they can't be in the same position in time-space. And that > guarantees that the input will be different. Again, what one feels the other feels identically, what one sees the other sees. I am talking about double exposure sight. Both minds will see the same thing even though their locations are different. > > > But this is impossible! > > Luckily physics prevent it from happening. Pauli exclusion principle. > > > And so it is. The simple fact is there is no > > evidence that any of us share the awareness of any other individual on > > this planet. (Except perhaps fleetingly) > > I accept this one. A approximate simulation of the other would be the > upper limit. Agreed. Everything we currently know indicates that only an approximate simulation is possible. Yet we can theorize that a perfect replication is possible. Why only in apporximate simulation when the replications are perfect. There is a contridiction here, unless as I mentioned earlier you want to bring in emergent properties to be chaotic in nature. The remaining responses about broken logic will be snipped here in light of new arguments. > Tip: Paradoxes usually are an good sign of an logic error > somewhere. Remember the greeks and Achilles overtaking the turtoise? > Nature does not have any paradoxes. It simply _IS_ and _does_. I agree completely and this is the very foundation of my desire to find an alternate view of the nature of awareness, one that is void of paradoxes. The materialistic view has paradoxes, the astral vehical view has paradoxes. I believe the universal consciosness and "body as remote tool" view has none. That is why I subscribe to it and am willing to discuss it's strengths and argue apparant weaknesses. > No speed, no clue, just lots of tolerance. O.K. it helps to know that > such texts (when in the right mood) can be excellent comedy. I doubt you really took all this as comedy otherwise you wouldn't have responsed in such depth. Your comment here reminded me of some presidential debates, where the candidate that stands at the blunt end of an attack begins to laugh to make it look like the attacking candidate really cannot be taken seriously. It's an effective tactic. > > > "Black holes are where God divided by zero." > > -unknown > > Division by zero error. Abort, retry, ignore? - crash. > > Hmmm, seems that god does not use Microsoft. Hahahaha!!! Ken "Everything should be as simple as possible but not one bit simpler." -Albert Einstein ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE's vs Lucid Dreams... And other stuff. Date: 20 Jul 1998 00:01:17 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 302 Message-ID: References: <6ms3g9$vs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998063003163300.XAA01466@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6nhgun$mhc$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <359D335A.DA783E9A@comcirc.com.au> <6nk06q$2c6$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <359e230d.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6npc5m$qb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a13591.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6nuhts$1bl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1b4k$6fk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o1kgl$rp7$1@news-1.news.gte.net> <6o6ldb$9dd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6o6q30$5ni$1@news-2.news.gte.net> <6o88pl$g1j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35a80849.0@d2o204.telia.com> <6od8uf$e4s$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35AD95E3.B0BCF4@soundsculpture.com> <35B236EA.1367560@soundsculpture.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Ken Czepelka writes: > Neil Franklin wrote: > > Actually dhabers problem is far deeper. _All_ people only see events (or > > actually the changes in light/sound/etc emmited by or influenced by > > matter moving (I am deliberatly taking an entirely materianlistc point > > here). > If you are referring to events that are detectable by the human senses > (the commonly known ones), then I would agree completely with what you > say here. But I do not believe the only events one can see are limited > to the physical (as we commonly know it) so I have to disagree with > this. I was thinking of detected by the senses, as the first step to processing by the brain. That is why I mentioned taking the materialistic point of view. The reason for this was that your text was intended as an answer to dhaber, who was taking an materialistic point and would be reading your text from such. So I tried to critisise it from that same point. > > All explanations of "why" it is happening (as opposite to "what" is > > happening) are per neccessity of nature (sensing organs and brain) > > only attempts to construct an explanation of what is happening IN > > TERMS OF ones momental collection of theories of how the world works. > > Agreed. This is why I am offering an alternate explaination. One that > does not generally fit into the more easily understandable and more > natural theories. Laudable. I must have missed this intention. > > As these theories are themselves derived from statistical analysis of > > events, and of random contact to other humans who have the same > > limits, they can never be regarded as conclusive. > > But the materialistic view suffers from the same problems. There is no > definite correlation between the chemical and electrical actions of the > brain and self awareness. This is only a theory. No one really knows > for sure if self awareness ceases when the brain ceases to function, and > only until this can be proven can the materialistic view be taken as > fact. Of course. All subjectivity suffers from this problem. And I, for one, do not believe in the existance of objectivity. > > Paranormal or unexplainable simply means "no explaination > > constructable in my system" and is therefore more an artefact of brain > > than an actual thing in nature. That is perhaps why people can not > > agree on it. > I can't agree with this. Oops. That was imprecisely written (one should not post at 4.00am). That schould have been: THE TERM paranormal ... means ... and THE TERM ist therefore an artefact ... As such the term is very imprecise, to the point of some people simply not seeing anything as paramormal. OTOH this is most likely not the case with dhaber, so I was beside the point I was making anyway. > If the brain is currently the only physical > object capable of interacting with paranormal events, or as I would > prefer to say, with events in nature that don't normally interact with > anything but a complex pattern such as the brain, then it is obviously > the only tool we would be able to use to detect such events. That does > not make them an artifact. Sure. Sorry to have mislead you here. > > > on. Properties have one unique thing about them that is unmistakable. > > > They can be transferred to another object or be reproduced in another > > > object > > Which are 2 different actions. "Transfer" implies that the _same_ > > _thing_ moves. A property is not a thing, so one can not transfer it. > > Reproduced implies altering what is already there to resemble, that > > can be applied to an property. > > It is an important part of my argument to realize that this is not > always the case. The best example I can give you here is the actions of > sub atomic particals as best expressed by Richard Feynman and his > diagrams. For particles I will partially agree with you. Two of them with same spin etc can not be distinguisched. That makes them identical (in the sense of identical twins). But can one claim on the base of that that they are identical (in the sense of being the same thing)? How could one count them as 2? > If you are unfamiliar with his work, Feynman crated diagrams QED. I once read his 4-part introductory lecture. But I never tried the further stuff (my maths is next to non existant. > difference? If one cannot distinquish between two particals and they > cannot exist in time together, then are they different or are they the > same or is this even a valid question. This is the heart of what I am > trying to say here. OK. As long as you present this as something undecided, I can follow. I had read you as taking the point that being the same particle was proven. > > > and there is no way to tell the difference between the two upon > > > wouldn't surprise me if right now you were a little surprised that I > > > didn't go through with an example of actually transferring the heat from > > > the first over to the second and vice versa. But why? The end result > > > is the same. The hot one is now cold and the cold one is now hot. > > > > But then it ceases to be an transfer (heat or rather energy can be > > transfered, because it consists of particles (actually converts to > > particles and then back)). OTOH replicating gives heat, but that is > > not the same heat, just the same amount of heat. > > No, heat transfer and replication of heat are the same thing. When you > transfer heat, you are not transferring heat at all, you are causing the > activity of molocules in the source to slow down and the activity of the > destination to speed up. There is no transfer of particals, there is > simply a changeover in activity. Which would IMHO make the heat (= movements) of the original one and of the final one ideantically large, but not the same movement, and so not the same heat. > > > And so on and so on. The fact is, an object cannot have a > > > property that cannot be assumed by another object, at least in > > > theory. > > > > If theory contradicts practise then it is either incomplete or > > wrong. I don't like either. > > Where does theory contradict practice? You had written "at least in theory". That implied that you had found practise to deviate from theory (or vice versa). > did not actually exist at the same time, the magician would not be sure > they were different coins. In fact he would not be able to know. And not being able to destinguish them equals them being identical? That is where I was trying to go: the limit of perception, and deriving conclusions about the world from it. > > > Now lets say that two objects are conscious, self aware. These are > > > (supposedly) properties of the two objects. > > > > Hmmm. What about the distinction between fundamental properties and > > emergent properties? > > I am not familiar with emergent properties, but I gather from your > discussion you are referring to properties that are a result of > combinations of fundamental properties, a kind of "greater than the sum > of the parts" type of phenomenon. Is this corrrect? Yes. > > > Now like all > > > properties of objects, this must be transferrable, either by actually > > > transferring the property, > > > > No transfer possible, as it is emergent. > > If the fundamental properties are transferred, wouldn't the emergent > properties also be transferred, or is it more a "Chaos" type phenomenon > where the emergent cannot be replicated even if the fundamental is the > same? Heisenberg + Chaos making IMHO an exact copy an physical impossibility. > transfer is possible or not. This would be a great discussion, but not > at this time. OK. > I would however like to discuss transferrence without a > vehical and if you want to take this stance (you would of course have to > move from a materialistic view to the current paraphychological > view), I at the moment use 3 theories. The "nothing exits, its just telepathy", an sort of "astral (or etherical) body/vehicle" theory and an Sethian type system. All have their points and I lack actual OBE experience to try and decide for one. > then I would enjoy continuing with this. Are you up to it? Is anyone? That I do not know, but it will be interesting to find out. > > > and chemical patterns. Transfer the entire complex of electrical and > > > chemical activity patterns from one brain to another. Surely this will > > > transfer the awareness from the first to the second. > > Actually that would be right if you had said replicate, not transfer. > > Bits (or more precice bit-patterns) are identically and > > indistinguishably replicatable. But that is no transfer. > Agreed. Again I was arguing against the case of an astral vehical, but > switching over to your view for the remainder of this post. > > So lets replicate. By this I mean perfectly. Everything including > brain mass and chemical composition, current state of chemical balance, > resulting electrical activity, etc, etc. Now you say above that the > result would be transfer of awareness from the first to the second. If > the original was left intact (after all we did do a copy brain1, > brain2) then the original awareness would now be located in two > places. How do you explain this? I would actually see it as the original still in its place and an initially faithfull copy in an other place, then deviation due to different input. > > > What one hears the other hears. > > > > Assuming they both have the same input, else they will diverge soon. > > No, I was being very literal here. If awareness is duplicated by > replication of the brain and it's activity, then the awarenesses are > identical. I literally mean that when one touches ones finger to a > flame, the other, hundreds of miles away, will feel that pain. The > awarenesses are the same. Not two awarenesses, for that would imply > flawed replication. The same awareness. OK. Assuming identical input can be maintained, then I would regard them as 2 parallel running systems (that was the MIMD/SIMD thing, multiple systems running the same program). > > > But this is impossible! > > > > Luckily physics prevent it from happening. Pauli exclusion principle. > > > > > And so it is. The simple fact is there is no > > > evidence that any of us share the awareness of any other individual on > > > this planet. (Except perhaps fleetingly) > > > > I accept this one. A approximate simulation of the other would be the > > upper limit. > > Agreed. Everything we currently know indicates that only an approximate > simulation is possible. Yet we can theorize that a perfect replication > is possible. Why only in apporximate simulation when the replications > are perfect. There is a contridiction here, unless as I mentioned > earlier you want to bring in emergent properties to be chaotic in > nature. Which is what I was doing. > > Tip: Paradoxes usually are an good sign of an logic error > > somewhere. Remember the greeks and Achilles overtaking the turtoise? > > Nature does not have any paradoxes. It simply _IS_ and _does_. > > I agree completely and this is the very foundation of my desire to find > an alternate view of the nature of awareness, one that is void of > paradoxes. The materialistic view has paradoxes, the astral vehical > view has paradoxes. Fully in agreement on both of those. Both are incomplete. > I believe the universal consciosness and "body as > remote tool" view has none. That is why I subscribe to it and am > willing to discuss it's strengths and argue apparant weaknesses. If you mean an Sethian style "conciousness was first, matter is made by it" view, I think it has quite a bit going for it. > > No speed, no clue, just lots of tolerance. O.K. it helps to know that > > such texts (when in the right mood) can be excellent comedy. > > I doubt you really took all this as comedy otherwise you wouldn't have > responsed in such depth. Your comment here reminded me of some > presidential debates, where the candidate that stands at the blunt end > of an attack begins to laugh to make it look like the attacking > candidate really cannot be taken seriously. It's an effective tactic. I did not take this particular post as comedy AFTER reading it (which is when I did the answering). But BEFORE reading it I took the possibility of it containing an good laugh as one reason to read through it. -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you