From: "duke" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Out of your Mind - again Date: 28 Aug 1998 22:18:58 GMT Organization: Virgin News Service Lines: 18 Message-ID: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.168.59.42 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.fast.net!uunet!uunet!in4.uu.net!news7-gui.server.ntli.net!news-feed.ntli.net!not-for-mail I have a PhD in the philosophy of mind, have had OOB's myself, and take all sides of the debate seriously. All I wish to say about the "out of your mind?" episode a few weeks ago is that for me there is a distinction worth drawing, between the facts, as experienced by contributors, and speculative theory. To report experiences and offer an interpretation of them is fine, but to pile a complete metaphysical heap of theory on to it seems not. I must say I find the "matter of fact" tone in which some contributoirs explain the most nefarious of speculative theories to us rather gagging. There surely has to be a line drawn somewhere between ideas which are supported by the experiences and those which are mere speculation? Drawing such a distinction, I think, adds credence to the group as a body of scientific investigators. Regards, Brian ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 23:01:38 -0400 Organization: gte.net Lines: 36 Message-ID: <6s7qi8$3cn$1@news-2.news.gte.net> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> Reply-To: "Trish" NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust76.tnt1.new-port-richey.fl.gt.uu.net X-Auth: D512C7040AD0CDDD43CE8491 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!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!worldfeed.gte.net!newsfeed.gte.net!newsfeed2.gte.net.MISMATCH!news.gte.net!not-for-mail duke wrote in message <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra>... >I have a PhD in the philosophy of mind, have had OOB's myself, and take >all sides of the debate seriously. All I wish to say about the "out of your >mind?" episode a few weeks ago is that for me there is a distinction worth >drawing, between the facts, as experienced by contributors, and speculative >theory. To report experiences and offer an interpretation of them is fine, >but to pile a complete metaphysical heap of theory on to it seems not. I >must say I find the "matter of fact" tone in which some contributoirs >explain the most nefarious of speculative theories to us rather gagging. >There surely has to be a line drawn somewhere between ideas which are >supported by the experiences and those which are mere speculation? Drawing >such a distinction, I think, adds credence to the group as a body of >scientific investigators. > > >Regards, > > >Brian Hi Brian. I think most of us are here just to share ideas and opinions, rather than to form strong theories. But maybe you could shed some objective light. It does seem at times, that many of us cling to our own pre-conceived ideas, and in that respect, we can become close minded. Is there something specific that you are referring to? .................................................... Trish AIM: trishmunk1 capuchin@gte.net fl_simian@yahoo.com .............................................................. ###### Message-ID: <35E74244.864A6E96@teleport.com> From: kbird X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 30 Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 23:47:31 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.202.165.111 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 16:47:31 PDT Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!nntp.teleport.com!news.teleport.com!not-for-mail Duke, I can only speak for myself, I am not in this group as a scientist. i am in the group as someone who experiences OBEs regularly and appreciate input from some and giving input to others. While some my use this group for scientific reasons, most of us are here for either spiritual reasons or just because we like to share out experiences. kbird duke wrote: > I have a PhD in the philosophy of mind, have had OOB's myself, and take > all sides of the debate seriously. All I wish to say about the "out of your > mind?" episode a few weeks ago is that for me there is a distinction worth > drawing, between the facts, as experienced by contributors, and speculative > theory. To report experiences and offer an interpretation of them is fine, > but to pile a complete metaphysical heap of theory on to it seems not. I > must say I find the "matter of fact" tone in which some contributoirs > explain the most nefarious of speculative theories to us rather gagging. > There surely has to be a line drawn somewhere between ideas which are > supported by the experiences and those which are mere speculation? Drawing > such a distinction, I think, adds credence to the group as a body of > scientific investigators. > > Regards, > > Brian ###### From: null@void.void (Enigma) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 03:36:49 GMT Organization: the void that is not void Message-ID: <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 NNTP-Posting-Host: ts6-37t-28.idirect.com Lines: 28 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!oasis.idirect.com!ts6-37t-28.idirect.com On 28 Aug 1998 22:18:58 GMT, "duke" wrote: >I have a PhD in the philosophy of mind, have had OOB's myself, and take Hi Brian, What is the philosophy of mind, if you don't mind my asking? >There surely has to be a line drawn somewhere between ideas which are >supported by the experiences and those which are mere speculation? Drawing >such a distinction, I think, adds credence to the group as a body of >scientific investigators. Well, this is not a scientific newsgroup so all points of view are valid here. IMO, people in general have a tendency to present their interpretations of experiences as facts of the experience. It is part of being human. However those people who have a desire to gain a better understanding of their experiences may choose to take things a bit further and start examining how their preconceived notions and beliefs may be playing a part in their experiences. You will find all types of people here. Some couldn't care less about analyzing their experiences, some are just here out of curiosity, some are here to promote their particular belief system, etc., etc. You may want to just focus in on those parts of the discussions you like and ignore those which you don't. regards, Enigma ###### From: bartma12@ix.netcom.com(Bart Scott) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: 29 Aug 1998 04:42:33 GMT Organization: ICGNetcom Lines: 91 Message-ID: <6s80rp$gcd@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <6s7qi8$3cn$1@news-2.news.gte.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: clv-oh38-16.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Aug 28 11:42:33 PM CDT 1998 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!ix.netcom.com!news In <6s7qi8$3cn$1@news-2.news.gte.net> "Trish" writes: > > >duke wrote in message <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra>... >>I have a PhD in the philosophy of mind, Oh... how about soul? >>have had OOB's myself, and >>take all sides of the debate seriously. All I wish to say about the >>"out of your mind?" episode a few weeks ago is that for me there is a >>distinction worth drawing, between the facts, as experienced by >>contributors, and speculative theory. To report experiences and offer >>an interpretation of them is fine, but to pile a complete >>metaphysical heap of theory on to it seems not. I must say I find the >>"matter of fact" tone in which some contributoirs explain the most >>nefarious of speculative theories to us rather gagging. >>There surely has to be a line drawn somewhere between ideas which are >>supported by the experiences and those which are mere speculation? >>Drawing such a distinction, I think, adds credence to the group as a >>body of scientific investigators. >>Regards, >>Brian > >Hi Brian. I think most of us are here just to share ideas and >opinions, rather than to form strong theories. But maybe you could >shed some objective light. It does seem at times, that many of us >cling to our own pre-conceived ideas, and in that respect, we can >become close minded. > >Is there something specific that you are referring to? > >.................................................... Trish Yes... I would also like to know if there is something specific that you are referring to, Brian. Maybe it's not a good idea for me to ask you to pinpoint an individual, though. You will find a wide variety of opinions here. Umm... I think I know the posts you are talking about - but your vagueness leaves none of us completely untouched by the covert negativity you express toward the unnamed posts. Why don't you use your PhD to tactfully approach the situation from your point of view as an opposing point of view makes its claim. I mean... it seems you have the advantage, right? Having spent a couple of years in this NG, I've seen some real nuts pass through here - but am I right in calling them nuts? I don't think so - it's just my attitude that puts such a label on them. I've dealt with them on an individual level. I really do suggest you do the same. Popping a newsgroup with a shotgun post will not win you any points. This subject does not lend itself easily to scientific investigation. Specifically, in this forum, it is very difficult to get any verifiable information that can actually be used as scientific evidence of the reality of OBE. We've had some 'hits', but they wouldn't stand up under the stone cold scrutiny of science. I doubt anything here ever will. That should not be a reason to stop our efforts or declarations within the newsgroup itself - provided we stay within the group and don't start any form of dangerous cult attempting to pull the uneducated and inexperienced into a web of domination. Most of us don't do that. Most of us share our experiences and attempt to help others through the confusion that has befallen them. AND... unlike most professional organizations - we tend to do it with love and without charge or even the acceptance of donations. Also, unlike the medical profession, we tend to do it without as much prejudice toward the 'unlikely' things that happen within a person's life experience. We have our opinions - but many of us also have experiences that generate and back up those opinions. Not all of us get our stuff strictly from books or simple contemplation. As I said before - I think I know the posts you are talking about. Those people are growing up. As they gain more experience, they will either leave here or mature. The single, most intense poster of the type you refer to has offered some incredibly valuable information on side-topics involved with this newsgroup. The poster may often make some clearly inaccurate posts due to gullibility - but I suppose it is up to every individual to determine for themselves what they will accept as truth in the first place. This person is tolerated because he is, for the most part, being personally honest. Personal honesty is usually accepted in this newsgroup provided it doesn't become unreasonably abusive. Have I made myself clear? Tell us about your experiences, Brian... Then decipher them for us so that we may comment. Bart ###### From: Ken S. Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: 01 Sep 1998 17:39:41 PDT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 17 Message-ID: <35ec9328.2627337@news.ke9nr.org> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts007d03.las-nv.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/16.451 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!europa.clark.net!199.60.229.5!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master Hi Brian - On 1 Sep 1998 23:05:45 GMT, "Duke" wrote: >The only adequate test for this would be the 'information criterion' - >i.e., being able to obtain information which we know to be correct but >unobtainable by the OOBEer via normal channels. then we have some real >evidence, either for OOBEs or clairvoyance or telepathy. Success in this area would be strong evidence for the existence of some type of paranormal phenomenon, however failure would *not* be valid evidence to the contrary, as there is no reason for the presupposition when your consciousness shifts out of your physical body that it remains in the same physical realm as your physical body. Ken http://www.ke9nr.org/ ###### From: "Duke" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: 1 Sep 1998 23:05:45 GMT Organization: Virgin News Service Lines: 55 Message-ID: <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.168.57.90 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.iag.net!news-xfer.netaxs.com!howland.erols.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.ntr.net!uunet!uunet!uunet!in4.uu.net!news7-gui.server.ntli.net!news-feed.ntli.net!not-for-mail Hello again everyone. I am not spoiling for a fight, as some of you seem to have inferred. I just wanted to make a general point about building theories up from experiences. It really doesn't matter who is doing what in the group. If people are here for all sorts of reasons - fine. Maybe I should rephrase my point. If you are interested in finding out what is 'actually' going on in an OOBE, for example, whether some substance or other is separating out from the physical body, I think it is only reasonable to go easy on the interpretation of actual experience. Some people are clearly tempted to fill in the gaps with some pretty far-reaching metaphysical explanations, when really there is no support for them. Yes, I have experienced OOBEs, and to show what I mean maybe I should tell you how far my own interpretation goes. I experienced physical paralysis, loss of bodily sensation and then a shift in conscious perspective to a point outside my body. This was 'real' enough for me to find it very hard to put it down to dreaming. I was awake, and got up immediately the experience was over. I cannot infer from this that I have an astral body, or spirit, or that there is life after death, or anything much, except that it seems very likely that my consciousness is not restricted to my body. This is, of course, highly significant if true, since it implies that when our bodies die there is no particular reason to suppose that 'we' die completely. It becomes a reasonable possibility that consciousness survives bodily death. On the other hand, I have to concede that I cannot infer even this much, since I might have been hallucinating. Subjectively I find this hard to believe, but it is possible. The only adequate test for this would be the 'information criterion' - i.e., being able to obtain information which we know to be correct but unobtainable by the OOBEer via normal channels. then we have some real evidence, either for OOBEs or clairvoyance or telepathy. One really difficult point is how to differentiate between OOBEing and clairvoyance. What criteria would we use to do so? Best wishes, Brian ###### From: "Bob Powers" Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> Message-ID: <01bdd618$3e013e70$ca61a7cc@odysseus> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Lines: 92 Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 02:20:25 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.167.97.202 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shore.net X-Trace: news.shore.net 904702825 204.167.97.202 (Tue, 01 Sep 1998 22:20:25 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 22:20:25 EDT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!209.244.253.199!newsfeed.xcom.net!news.shore.net!not-for-mail Duke wrote in article <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra>... > > Hello again everyone. > > I am not spoiling for a fight, as some of you seem to have inferred. I > just wanted to make a general point about building theories up from > experiences. It really doesn't matter who is doing what in the group. If > people are here for all sorts of reasons - fine. Maybe I should rephrase my > point. > > > If you are interested in finding out what is 'actually' going on in an > OOBE, for example, whether some substance or other is separating out from > the physical body, I think it is only reasonable to go easy on the > interpretation of actual experience. Some people are clearly tempted to > fill in the gaps with some pretty far-reaching metaphysical explanations, > when really there is no support for them. > > Yes, I have experienced OOBEs, and to show what I mean maybe I should tell > you how far my own interpretation goes. I experienced physical paralysis, > loss of bodily sensation and then a shift in conscious perspective to a > point outside my body. This was 'real' enough for me to find it very hard > to put it down to dreaming. I was awake, and got up immediately the > experience was over. > > I cannot infer from this that I have an astral body, or spirit, or that > there is life after death, or anything much, except that it seems very > likely that my consciousness is not restricted to my body. This is, of > course, highly significant if true, since it implies that when our bodies > die there is no particular reason to suppose that 'we' die completely. It > becomes a reasonable possibility that consciousness survives bodily death. > > On the other hand, I have to concede that I cannot infer even this much, > since I might have been hallucinating. Subjectively I find this hard to > believe, but it is possible. > > The only adequate test for this would be the 'information criterion' - > i.e., being able to obtain information which we know to be correct but > unobtainable by the OOBEer via normal channels. then we have some real > evidence, either for OOBEs or clairvoyance or telepathy. > > One really difficult point is how to differentiate between OOBEing and > clairvoyance. What criteria would we use to do so? > > > Best wishes, > > > Brian Brian, I'm a physical scientist. I probably share some of your questions, even though I've never expressed them as well. What keeps me interested in investigating OOBE as more than a hallucination, i.e.- as an actual traveling of the awareness is a corroboration that I've experienced in another realm of sleep. I have shared a dream with a woman who willfully came to me where I was sleeping, from a distance. This was not a setup. I'm quite the skeptic. I didn't know that she was going to do it until it happened. And when her point of view was explained to me the next day, it corroborated my observations exactly. And believe me, I was not 'read'. Although I'm a bit of a social simpleton, I do know enough not to show my cards until the hand is played. Anyway, this is a personal experience on my part, so it really can't convince you. I guess that's the nature of this area of research. Its sort of like an experience I had this Sunday when I went into a shop selling scented candles. I was trying to find a scent that I liked but couldn't smell it on any of the candles. My lady friend suggested that I ask for help from the salesperson, at which we both laughed. I guess that we are in the same position in the OOBE and the sleeping realm. Either we smell something with our own dreaming noses or we don't get the proof we need. Just my opinion. Hope its useful to you. Maybe it will give you the incentive to try to catch a scent of your own and pursue it. Also, for me, differentiating between OOBE and clairvoyance is very unimportant. All that matters is that now I know that there is something much, more wondrous to us than my science books will ever admit to. -Bob ###### From: "Airmid" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:27:16 -0400 Organization: ALLTEL Internet Services Lines: 49 Message-ID: <6sjko9$7ij$1@news1.alltel.net> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <6sjbe7$qtk$1@server-b.cs.interbusiness.it> NNTP-Posting-Host: lifl4pp87.alltel.net X-Trace: news1.alltel.net 904746569 7763 166.102.186.88 (2 Sep 1998 14:29:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@client.alltel.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Sep 1998 14:29:29 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.central.agis.net!agis!news1.alltel.net!not-for-mail Greetings, I have been 'rationally convinced' and now believe. A few years ago I had epilepsy caused by trauma. During a seizure in a restaurant restroom I became unconscious while lying on the floor (ugh, but it was a nice restaurant), the restaurant had called the paramedics who were busily doing their thing. My body was on the floor but *I* was sitting with my back against the tile wall when I heard them talking to someone saying "she has no pulse, she has no pulse". So I *know* that some type of consciousness can separate from the body. As far as clairvoyance or precog dreaming my hypothesis is that lots of have this ability but our subconscious is taking the perceptions of our conscious perceptions of reality and altering them. Just as our conscious perceptions don't always match up with what is real. Therefore when later we say that we dreamed this would happen but it wasn't exactly the same it is because our perceptions of perceptions got in the way. Regards, Sue Tristan Robins <_nospam_starscaper@hotmail.com> wrote in message <6sjbe7$qtk$1@server-b.cs.interbusiness.it>... >Brian, > >I think you should distinguish between two concepts: believing and >being rationally convinced. >Duke ha scritto nel messaggio <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra>... >> >>Hello again everyone. >> >> [...] >> >>The only adequate test for this would be the 'information criterion' - >>i.e., being able to obtain information which we know to be correct but >>unobtainable by the OOBEer via normal channels. then we have some real >>evidence, either for OOBEs or clairvoyance or telepathy. >> >>One really difficult point is how to differentiate between OOBEing and >>clairvoyance. What criteria would we use to do so? >> >> >>Best wishes, >> >> >>Brian >> > > ###### From: "Ol' Bab" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <35ec9328.2627337@news.ke9nr.org> Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 18:30:23 -0400 Lines: 30 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup020.roc-tc5n.eznet.net Message-ID: <35edd8b8.0@news.eznet.net> Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!207.50.128.5!news.eznet.net!dialup020.roc-tc5n.eznet.net Ken S. wrote in message <35ec9328.2627337@news.ke9nr.org>... >Hi Brian - > >On 1 Sep 1998 23:05:45 GMT, "Duke" wrote: > >>The only adequate test for this would be the 'information criterion' - >>i.e., being able to obtain information which we know to be correct but >>unobtainable by the OOBEer via normal channels. then we have some real >>evidence, either for OOBEs or clairvoyance or telepathy. > >Success in this area would be strong evidence for the existence of >some type of paranormal phenomenon, however failure would *not* be >valid evidence to the contrary, as there is no reason for the >presupposition when your consciousness shifts out of your physical >body that it remains in the same physical realm as your physical body. > >Ken >http://www.ke9nr.org/ I would take it a step in the other direction: To me it's pretty much fact that psy is real, which leads to the possibility that knowledge apparently acquired through OOB is really via psy - and thus is no proof at all. Ol' Bab . ###### From: Ken S. Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: 03 Sep 1998 12:05:26 PDT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 20 Message-ID: <35eeda11.10308378@news.ke9nr.org> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <35ec9328.2627337@news.ke9nr.org> <35edd8b8.0@news.eznet.net> <01bdd751$689bb680$LocalHost@briancra> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts002d22.las-nv.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/16.451 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master Hi Brian - On 3 Sep 1998 15:55:57 GMT, "duke" wrote: >Can anyone think of a way, even in >principle, of testing whether it is OOBEing or clairvoyance that is being >witnessed? Even though I have a strong science and math background, and a strong desire to experience OBEs (I haven't had one yet, came close a time or two); I have no desire to prove anything to anyone else. I'm in this to learn and grow, not to prove to anyone else either that OBEs exist or that any kind of psychic powers exist. As long as I am satisfied, then I *am* satisfied. BTW, did/do you live in Elkhart, Indiana? I knew a Brian Crabb back there. The Other Ken http://www.ke9nr.org/ ###### From: "duke" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: 3 Sep 1998 15:55:16 GMT Organization: Virgin News Service Lines: 39 Message-ID: <01bdd750$ea12d460$LocalHost@briancra> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <6sjbe7$qtk$1@server-b.cs.interbusiness.it> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.168.60.5 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!xmission!uunet!uunet!in4.uu.net!news7-gui.server.ntli.net!news-feed.ntli.net!not-for-mail > > I think you should distinguish between two concepts: believing and > being rationally convinced. > Someone gets convinced of something when he or she gets a proof > or at least something that he or she can accept as proof. > Belief is a completely different matter. You can only find belief within > yourself, and no scientific proof (at least so far) can demonstrate the > existence of a soul, of life after death, and of god. > Hi Tristan, Your letter is interesting. How are you using the word 'belief'? You appear to be using it the way I would use the word 'faith', to apply to beliefs which cannot be, or have not been, rendered convincing to you. The way I use 'belief', I can never get further than believing in something, however convincing it might be. There is always room for doubt. >What I'm trying to say is that you will not find answers to your questions >"outside". Which does not mean you should not look outside, a good >opinion is an informed opinion. But I think you'll find your answers >through introspection. I realise that I will never find the answers outside - meaning totally without input from my beliefs, faith or whatever. You can never be totally convinced of anything unless you allow yourself to be. The question which interests me is how much faith/belief/interpretation/theory building, etc. do I , should I, feel comfortable with? Thanks for your letter. Regards, Brian ###### From: "duke" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: 3 Sep 1998 15:55:57 GMT Organization: Virgin News Service Lines: 26 Message-ID: <01bdd751$689bb680$LocalHost@briancra> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <35ec9328.2627337@news.ke9nr.org> <35edd8b8.0@news.eznet.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.168.60.5 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!209.144.204.114!newsfeed.corridex.com!ameritech.ais.net!jamie!ais.net!ameritech.net!uunet!uunet!in3.uu.net!news7-gui.server.ntli.net!news-feed.ntli.net!not-for-mail > > I would take it a step in the other direction: To me it's pretty much fact > that psy is real, which leads to the possibility that knowledge apparently > acquired through OOB is really via psy - and thus is no proof at all. > > Ol' Bab This is exactly what I am asking about. I don't ask people to land on one side of the fence or the other, but rather to consider what criteria they would feel justified in applying. Can anyone think of a way, even in principle, of testing whether it is OOBEing or clairvoyance that is being witnessed? That's the point. Best wishes, Brian. > > . > > > ###### From: "duke" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: 3 Sep 1998 15:55:58 GMT Organization: Virgin News Service Lines: 38 Message-ID: <01bdd752$67a37e60$LocalHost@briancra> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <01bdd618$3e013e70$ca61a7cc@odysseus> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.168.60.5 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.idt.net!WCG!cyclone.i1.net!uunet!uunet!in3.uu.net!news7-gui.server.ntli.net!news-feed.ntli.net!not-for-mail > Brian, > I have shared a dream > with a woman who willfully came to me where I was sleeping, > from a distance. Anyway, this is a personal experience > on my part, so it really can't convince you. I guess that's the nature > of this area of research. > > -Bob > Hi Bob, and thanks for the letter. I agree with most of what you say. The main point I feel in need of clarification is that there are two types of convincing - first and third person. I might or might not be convinced by your shared dream account as a third-person report, and I might or might not believe in my own experiences as showing the facts to be a certain way. Its the latter I was talking about. How much theory do we heap on top of the bare experience? As a matter of fact, while we are on the subject, I too have experienced a shared dream. Its quite amazing and very exhilarating. I don't need to be convinced by yours. The question I repeat is: how are we to distinguish between OOBEing and clairvoyance? I really do not have the answer. Best wishes, Brian ###### From: Ken S. Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: 03 Sep 1998 17:11:38 PDT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 45 Message-ID: <35f13002.7892063@news.ke9nr.org> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <35ec9328.2627337@news.ke9nr.org> <35edd8b8.0@news.eznet.net> <01bdd751$689bb680$LocalHost@briancra> <35eeda11.10308378@news.ke9nr.org> <01bdd784$741aa4c0$LocalHost@briancra> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts006d35.las-nv.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/16.451 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.wli.net!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master Hi Brian - On 3 Sep 1998 21:54:40 GMT, "duke" wrote: >What would it take to satisfy you, and of what? I am a person who does not delude myself. If I felt certain that I actually left my body, that would satisfy me of an OBE. I have occasional lucid dreams (I had one last night in fact) and have never had any doubt that it was a dream. If I had the same internal level of confidence of an OBE, that would satisfy me. And as I indicated in a previous message, I expect that most OBEs will take me to places that do not closely parallel this physical reality, so I have no requirement, even to myself, that I be able to see something in an OBE that I can confirm. Now if I were attempting to satisfy myself about clairvoyance or remote viewing, then I would require a significant confirmation. In fact, we do Remote Viewing experiences in the New Age Forum on CompuServe. I was the host of the next to last one, and a participant in the last one. The host on this last one credited me with "hits" on some things that I described, but when she described the actual things, personally I didn't consider them valid hits. When my hits are close enough to satisfy me, then I will be satisfied (duh!), even though a scientist wouldn't be. >> The Other Ken > >No I didn't, other Ken. I have visited the States a few times, but only >lived in Boston. I actually live in North Wales, UK. now . > > >Regards, > > >The other Brian Oh, well, it doesn't hurt to ask. You never know who you may run into on the net. Incidentally, I sign myself "The Other Ken" in this NG to help keep people from confusing me with Ken Czepelka who was here long before me. The Other Ken http://www.ke9nr.org/ ###### From: The Great Cornholio Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 18:30:51 +0100 Organization: Virgin News Service Lines: 32 Message-ID: <35EED24A.A56ABF52@virgin.net> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <35ec9328.2627337@news.ke9nr.org> <35edd8b8.0@news.eznet.net> <01bdd751$689bb680$LocalHost@briancra> Reply-To: simon.brewer@virgin.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.168.120.101 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b1 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!198.6.0.40!uunet!uunet!in3.uu.net!news7-gui.server.ntli.net!news-feed.ntli.net!not-for-mail duke wrote: > > > > I would take it a step in the other direction: To me it's pretty much > fact > > that psy is real, which leads to the possibility that knowledge > apparently > > acquired through OOB is really via psy - and thus is no proof at all. > > > > Ol' Bab > > This is exactly what I am asking about. I don't ask people to land on one > side of the fence or the other, but rather to consider what criteria they > would feel justified in applying. Can anyone think of a way, even in > principle, of testing whether it is OOBEing or clairvoyance that is being > witnessed? That's the point. > Depends how you define clairvoyance. It's a bit of a vague term - I think its accepted definition is something like 'to be able to see into the past, present or future by psychic means,' although I don't possess a dictionary so I'm not 100%. However, it's easy to remove the possibility of telepathy from OBE trails. This merely involves placing a target picture in a separate room to the subject and ensuring that NOBODY knows what the picture is until after the trail (e.g. whoever is overseeing the experiment could take a picture blindfold out of a bag of 20 or so then leave the room without ever looking at it or the remaining 19). ###### From: "duke" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: 3 Sep 1998 21:54:18 GMT Organization: Virgin News Service Lines: 36 Message-ID: <01bdd77e$293915a0$LocalHost@briancra> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <35ec9328.2627337@news.ke9nr.org> <35edd8b8.0@news.eznet.net> <01bdd751$689bb680$LocalHost@briancra> <35EED24A.A56ABF52@virgin.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.168.68.223 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!209.144.204.114!newsfeed.corridex.com!ameritech.ais.net!jamie!ais.net!ameritech.net!uunet!uunet!in2.uu.net!news7-gui.server.ntli.net!news-feed.ntli.net!not-for-mail > > Depends how you define clairvoyance. It's a bit of a vague term - I think its > accepted definition is something like 'to be able to see into the past, present > or future by psychic means,' although I don't possess a dictionary so I'm not > 100%. > GC -- Don't get lost in dictionary definitions. There is a meaningful question to be asked regardless of which words to use to express it. What I am asking is how we might tell whether we actually travel to another location (in some bodily manifestation or other) or just perceive from a distance, as perhaps in telepathy but without anyone else being involved. It is difficult to know how this could be determined, but the difference seems to be great in its implications. On the one hand we might just have a sixth-sense, and on the other we have an entire astral/spirit body.> Regards, Brian ###### From: "duke" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: 3 Sep 1998 21:54:28 GMT Organization: Virgin News Service Lines: 53 Message-ID: <01bdd783$9c2993a0$LocalHost@briancra> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <6sjbe7$qtk$1@server-b.cs.interbusiness.it> <6sjko9$7ij$1@news1.alltel.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.168.68.223 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.corridex.com!ameritech.ais.net!jamie!ais.net!ameritech.net!uunet!uunet!in4.uu.net!news1-gui.server.ntli.net!news-feed.ntli.net!news7-gui.server.ntli.net!news-feed.ntli.net!not-for-mail Hello Airmid, Airmid wrote in article <6sjko9$7ij$1@news1.alltel.net>... > My body was on the floor but *I* was sitting with my > back against the tile wall when I heard them talking to someone saying "she > has no pulse, she has no pulse". So I *know* that some type of > consciousness can separate from the body. I think you would need to verify that someone actually said that to have the evidence you need. Also, I know how convincing the separation from the physical body can be, but have to say that it is still possible that it is just a hallucination/dream. I think we need to be able to corroborate our experiences afterwards to draw the conclusions we do draw. > As far as clairvoyance or precog dreaming my hypothesis is that lots of have > this ability but our subconscious is taking the perceptions of our conscious > perceptions of reality and altering them. Just as our conscious perceptions > don't always match up with what is real. Therefore when later we say that > we dreamed this would happen but it wasn't exactly the same it is because > our perceptions of perceptions got in the way. > > Regards, Sue This is an interesting thought. On the one hand it could well be the correct analysis of what is going on in our minds, and would explain discrepancies as you point out. On the other hand, however, it could be seen as a 'cop-out' device which is just very convenient in explaining discrepancies. The question is: how do we determine if it is the true explanation? Very difficult to do because we are dealing with the subconscious mind which, almost by definition, is unavailable to our introspection. I find this a very difficult area. One way of circumventiing this difficulty might be by concentrating purely on the perceptions which turn out to be accurate. If there are enough of these we might have the evidence we need for OOBE's or clairvoyance, even though we don't know whether your theory of perception is correct. Best wishes, Brian ###### From: "duke" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: 3 Sep 1998 21:54:40 GMT Organization: Virgin News Service Lines: 23 Message-ID: <01bdd784$741aa4c0$LocalHost@briancra> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <35ec9328.2627337@news.ke9nr.org> <35edd8b8.0@news.eznet.net> <01bdd751$689bb680$LocalHost@briancra> <35eeda11.10308378@news.ke9nr.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.168.68.223 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!btnet-peer!btnet!insnet.net!uunet!uunet!in4.uu.net!news1-gui.server.ntli.net!news-feed.ntli.net!news7-gui.server.ntli.net!news-feed.ntli.net!not-for-mail Ken S. wrote in article < . As long as I am satisfied, then I *am* satisfied. That's fair enough, Ken. No-one can object to that, I think. What would it take to satisfy you, and of what? > > BTW, did/do you live in Elkhart, Indiana? I knew a Brian Crabb back > there. > The Other Ken No I didn't, other Ken. I have visited the States a few times, but only lived in Boston. I actually live in North Wales, UK. now . Regards, The other Brian ###### From: "Bob Powers" Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <01bdd618$3e013e70$ca61a7cc@odysseus> <01bdd752$67a37e60$LocalHost@briancra> Message-ID: <01bdd787$988fce40$ca61a7cc@odysseus> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Lines: 22 Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 22:10:01 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.167.97.202 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shore.net X-Trace: news.shore.net 904860601 204.167.97.202 (Thu, 03 Sep 1998 18:10:01 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 18:10:01 EDT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.xcom.net!news.shore.net!not-for-mail duke wrote in article <01bdd752$67a37e60$LocalHost@briancra>... > > > > The question I repeat is: how are we to distinguish between OOBEing and > clairvoyance? I really do not have the answer. > > > Best wishes, > > > > Brian Good luck on your quest, Brian. -Bob ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: 05 Sep 1998 00:30:27 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 115 Message-ID: References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 "Duke" writes: > > just wanted to make a general point about building theories up from > experiences. An important point that tends to get forgotten too often in the paranormal, spiritual and religious circles. Knowledge (from the senses observing the world) vs speculation (from the brain interpreting the observations). > If you are interested in finding out what is 'actually' going on in an > OOBE, for example, whether some substance or other is separating out from > the physical body, I think it is only reasonable to go easy on the > interpretation of actual experience. As the experience is of _conciousness_ _feeling_ itsself outside (as far as I understand the successfull OBEers), that does not prove anything else to be outside. > Some people are clearly tempted to > fill in the gaps with some pretty far-reaching metaphysical explanations, > when really there is no support for them. Or rather no support for chosing either physical or metaphysical theories over the oposite one. > you how far my own interpretation goes. I experienced physical paralysis, > loss of bodily sensation and then a shift in conscious perspective to a > point outside my body. This was 'real' enough for me to find it very hard > to put it down to dreaming. I was awake, and got up immediately the > experience was over. Seems to be classical OBE. > I cannot infer from this that I have an astral body, or spirit, or that > there is life after death, or anything much, except that it seems very > likely that my consciousness is not restricted to my body. Even that can not be infered, as you may simply be distorting the processing of space information in the brain. > This is, of > course, highly significant if true, since it implies that when our bodies > die there is no particular reason to suppose that 'we' die completely. It > becomes a reasonable possibility that consciousness survives bodily death. Possible but still not proven. But also not falsified. > On the other hand, I have to concede that I cannot infer even this much, > since I might have been hallucinating. Subjectively I find this hard to > believe, but it is possible. Yes it is. > The only adequate test for this would be the 'information criterion' - > i.e., being able to obtain information which we know to be correct but > unobtainable by the OOBEer via normal channels. Even that one fails, because it may be an lucid daydream :-) using telepathic information. > then we have some real > evidence, either for OOBEs or clairvoyance or telepathy. Only for either-or, but unfortunately it can not be nailled down to exactly one of them. > One really difficult point is how to differentiate between OOBEing and > clairvoyance. What criteria would we use to do so? I know of none. But this does not surprise me. After all, it is not even possible to prove (to an third party) that conciousness exists. So how does one prove dreams*, LDs, OBEs (all phenomena of conciousness)? * alpha waves and REM are proven, but that does not prove dreams. Even NDEs and Ghosts do not prove souls, NDEs may be halucination (but they do not need to be). Ghosts may be telepathic projections from the past. So why do I believe in the soul interpretation? Because it is the simpler one, and I usually chose the simpler of 2 possibilities if they are equal in working. Of course this is mentally simple, not physically simple. And of course it is useless for an scientist demanding proof. But I gave up on proofs after reading the Goedel stuff (ca 1920) about not even maths being provable (actually he proved it to be false, but if one takes that proof serious, his proof (itsself mathematical) is false, so it invalidates itsself, so maths can go on). Sorry for the late answer. 3 days on a mountain tour and 2 coming home after 12pm really screw up following 3 news groups (200 post aday). It is now 12.20pm and my eyes are falling closed, I should really not be posting philosophical news in this state (as if that ever stopped me :-)). -- home: neil@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~neil/ work: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ *** It's true ! I read it on Usenet and the Web ! *** ###### From: Hegedus Jozsef Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 12:07:48 -0700 Organization: IIF Lines: 25 Message-ID: <35F2DD84.A4C33204@freemail.c3.hu> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <01bdd618$3e013e70$ca61a7cc@odysseus> NNTP-Posting-Host: belugy.dial.iif.hu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news.iif.hu!news Bob wrote : > I'm a physical scientist. I probably share some of your questions, > even though I've never expressed them as well. What keeps me > interested in investigating OOBE as more than a hallucination, i.e.- > as an actual traveling of the awareness is a corroboration that I've > experienced in another realm of sleep. I have shared a dream ... > there is something much, more wondrous to us than my science > books will ever admit to. > > -Bob Hello Bob , I 'm very interested in phisics that's why i write you. You seem to have the same interesting field as me.About me : i'm 18 and going to study phisics at the collage. I don't know much about QM but i think there might be something that is in connection with OBE and ESP ... do you have any idea about what may explain OBE and ESP ? I would hear more about these kind of thoughts . Thanx, Jocco ###### From: "Bob Powers" Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <01bdd618$3e013e70$ca61a7cc@odysseus> <35F2DD84.A4C33204@freemail.c3.hu> Message-ID: <01bddab6$661cd2f0$ca61a7cc@odysseus> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 23:22:34 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.167.97.202 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shore.net X-Trace: news.shore.net 905210554 204.167.97.202 (Mon, 07 Sep 1998 19:22:34 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 19:22:34 EDT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) Lines: 64 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!bullseye.news.demon.net!demon!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!woodstock.news.demon.net!demon!newsfeed.xcom.net!news.shore.net!not-for-mail Hegedus Jozsef wrote in article <35F2DD84.A4C33204@freemail.c3.hu>... > Bob wrote : > > I'm a physical scientist. I probably share some of your questions, > > even though I've never expressed them as well. What keeps me > > interested in investigating OOBE as more than a hallucination, i.e.- > > as an actual traveling of the awareness is a corroboration that I've > > experienced in another realm of sleep. I have shared a dream > ... > > there is something much, more wondrous to us than my science > > books will ever admit to. > > > > -Bob > Hello Bob , > I 'm very interested in phisics that's why i write you. You seem to have > the > same interesting field as me.About me : i'm 18 and going to study > phisics at the > collage. I don't know much about QM but i think there might be something > that is > in connection with OBE and ESP ... do you have any idea about what may > explain > OBE and ESP ? I would hear more about these kind of thoughts . > > Thanx, Jocco Jocco, Quite truthfully, I have never even tried to relate my science background to OOBE. And I'm not very excited by ESP except for its possible manifestation when people share dreams. And even then, I prefer to believe that the latter effect is more a traveling of the awareness than an ESP phenomenon. I won't spend a lot of time defending this anyway, because, like in science, in the astral world (?), I'm an opportunistic experimentalist. I'm willing to follow leads, take a chance, poke into the unknown on very slim evidence and shaky intuition. I'll leave the explanations for the more learned and theoretical in the field, since I don't feel that I have a lot of time left to figure out things while the inevitable (the reaper) is catching up with me every minute. Since I've been subject to OOBE since as long as I can remember, and also LD, I figure: 'What the heck, take the gift and find out about it first hand, jump in and explore'. I guess it sounds strange to separate my science from the spirit, but I've done it for so long, for what I used to think was a good reason (fear), that I don't really feel a reason to bother with relating any more. I have fun in science by tweaking a knob aimlessly while a theorist is bitting his or her fingers next to me, and I do the same thing in the spirit- tweak the knobs any chance I get and see what happens. Maybe I'm an anarchist at heart? Should I muse a bit? Okay- off the top of my head, and, again, I won't defend it so let's not argue- the brain is a huge collection of connected neurons. Are there short range interactions happening between the neurons? Yes. Are there long range, collective interactions occuring? Yes. Is it possible that these long range interactions extend beyond the body to other brains (ESP)? That's where the capabilities of my science seem to end. Do I want to investigate this. Not really- no time. Well, my humble response.... -Bob ###### From: Hegedus Jozsef Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 19:43:28 -0700 Organization: IIF Lines: 29 Message-ID: <35F73CD0.266A08E3@freemail.c3.hu> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <01bdd618$3e013e70$ca61a7cc@odysseus> <35F2DD84.A4C33204@freemail.c3.hu> <01bddab6$661cd2f0$ca61a7cc@odysseus> NNTP-Posting-Host: belugy.dial.iif.hu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.bme.hu!news.iif.hu!news Hi BOB ! Thanx for answering. I was pleased to learn about your attitude to science and OBE. Since i'm very curious and have a theoretical mind I 'm always trying to find out what may lay behind OBE and these kinda things. I also want to experiment with OBE since this is my only chance to get into connection with the unexplored world . The first reason i'm trying to learn about OBE is if i could do an OBE and proof that ESP exist and works than i 'd know that there's not only the body and matter , there must be something else, this evidence would change my life . I think i 'm on the right track to get an OBE and it can be verified that i have seen really something that i wouldn't be able to see anyway... I see that my grammar is a bit wrong and my style as well but i'm very disoriendted now and can't coordinate my usally confused thoughts , this time they were more confused ... sorry , but thanx for your opinion. Jocco , ###### From: "Bob Powers" Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <01bdd618$3e013e70$ca61a7cc@odysseus> <35F2DD84.A4C33204@freemail.c3.hu> <01bddab6$661cd2f0$ca61a7cc@odysseus> <35F73CD0.266A08E3@freemail.c3.hu> Message-ID: <01bddebd$19c2bd60$ca61a7cc@odysseus> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Lines: 27 Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 02:20:35 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.167.97.202 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shore.net X-Trace: news.shore.net 905653235 204.167.97.202 (Sat, 12 Sep 1998 22:20:35 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 22:20:35 EDT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.ecrc.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.xcom.net!news.shore.net!not-for-mail Hegedus Jozsef wrote in article <35F73CD0.266A08E3@freemail.c3.hu>... > Hi BOB ! > > << SNIP > > The first reason i'm trying to learn about OBE is if i could do an OBE > and proof that > ESP exist and works than i 'd know that there's not only the body and > matter , there > must be something else, this evidence would change my life . I think i > 'm on the right > track to get an OBE and it can be verified that i have seen really > something that i > wouldn't be able to see anyway... > That's the essence of the practice for me, Jocco. It gives you a much more optimistic outlook on life at the very least. Tie in a little corroboration and it becomes ecstacy. Good Luck on your ascent. Bob ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: 13 Sep 1998 22:57:54 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <01bdd618$3e013e70$ca61a7cc@odysseus> <35F2DD84.A4C33204@freemail.c3.hu> <01bddab6$661cd2f0$ca61a7cc@odysseus> <35F73CD0.266A08E3@freemail.c3.hu> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Hegedus Jozsef writes: > > The first reason i'm trying to learn about OBE is if i could do an OBE > and proof that > ESP exist and works It is possible to do ESP (such as clairvoyance) without going OOB. In fact it is usually done non OOB! And ESP in that form (named remote viewing for political reasons) has been proven by no one less than the US governments military services! They used it to spy on the Soviets. The techniques developed there have been commercialised by people leaving the services and published on the net. Just ignore the commercal interests and read the methods. The Controlled Remote Viewing Manual
The Scientific Remote Viewing Manual Online (Version 2.0.1)
> than i 'd know that there's not only the body and matter , there > must be something else, this evidence would change my life . ESP will not help you prove that. ESP may simply be "biological radio". In fact most people who have looked into provability of the non material world have come away with the belief, that it (if it even exists) can not be proven. This is because every effect that can be explained with the theory of the non material world can also be given an material world only explanation. So it unfortunately can only be believed in or not believed in. People with OBE and even more those with NDE have a high tendency to believe in an non material world. But this is simply because the non material explanations are more intuitiver, not because they can be prooven right. And in an situation with 2 equals the simpler is the better. > I think i 'm on the right track to get an OBE Nice for you. I am also trying, but I am doing it for the experience, for the discoveries, not for some "proof" which will/can never be one. > and it can be verified that i have seen really > something that i wouldn't be able to see anyway... That would only prove ESP (in itsself usefull in expanding ones horizon), but not the non material world. Sorry, no proof for that. -- home: neil@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~neil/ work: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Microsoft is Software Communism, Fight for GNU Freedom! ###### From: Ken S. Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: 13 Sep 1998 16:32:16 PDT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 19 Message-ID: <35fc554d.3138798@news.ke9nr.org> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <01bdd618$3e013e70$ca61a7cc@odysseus> <35F2DD84.A4C33204@freemail.c3.hu> <01bddab6$661cd2f0$ca61a7cc@odysseus> <35F73CD0.266A08E3@freemail.c3.hu> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts001d32.las-nv.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/16.451 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master Hi Neil - On 13 Sep 1998 22:57:54 +0200, Neil Franklin wrote: >This is because every effect that can be >explained with the theory of the non material world can also be given >an material world only explanation. The farther scientists go into quantum psychics, the less and less true that statement is. I suggest that you read William Buhlman's "Adventures Beyond the Body" for some very interesting discussion of this topic. It is an excellent book covering a lot of different material, including OBE techniques. The Other Ken http://www.ke9nr.org/ ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: 14 Sep 1998 21:16:02 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <01bdd618$3e013e70$ca61a7cc@odysseus> <35F2DD84.A4C33204@freemail.c3.hu> <01bddab6$661cd2f0$ca61a7cc@odysseus> <35F73CD0.266A08E3@freemail.c3.hu> <35fc554d.3138798@news.ke9nr.org> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Ken S. writes: > > wrote: > > >This is because every effect that can be > >explained with the theory of the non material world can also be given > >an material world only explanation. I should have added here: And noone has any proof which of the 2 types of explanation it "righter". > The farther scientists go into quantum psychics, the less and less > true that statement is. I an surpised with that statement. I would have said that the more they enter the strange world of quantum physics, the more paranormal stuff can be given an material explanation. Perhaps my choice of word was prone to missunderstanding, I should have used "physical", not "material" (for me quantum "stuff" is still matter/material). > I suggest that you read William Buhlman's "Adventures Beyond the Body" > for some very interesting discussion of this topic. It is an > excellent book covering a lot of different material, including OBE > techniques. It's allready on my reading list. Perhaps I should move it up an notch. -- home: neil@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~neil/ work: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Microsoft is Software Communism, Fight for GNU Freedom! ###### From: Hegedus Jozsef Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Out of your Mind - again Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:25:09 +0200 Organization: Technical University of Budapest Lines: 16 Message-ID: <36011BC5.6B9BCBE9@ural2.hszk.bme.hu> References: <01bdd2d1$91134940$LocalHost@briancra> <35e7774b.1893065@usenet.idirect.com> <01bdd5fc$52f673c0$LocalHost@briancra> <01bdd618$3e013e70$ca61a7cc@odysseus> <35F2DD84.A4C33204@freemail.c3.hu> <01bddab6$661cd2f0$ca61a7cc@odysseus> <35F73CD0.266A08E3@freemail.c3.hu> NNTP-Posting-Host: ural2.hszk.bme.hu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: goliat.eik.bme.hu 906042309 27084 152.66.130.2 (17 Sep 1998 14:25:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@news.bme.hu NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Sep 1998 14:25:09 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.6 sun4u) Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.bme.hu!not-for-mail > \ > > > The Controlled Remote Viewing Manual
> > The Scientific Remote Viewing Manual Online (Version 2.0.1)
> > Thank you for the sites , i was looking for stuff stuff about RVing , i write only a short email , becouse i m new in the collage now , and have no time , but thanx ... Jocco