From: Joseph Buggy Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: OBE conclusion Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 10:58:13 +0000 Organization: AXYS Pharmaceuticals Lines: 37 Message-ID: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> Reply-To: Joseph_Buggy@axyspharm.com NNTP-Posting-Host: fw-sf.axyspharm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; U; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-xfer.geo.net!geo.net!not-for-mail Q: Why don't people who can OBE demonstrate this to James Randi, and collect one million dollars? It is a simple question. The arguments I've been hearing fall primarily into two groups: 1) People who can OBE are too at peace with themselves to bother with something as mundane and worldly as money. This to me is unlikely. Even if you don't care for money, wouldn't you at least donate it to the sick, hungry, or needy? 2) the tests that James Randi proposes are too difficult, and it's hard to relax enough to OBE when someone is watching. Again, unlikely. The test is agreed upon by both parties, as well as exactly what will constitute a negative result, and what will constitute a positive result. Applicants can try as many times as they like, and it doesn't cost them anything except costs incurred in transportation to the institute. Given the many people who claim to OBE regularly, and are experts at it, it seems unlikely that absolutely no one can do it when James Randi is around, ever. My conclusion is either that 1) OBE exists, but cannot be demonstrated in a controlled setting ever, or 2) OBE is a delusional state in which subjects believe they are flying around observing things, but are in fact not. To me the simplest, and therefore most likely explanation is number 2. Science doesn't have an axe to grind. If OBE is real, show us. Visit this web site for more information: http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html -- Joseph J. Buggy, Ph.D. ###### Message-ID: <3640D899.3D54@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 14:43:37 -0800 From: Jennifer Spengler {wooble} Reply-To: midigal@hotmail.com Organization: I'm not organized at all, thank you. X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE conclusion References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: cmp135.i-america.net Lines: 52 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-xfer.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!news4.his.com!cmp135.i-america.net Joseph Buggy wrote: > > Q: Why don't people who can OBE demonstrate this to James Randi, and > collect one million dollars? It is a simple question. > > The arguments I've been hearing fall primarily into two groups: > 1) People who can OBE are too at peace with themselves to bother with > something as mundane and worldly as money. > > This to me is unlikely. Even if you don't care for money, wouldn't you > at least donate it to the sick, hungry, or needy? > > 2) the tests that James Randi proposes are too difficult, and it's hard > to relax enough to OBE when someone is watching. > > Again, unlikely. The test is agreed upon by both parties, as well as > exactly what will constitute a negative result, and what will constitute > a positive result. Applicants can try as many times as they like, and > it doesn't cost them anything except costs incurred in transportation to > the institute. Given the many people who claim to OBE regularly, and > are experts at it, it seems unlikely that absolutely no one can do it > when James Randi is around, ever. > > My conclusion is either that 1) OBE exists, but cannot be demonstrated > in a controlled setting ever, or 2) OBE is a delusional state in which > subjects believe they are flying around observing things, but are in > fact not. To me the simplest, and therefore most likely explanation is > number 2. > > Science doesn't have an axe to grind. If OBE is real, show us. > > Visit this web site for more information: > http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html > > -- > Joseph J. Buggy, Ph.D. My answer to the above question........WHO CARES? ~Jen (Sure, I'd *love* one million dollars, but I don't have the time, NOR the money to spend initially. And I'm saying this *as if* I actually *had* a decent OOBE, which i haven't...so...sorry if my answer was offensive.. I'd be all for it if I was a pro astral projector with a few extra bucks to spend on transportation, lodging, etc.. AND if I had the time, and if I felt at ease with this Randi person... so you see, there's a *lot* to factor into this.. don't just think it is a money thing.. blah blah blah.. and I talk too much..blah.) -- * Knowledge may be power, but ignorance is bliss. * * --Jennifer Spengler =P * * http://www.i-america.net/homepages/hally2000/ * * Both Sides Of the Mood** * ###### From: "Peter Davies" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE conclusion Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:55:50 -0500 Organization: Interlog Internet Services Lines: 37 Message-ID: <71qbgf$7em$1@news.interlog.com> References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209-20-2-89.dialin.interlog.com NNTP-Posting-Time: 4 Nov 1998 19:55:59 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!newsfeed.interlog.com!news.interlog.com!not-for-mail Joseph Buggy wrote in message <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com>... >Q: Why don't people who can OBE demonstrate this to James Randi, and >collect one million dollars? It is a simple question. > >snip > >Science doesn't have an axe to grind. If OBE is real, show us. > > First of all, let me say that I do not know whether OBEs exist or not. I have never had one but I am at the beginning stages of attempting to induce one. This will either work or it won't. Therefore, I am not going to try and convince you that they do exist. However, by asking for a scientific proof of a spiritual experience you are making what Ken Wilber refers to as a category error. (See his book 'Eye to Eye', Chapter 1, also called 'Eye to Eye'). I am not going to elaborate much on this as Wilber does it far more eloquently than I could ever do. He refers to the eye of the flesh (which relates to the empirical sciences), the eye of the reason (used in philosophy, logic, mathematics etc.) and the eye of contemplation (for spiritual subjects). Asking for a scientific proof of OBEs (spiritual) is as fallacious as trying to use mathematical proofs to say something about the physical universe (or to use empiricism in mathematics). In fact, prior to the likes of Galileo Kepler and Newton this kind of category error was the order of the day in the physical sciences BTW, you are correct in saying that 'science doesn't have an axe to grind'. However, (some but not all) scientists do! Peter Davies Ph.D. (Mathematics) ###### From: "Bart" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE conclusion Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 19:44:17 -0500 Organization: ICGNetcom Lines: 59 Message-ID: <71qsn2$3vc@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: clv-oh39-40.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Nov 04 4:49:38 PM PST 1998 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!ix.netcom.com!news Joseph Buggy wrote in message <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com>... >Q: Why don't people who can OBE demonstrate this to James Randi, and >collect one million dollars? It is a simple question. > >The arguments I've been hearing fall primarily into two groups: >1) People who can OBE are too at peace with themselves to bother with >something as mundane and worldly as money. > >This to me is unlikely. Even if you don't care for money, wouldn't you >at least donate it to the sick, hungry, or needy? > >2) the tests that James Randi proposes are too difficult, and it's hard >to relax enough to OBE when someone is watching. > >Again, unlikely. The test is agreed upon by both parties, as well as >exactly what will constitute a negative result, and what will constitute >a positive result. Applicants can try as many times as they like, and >it doesn't cost them anything except costs incurred in transportation to >the institute. Given the many people who claim to OBE regularly, and >are experts at it, it seems unlikely that absolutely no one can do it >when James Randi is around, ever. 3) Some people have a problem pissing when someone is watching. Does that mean they don't piss? 4) People don't want to dance like a puppet for Randi's money. >My conclusion is either that 1) OBE exists, but cannot be demonstrated >in a controlled setting ever, or 2) OBE is a delusional state in which >subjects believe they are flying around observing things, but are in >fact not. To me the simplest, and therefore most likely explanation is >number 2. Simple minds need simple explanations... Well, you have yours - live with it and don't bother us anymore. >Science doesn't have an axe to grind. If OBE is real, show us. Why? We don't owe you anything. This is not a cross post. We didn't go into your regular newsgroup and demand that you believe in OBE. We talk amongst ourselves about our experiences - then you come in here and demand that we prove what we discuss in our own newsgroup as we attempt to prove it to ourselves? We're in the middle of an experiment that may last as long as 10 years or more before we, as "Non-experts", get a grip on what is going on. Your demand is like going up to a cancer researcher and demanding that they prove that there is a cure for cancer while they are in the midst of finding that cure to begin with... That's stupid... So, um, please, if you wouldn't mind, could you just bugger-off, Buggy? We're busy here. Bart ###### From: "Bart" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE conclusion Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 20:39:18 -0500 Organization: ICGNetcom Lines: 16 Message-ID: <71qvrr$632@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> <01be0838$9bdc2800$ca61a7cc@odysseus> NNTP-Posting-Host: clv-oh39-40.ix.netcom.com X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Nov 04 5:43:23 PM PST 1998 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!howland.erols.net!netnews.com!ix.netcom.com!news Bob Powers wrote in message <01be0838$9bdc2800$ca61a7cc@odysseus>... >From what I have seen, its a very >friendly >group, and I think they would certainly welcome input from another keen >mind. Well... should my face be turning red about now? :-) Bart ###### From: "Bob Powers" Subject: Re: OBE conclusion Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> Message-ID: <01be0838$9bdc2800$ca61a7cc@odysseus> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Lines: 78 Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 21:18:01 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.167.97.202 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shore.net X-Trace: news.shore.net 910214281 204.167.97.202 (Wed, 04 Nov 1998 16:18:01 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 16:18:01 EDT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.shore.net!not-for-mail Hi Joseph, I looked at the site and I can say I'm definitely interested. Also, it looks as if, at least for most of us, there won't be any travel expenses involved :-). I'd certainly like to respond to Mr. Randi's challenge. However, it may be a while before I'm able to do this at will. Perhaps there is a more gifted person here, with a taste for some sport, who'd be up for it. It seems that a go can be had for the cost of a notary's services and some postage. But you seem to have some interest in this yourself, Joseph. Maybe its a scientific interest? May I ask why you are issuing this second hand challenge? Would you perhaps like to validate one or both of your two conclusions below- by default- when no one here answers the challenge? If that's what you need, you might just get your result. However, if you'd like to do some further research into OOBE, this is the place to find people who experience it. I certainly don't have an axe to grind with science. Something is happening to a lot of us and although, given its highly subjective nature, its very difficult or maybe impossible to investigate with the physical tools of science, it may be approachable with the methods of science. For myself, I would welcome any enlightenment you might add about what I am experiencing. Feel free to question, argue, and conclude here. From what I have seen, its a very friendly group, and I think they would certainly welcome input from another keen mind. Take care. Bob P. Joseph Buggy wrote in article <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com>... > Q: Why don't people who can OBE demonstrate this to James Randi, and > collect one million dollars? It is a simple question. > > The arguments I've been hearing fall primarily into two groups: > 1) People who can OBE are too at peace with themselves to bother with > something as mundane and worldly as money. > > This to me is unlikely. Even if you don't care for money, wouldn't you > at least donate it to the sick, hungry, or needy? > > 2) the tests that James Randi proposes are too difficult, and it's hard > to relax enough to OBE when someone is watching. > > Again, unlikely. The test is agreed upon by both parties, as well as > exactly what will constitute a negative result, and what will constitute > a positive result. Applicants can try as many times as they like, and > it doesn't cost them anything except costs incurred in transportation to > the institute. Given the many people who claim to OBE regularly, and > are experts at it, it seems unlikely that absolutely no one can do it > when James Randi is around, ever. > > My conclusion is either that 1) OBE exists, but cannot be demonstrated > in a controlled setting ever, or 2) OBE is a delusional state in which > subjects believe they are flying around observing things, but are in > fact not. To me the simplest, and therefore most likely explanation is > number 2. > > Science doesn't have an axe to grind. If OBE is real, show us. > > Visit this web site for more information: > http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html > > > -- > Joseph J. Buggy, Ph.D. > > > ###### From: sasha@mdc.net (Sasha Keir) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE conclusion Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 22:30:05 GMT Organization: Teradyne, Incorporated Lines: 61 Message-ID: <3642d569.8261357@usenet.icd.teradyne.com> References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: sasha.corp.teradyne.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.275 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!194.165.93.117.MISMATCH!newshub.bart.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.news.gtei.net!cam-news-feed3.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!usenet.teradyne.com!newsmaster Hi, I'm new to the group. I became interested in the subject of OBE's after experiencing my own for the first time about 6 months ago. My experience had what seems to be the standard "first-timer" symptoms - intense fear, the feeling of another person with me (which is odd, since I live alone), etc. I talked to a few people about it (the experience totally FREAKED me out for about two weeks), and a good deal said that it was probably an OBE. After a little research, I agreed. But anyway, this particular article grabbed my attention, as it doesn't deal primarily with an OBE in and of itself, but rather the long list of things that humans experience that cannot be readily quantified: On Wed, 04 Nov 1998 10:58:13 +0000, Joseph Buggy wrote: >Q: Why don't people who can OBE demonstrate this to James Randi, and >collect one million dollars? It is a simple question. I know nothing of Randi other than someone referring to him as a skeptic. If he is, it's easy to see why a "believer" wouldn't want to waste time bothering. A stern skeptic would often-times not allow himself to see the "proof", if there was such a thing. Why bother trying to get the $1mil when you know the giver's mind is already made up and you're most likely not gonna get squat? But the condition was "scientific", yes? How can you scientifically prove something like that? Try and guess what I'm thinking and scientifically prove that I'm thinking it. OBE's and such are very personal things. They fall outside the realm of "proof" in the scientific sense. But that doesn't make it any less real. I mean really, can anyone scientifically explain where their consciousness comes from? How do all those chemicals and electrical impulses form an emotion? >My conclusion is either that 1) OBE exists, but cannot be demonstrated >in a controlled setting ever, or 2) OBE is a delusional state in which >subjects believe they are flying around observing things, but are in >fact not. To me the simplest, and therefore most likely explanation is >number 2. Isn't it more like 1 AND 2? I can remember many dreams in which I awoke, and for a few minutes didn't reallize that everything that just happened was just a dream. I remember feeling really depressed one morning 'cause I expected to take my brand-new laptop to work....only to realize that it was actually part of my dream. Bummer. :) I've had many dreams in which I was flying or falling. But I always woke up. Perhaps "delusional" isn't the right word, but it's pretty bloody close. The idea is the same >Science doesn't have an axe to grind. If OBE is real, show us. Perhaps impossible by it's very nature, but that doesn't mean OBE's do not happen. just my input :) - JSS ###### From: Lucid Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE conclusion Date: 05 Nov 1998 02:15:13 PST Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 152 Message-ID: <3641781A.BB592B75@hotmail.com> References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts007d30.oak-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------6D011F4A454240D50905C687" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter.cosy.sbg.ac.at!news.cs.utwente.nl!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master --------------6D011F4A454240D50905C687 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joseph Buggy wrote: > Q: Why don't people who can OBE demonstrate this to James Randi, and > collect one million dollars? It is a simple question. I know, it's so simple isn't...according to your logic...but if you ever have an oobe, you'll know that you don't always end up in this physical world, or even if you manage to end up in this physical world, there still a matter of time, you may be in the past or in the future, etc, etc. > The arguments I've been hearing fall primarily into two groups: > 1) People who can OBE are too at peace with themselves to bother with > something as mundane and worldly as money. That is partly true, who need money when you know for sure that you don't die...meaning becoming nonexistence when your physical body no longer able to support you. Think deeply about it for a second? You're a Ph.D., I am sure you are capable of such task. > This to me is unlikely. Even if you don't care for money, wouldn't you > at least donate it to the sick, hungry, or needy? I guess you're right. But again, you are assuming that it's a given. Maybe you should try the alt.stargate. ng. > 2) the tests that James Randi proposes are too difficult, and it's hard > to relax enough to OBE when someone is watching. > > Again, unlikely. The test is agreed upon by both parties, as well as > exactly what will constitute a negative result, and what will constitute > a positive result. Applicants can try as many times as they like, and > it doesn't cost them anything except costs incurred in transportation to > the institute. Given the many people who claim to OBE regularly, and > are experts at it, it seems unlikely that absolutely no one can do it > when James Randi is around, ever. We claimed to be able to get out of our body. We didn't said that we get out and end up in "this" physical world everytime...did we? > My conclusion is either that 1) OBE exists, but cannot be demonstrated > in a controlled setting ever, or 2) OBE is a delusional state in which > subjects believe they are flying around observing things, but are in > fact not. To me the simplest, and therefore most likely explanation is > number 2. I think you're right again. The simplest answer would be #2. But is it a good answer? If you know for sure that your beliefs are true, then why hang around here for? Whether you believe or not is irrelevant. We still have a great time here, and you will still wonder if you have missed something by jumping into such an early conclusion...now, is this how a Ph.D. suppose to act? > Science doesn't have an axe to grind. If OBE is real, show us. Hmm, show you what? Show me how you process your emotion such as love. well? How do you know it's real then. A Ph.D. like yourself should be able to figure that out. > Visit this web site for more information: > http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.ht Thanks for the advertisement, I am sure James is glad that he have a new follower. > Joseph J. Buggy, Ph.D. Ph.D--It's a good tittle, does it come with close mind also? lucid --------------6D011F4A454240D50905C687 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

Joseph Buggy wrote:

Q:  Why don't people who can OBE demonstrate this to James Randi, and
collect one million dollars?  It is a simple question.
I know, it's so simple isn't...according to your logic...but if you ever have an oobe, you'll know that you don't always end up in this physical world, or even if you manage to end up in this physical world, there still a matter of time, you may be in the past or in the future, etc, etc.
The arguments I've been hearing fall primarily into two groups:
1) People who can OBE are too at peace with themselves to bother with
something as mundane and worldly as money.
That is partly true, who need money when you know for sure that you don't die...meaning becoming nonexistence when your physical body no longer able to support you.  Think deeply about it for a second? You're a Ph.D., I am sure you are capable of such task.
This to me is unlikely.  Even if you don't care for money, wouldn't you
at least donate it to the sick, hungry, or needy?
I guess you're right.  But again, you are assuming that it's a given.  Maybe you should try the alt.stargate. ng.
2) the tests that James Randi proposes are too difficult, and it's hard
to relax enough to OBE when someone is watching.

Again, unlikely.  The test is agreed upon by both parties, as well as
exactly what will constitute a negative result, and what will constitute
a positive result.  Applicants can try as many times as they like, and
it doesn't cost them anything except costs incurred in transportation to
the institute.  Given the many people who claim to OBE regularly, and
are experts at it, it seems unlikely that absolutely no one can do it
when James Randi is around, ever.

We claimed to be able to get out of our body.  We didn't said that we get out and end up in "this" physical world everytime...did we?
My conclusion is either that 1) OBE exists, but cannot be demonstrated
in a controlled setting ever, or 2) OBE is a delusional state in which
subjects believe they are flying around observing things, but are in
fact not.  To me the simplest, and therefore most likely explanation is
number 2.
I think you're right again.  The simplest answer would be #2.  But is it a good answer? If you know for sure that your beliefs are true, then why hang around here for?  Whether you believe or not is irrelevant.  We still have a great time here, and you will still wonder if you have missed something by jumping into such an early conclusion...now, is this how a Ph.D. suppose to act?
Science doesn't have an axe to grind.  If OBE is real, show us.
Hmm, show you what?  Show me how you process your emotion such as love.  well?  How do you know it's real then.  A Ph.D. like yourself should be able to figure that out.
Visit this web site for more information:
http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.ht
Thanks for the advertisement, I am sure James is glad that he have a new follower.
Joseph J. Buggy, Ph.D.
 Ph.D--It's a good tittle, does it come with close mind also?

lucid --------------6D011F4A454240D50905C687-- ###### From: "Bob Powers" Subject: Re: OBE conclusion Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> <01be0838$9bdc2800$ca61a7cc@odysseus> <71qvrr$632@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: <01be08c6$3061dfa0$ca61a7cc@odysseus> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Lines: 23 Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 14:11:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.167.97.202 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shore.net X-Trace: news.shore.net 910275088 204.167.97.202 (Thu, 05 Nov 1998 09:11:28 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 09:11:28 EDT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news.tele2.nl!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.shore.net!not-for-mail Nah. Not unless you flew face first into any buildings during yesterday's trip out :-) .... Bart wrote in article <71qvrr$632@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>... > > Bob Powers wrote in message <01be0838$9bdc2800$ca61a7cc@odysseus>... > >From what I have seen, its a very > >friendly > >group, and I think they would certainly welcome input from another keen > >mind. > > > Well... should my face be turning red about now? > > :-) > > Bart > > > > ###### From: null@void.void (Enigma) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE conclusion Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 16:45:30 GMT Organization: the void that is not void Message-ID: <3641c8a2.1255611@usenet.idirect.com> References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 NNTP-Posting-Host: ts7-35t-12.idirect.com Lines: 52 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!howland.erols.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!relay.news.idirect.com!oasis.idirect.com!ts7-35t-12.idirect.com On Wed, 04 Nov 1998 10:58:13 +0000, Joseph Buggy wrote: >2) the tests that James Randi proposes are too difficult, and it's hard >to relax enough to OBE when someone is watching. > >Again, unlikely. The test is agreed upon by both parties, as well as >exactly what will constitute a negative result, and what will constitute >a positive result. Applicants can try as many times as they like, and >it doesn't cost them anything except costs incurred in transportation to >the institute. Given the many people who claim to OBE regularly, and >are experts at it, it seems unlikely that absolutely no one can do it >when James Randi is around, ever. That is an interesting claim. On what basis are you assuming that many people claim to OBE regularly, and that they are experts at it? While some people who post to this newsgroup do seem to have OBE's with some regularity, I have not seen anyone coming forward in this newsgroup claiming to be an expert at OBE's, at least not anyone whom I'd take seriously. Would you please explain what you are basing your claim on? If you mean that some people have written books making such claims, could you please give a specific reference? Did these people claim to be able to provide scientific proof of the type that you are looking for? Again could you please give a specific reference? While it wouldn't surprise me that there may be some people making such claims about OBE's, again I must say I haven't seen anyone in this this newsgroup seriously making such claims about expertise and ability to provide proof on demand. If someone in this newsgroup is making such claims, why not address their claims directly? I have been reading this newsgroup off and on for about 5 years and while there are some people who have posted here who do seem to be able to initiate "OBE's" with at least some degree of consistency, their experiences seem to be anything but consistent and reliable. From what I have seen, the majority of people who post in this newsgroup don't even agree on a definition of what OBE's are. >My conclusion is either that 1) OBE exists, but cannot be demonstrated >in a controlled setting ever, or 2) OBE is a delusional state in which >subjects believe they are flying around observing things, but are in >fact not. To me the simplest, and therefore most likely explanation is >number 2. > >Science doesn't have an axe to grind. If OBE is real, show us. It might help if you first give a clear definition of what you mean when you use the term OBE, and also what you would consider to be clear proof that OBE's are "real". regards, Enigma ###### From: dreamwhlkr@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE conclusion Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 18:21:29 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 179 Message-ID: <71sqb9$sm4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.38.163.247 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Nov 05 18:21:29 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.05 [en]C-Boeing STL (Win95; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x2.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 130.38.163.247 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail Mr. Randi is a skilled magician, and his insights are extremely useful in identifying the many ways in which a 'quack' psychic might fool us (and perhaps the psychic is also fooling himself). However, Mr. Randi is not a scientist, and unfortunately when his gimmicks are presented as somehow defining a 'controlled experiment', Mr. Randi himself becomes a 'quack' scientist. I'm afraid you (Mr. Buggy) are being taken by his quackery. I happen to be a research scientist, and this particular area of OOBE's is of interest to me as part of a general (personal) interest in the physical nature of consciousness. Your arguments are not logical, and Mr. Randi's million dollar prize gimmick is hardly a 'controlled scientific experiment'. My guess is that those who are scientist and who are also taken in by Mr. Randi's quackery either never actually had to set up a controlled experiment themselves, have forgotten how difficult it can be to do so, or are so disturbed at the posssible implications that they shut down their reasoning facilities in thinking about this one particular taboo area. The construction of a controlled experiment requires that 1) all of the variables that can influence the measurable outcome be identified, and 2) most (ideally all) except one (or few) key variable(s) are held constant while the one or few variable(s) central to the hypothesis are varied. In an OOBE, we are hypothesizing an 'interaction at a distance' of consciousness directly with matter. What variables might need to be controlled? A little bit of thought reveals that we have opened quite a Pandora's Box with the allowance of the action of consciousness at a distance, for in principle we might need to consider the psychological desire of every single living (and dare we consider 'non-living'!) human being as a factor potentially influencing the outcome. At a minimum it would certianly be reasonable to consider that the psychological state of the OOBE projector is important, and it is also very, very reasonable to take as part of the hypothesis that if Mr. Randi and all those who stand to lose money don't want the test to succeed then they can engage the same action of consciousness at a distance ('subconsciously') to interfere with the outcome. Similarly, if en mass the Randi test is considered undeniable proof, and en mass we do not yet want to have this proven, than en mass we might all interfere with experiment. This is consistent with the underlying hypothesis, and is simply an extrapolation of the already well established influence of the observer on measurements. I am not intending to imply that a controlled experiment is impossible, only that due and proper careful consideration must be given before defining experiments and leaping to conclusions. It is, however, reasonable to consider that a true controlled experiment is beyond current theory and possibly current technology. I would offer one reminder that you might consider as reason to take pause in your present zeal to leap to conclusion: according to the laws of physics which you believe that you are somehow supporting, consciousness itself does not exist. There is no hard law of physics that precludes OOBE or any psychic ability so long as that ability is a manifestation of consciousness, because it is not established that the present mathematical models ('laws of physics') for the behavior of matter/energy may be transferred to the behavior of consciousness. Perhaps to put it simply, consciousness *is* supernatural. You don't need to look any further than your own consciousness for proof of the supernatural. I would also offer one observation: you presented an original post in which you feigned open-minded questioning, to be followed quickly by the present post in which your prejudical predisposition is only too clear. Why the deception? Why do you feel that you cannot approach this topic or the people here honestly? And some specifics. In article <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com>, Joseph_Buggy@axyspharm.com wrote: > Q: Why don't people who can OBE demonstrate this to James Randi, and > collect one million dollars? It is a simple question. Only as simple as human consciousness is simple. My impression is that this group has offered as the best 'proof' that they currently know how to offer would be for Mr. Randi to attempt to achieve the experience himself. This group has honestly admitted it's own limitation of knowledge in offering this approach. > The arguments I've been hearing fall primarily into two groups: Yes, I think 'hearing' is the key here, as distinguished from the set of arguments that have been presented. > 1) People who can OBE are too at peace with themselves to bother with > something as mundane and worldly as money. > The wording is suspiciously condescending. > This to me is unlikely. Even if you don't care for money, wouldn't you > at least donate it to the sick, hungry, or needy? Interesting here in that you are switching to argument rather than observation. Regardless of how unlikely you deem things, it is a fact that the 1 million dollar prize is not highly motivating to people in this group. In fact, if you apply some depth of thought, you can see that in general the intrinsic reward-value of money should be higher for a person who does not accept existance beyond the physical, and lower for a person who does. Therefore you should take pause to consider that the attraction which you deem to be present by offering money may not actually be so strongly present, and is in fact a bias in favor of the the hypothesis which you support, calling in to doubt the construction of your experiment. > 2) the tests that James Randi proposes are too difficult, and it's hard > to relax enough to OBE when someone is watching. > > Again, unlikely. The test is agreed upon by both parties, as well as > exactly what will constitute a negative result, and what will constitute > a positive result. This strikes me as an amaturish argument. I have participated in all too many mundane physical experiments in which exactly what constitues a positive result and what constitutes a negative result turn out to be quite subject to debate in hindsight, once the results of the experiment have been obtained. And in these experiments we have the advantage of not worrying about whether the apparatus is depressed, or angry, or determined to not have the experiment succeed. Experiments in consciousness do not have the same advantage. > Applicants can try as many times as they like, and > it doesn't cost them anything except costs incurred in transportation to > the institute. Given the many people who claim to OBE regularly, and > are experts at it, it seems unlikely that absolutely no one can do it > when James Randi is around, ever. Tsk. Tsk. James Randi's test does not establish that absolutely no one can do it when James Randi is around, ever. The test only establishes that the very small subset of those claiming the ability who have been, for whatever reason, self-motivated to attempt the test have not *yet* succeeded. And let's place ourself on the technical maturity scale here. In the theory of consciousness, we are at an analogous point that the Greeks were in the theory of physics at the time of Plato. Ever is a strong conclusion. > My conclusion is either that 1) OBE exists, but cannot be demonstrated > in a controlled setting ever, Again, a recurring flaw. The present attempts are scientifically primative, initial, probabitive exercizes. You are drawing conclusions for all time. Remember, our current mathematical models describe a matter/energy universe. The observed universe is a matter/energy/conciousness universe. I suspect there might be one or two advances yet to come in this regard! Perhaps one day a sufficiently satisfying 'controlled' experiment can be developed. And, as always - as always -, proof of absence requires more careful experimentation than proof of presence. In contrast, you are jumping on gradeschool efforts. > or 2) OBE is a delusional state in which > subjects believe they are flying around observing things, but are in > fact not. To me the simplest, and therefore most likely explanation is > number 2. > > > Science doesn't have an axe to grind. If OBE is real, show us. Science does indeed have an axe to grind. These areas are held in taboo and elicit prejudicial bias from many scientists. They are upsetting to the present state of theory, and they bring scientists into areas that engage personal discomfort, dealing the death, life, afterlife, religion, and the nature of existence. The grinding of the axe is obvious in your post. To explore the interaction of matter with matter, science spends millions of dollers and builds complex gadgetry. To explore the interaction of consciousness with matter, 'science' apparently offers a prestidigitator and an armchair experimenter. As a scientist, I await the day when we lay down the axe and offer more. > Visit this web site for more information: > http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html > > > -- > Joseph J. Buggy, Ph.D. > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ###### From: "Richard" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE conclusion Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 18:57:24 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com - Discussions start here! Lines: 77 Message-ID: <71togo$gs7$1@supernews.com> References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> <3642d569.8261357@usenet.icd.teradyne.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.48.95.9 X-Trace: 910320984 I0G4.QBCE5F09CF30C usenet77.supernews.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.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.berkeley.edu!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail Hi. . Are you sure you have only had one OOBE? You sound as if you have been doing it forever. -- Sasha Keir wrote in message <3642d569.8261357@usenet.icd.teradyne.com>... >Hi, I'm new to the group. I became interested in the subject of OBE's >after experiencing my own for the first time about 6 months ago. My >experience had what seems to be the standard "first-timer" symptoms - >intense fear, the feeling of another person with me (which is odd, >since I live alone), etc. The fear. . . yes. That is a standard first timer (and many more timer) thing to deal with. It does eventually go away. Now the feeling that you are not alone. . . I am not sure who else has had this feeling. I did from the very start. My father, who also used to have the experiences also felt someone or thing was with him. Not to worry about it. My experiences with this has shown me that this is more than just a feeling. You are not alone. I am not going to tell you you should immediately trust whoever is there. . . But my experience is that those who were and are around me have never wanted to do anything but help me. I made contact in a very physical earth gesture. I reached out my hand while still 99% in body and someone out there took my hand and shook it. I was quite shocked at the time. Not only did this being greet me, it called other nearby beings over to see what had just happened. During this experience my vibration level was increased- possibly by them. It seemed they did something to me to raise the frequency of my vibrations. Since then, they mellowed out and a lot of early fear went away. I talked to a few people about it (the >experience totally FREAKED me out for about two weeks), and a good >deal said that it was probably an OBE. After a little research, I >agreed. This being freaked out is just a way your logical thinking earth dwelling mind is trying to hold on to the belief that it has the total control of things. A lot of people at this point will talk themselves out of believing there is anything more to this than a very odd dream. >But anyway, this particular article grabbed my attention, as it >doesn't deal primarily with an OBE in and of itself, but rather the >long list of things that humans experience that cannot be readily >quantified: snipped your comments about Randi. . . You are so right in your assessment of this. . . How can something that is not physical by definition be proven by a physical test? Let me just say . . . I have always been skeptical. I remain skeptical about other paranormal events because I have not experienced them. It took me a long time to accept what OOBE was about . . . and to believe it was true for me. But I had very little choice. The experiences happened. They would not stop, so I had to decide to explore what they meant to me. I have proven the validity of this experience to myself and other people who I have had some success in projecting to. This came at considerable effort on my part. I doubt I would be able to focus that kind of effort in order to describe what picture had been selected randomly from a group of pictures. . . or what ever else they could come up with. Million dollar prize or not. I am beyond the need or desire to have to prove this to anyone. The easiest way to prove it would be to train the person to do it themselves. It is hard to deny your own experience. Anyway. . . I do go on. Good luck with your beginning OOBE stages. I will see you out there. . . Richard Visit this web page for some useful OOB links. . . www.angelfire.com/ca/onestepbeyond/ To respond, delete #nospam# rbwalton@#nospam#outrageous.net ###### From: sterno@bigbrother.net Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE conclusion Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 23:55:11 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 18 Message-ID: <71tdsv$p9n$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.151.179.163 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Nov 05 23:55:11 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x5.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 206.151.179.163 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > My conclusion is either that 1) OBE exists, but cannot be demonstrated > in a controlled setting ever, or 2) OBE is a delusional state in which > subjects believe they are flying around observing things, but are in > fact not. To me the simplest, and therefore most likely explanation is > number 2. > > Science doesn't have an axe to grind. If OBE is real, show us. Why does it matter? If an OBE is a delusional state, who cares? If people around the world achieve enlightenment through OBE, then what does it matter if it is real or not. It's like asking if God is real. If you believe in God and it adds something to your life, what does it matter if it is real. Personally I believe OBE's are real. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE conclusion Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 18:42:52 +0100 Organization: Algonet/Tninet Lines: 17 Message-ID: <3643351C.5FD1E019@algonet.se> References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> <71sqb9$sm4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du103-92.ppp.algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Nov 1998 17:42:37 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news.tele2.nl!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!howland.erols.net!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail dreamwhlkr@aol.com wrote: [snip] Well said! Itīs nice to see that not all scientists are so closed-minded and prejudiced as some. :-) Then again, it would seem that stage illusionists like Mr. Randi are even more hostile to anything "paranormal". Perhaps it has something to do with theyīre not liking the prospect of people doing for real what they can fake - they could lose quite a lot of money too! ;-) See you out there... /Gunnar ###### From: null@void.void (Enigma) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE conclusion Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 18:53:18 GMT Organization: the void that is not void Message-ID: <36433e3c.501297@usenet.idirect.com> References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> <71sqb9$sm4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3643351C.5FD1E019@algonet.se> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 NNTP-Posting-Host: ts7-44t-17.idirect.com Lines: 34 Path: chonsp.franklin.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!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!relay.news.idirect.com!oasis.idirect.com!ts7-44t-17.idirect.com On Fri, 06 Nov 1998 18:42:52 +0100, Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote: >dreamwhlkr@aol.com wrote: > >[snip] > >Well said! > >Itīs nice to see that not all scientists are so closed-minded and >prejudiced as some. :-) I suspect that the true scientists who are actually out there doing research and taking risks and breaking new ground, are for the most part fairly open-minded and truly interested in trying to come to a better understanding of this universe that we find ourselves in. This requires determination and courage to be able identify and route out pre-conceived notions and limiting beliefs that may be preventing understanding to continue progressing. Smug, know-it-all, condescending types are only fooling themselves and perhaps some of their equally near-sighted followers, it seems to me. If a person is not willing to admit that their understanding of things might be incorrect or at least incomplete or limited, then it seems to me that they haven't much hope in ever stretching the boundaries of their understanding. How someone can really think that they have everything all figured out in this incredibly complex and seemingly infinite universe is beyond me, buddhas and other enlightened beings are excluded of course, allowing that they might exist. :-) regards, Enigma ###### From: Joseph Buggy Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re:OBE question Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 12:41:36 +0000 Organization: AXYS Pharmaceuticals Lines: 78 Message-ID: <36419CAE.1239030F@axyspharm.com> Reply-To: Joseph_Buggy@axyspharm.com NNTP-Posting-Host: fw-sf.axyspharm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E7BF7ABC55CCB09DC1A66E12" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; U; PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-xfer.geo.net!geo.net!not-for-mail --------------E7BF7ABC55CCB09DC1A66E12 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Yes, they could put a million > dollars to good use - but the method of getting that money is not a > spiritual endeavor, so they avoid it because they don't do tricks for > treats. > Each of us are individual travelers - we are the explorers, and we report our findings to compare with other explorers. We do not need to answer to those who are not explorers until we exit this newsgroup and demand that the rest of the world accept OBE as an absolute. Very few of us would consider doing that in our present state of developement. The money and James Randi is not really even the point. The point is that many OBEers claim to move about the physical world observing things with their "astral bodies". If true, this can be easily tested. Every time it ever has been tested using real, scientifically valid and refereed research, the results have been negative. The "we are spiritual explorers who can't be bothered with silly tests" argument is a dodge, plain and simple. -- Joseph J. Buggy, Ph.D. --------------E7BF7ABC55CCB09DC1A66E12 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 

Yes, they could put a million
dollars to good use - but the method of getting that money is not a
spiritual endeavor, so they avoid it because they don't do tricks for
treats.
     Each of
us are individual travelers - we are the explorers, and we report our
findings to compare with other explorers.  We do not need to answer to those
who are not explorers until we exit this newsgroup and demand that the rest
of the world accept OBE as an absolute.  Very few of us would consider doing
that in our present state of developement.
 

The money and James Randi is not really even the point.  The point is that many OBEers claim to move about the physical world observing things with their "astral bodies".  If true, this can be easily tested.  Every time it ever has been tested using real, scientifically valid and refereed research, the results have been negative.

The "we are spiritual explorers who can't be bothered with silly tests" argument is a dodge, plain and simple.
 
 

--
Joseph J. Buggy, Ph.D.

  --------------E7BF7ABC55CCB09DC1A66E12-- ###### From: sterno@bigbrother.net Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE question Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 23:06:22 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 25 Message-ID: <71tb1e$m03$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <363EF21A.C7817EEA@axyspharm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.151.179.163 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Nov 05 23:06:22 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x5.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 206.151.179.163 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!btnet-peer!btnet!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail > Why hasn't anyone, including anyone reading this who claims to OBE, or > even Mr. Monroe himself, done this? It is difficult to believe that out > of all people who OBE, absolutely NO ONE can do this in any kind of > controlled scientific setting, ever. Besides the people who do not want to do this there are two issues involved. The first is that OBE'ing is not something that cane be done consistently on demand (at least I'm not aware of it). It is something that is brought on by certain circumstances and although one can encourage those circumstances through various techniques, it does not guarantee that you have one. The second issue is that when OBE'ing the perception of the physical world is more subjective than it is when travleing in a physical body. I have heard of experiments where they attempted to proove that OBE's worked and the results were inconclusive because each person saw different things. The experiment involved having people project into a sealed room and identify an object in that room which in this case was a flag. Each poerson identified certain aspects of theflag (like seeing a star, or seeing a square) but nobody could outright say "that's a flag." -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ###### From: "Peter Davies" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE question Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:58:39 -0500 Organization: Interlog Internet Services Lines: 34 Message-ID: <71v6bo$t5c$1@news.interlog.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209-20-7-228.dialin.interlog.com NNTP-Posting-Time: 6 Nov 1998 15:58:48 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!newsfeed.interlog.com!news.interlog.com!not-for-mail To Joseph Buggy ---------------------- You are missing my point, and that of many of the responders to your posts. What we are trying to communicate is that it does not matter whether or not anything can be said about the relationship between experiences (OBEs) and what you seem to define as "reality". By the same token, one cannot prove mathematical theorems empirically. Does that mean they are of no value? You seem to be suffering from the malady sometimes referred to as scientism. By falling into this trap you are "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". You may not be particularly interested in having an OBE. (However, if that is the case, why would you be involved in this NG?) If you are interested in the area then, IMHO, it makes more sense to attempt to have the experience than to argue about whether or not such experiences can be scientifically proven. If you can induce the experience that people here claim to have had, then you will some first-hand knowledge of what that is and be in a poistion to evaluate it. I will remind you that I have never had an OBE but am in the early stages of trying to induce such experiences. All you are doing, it seems to me, is attempting to reinforce your current belief system. Of course some of the responders to your posts say stuff that doesn't make sense. On every NG on the net there are logical people and there are those who are not. However, you seem to focus only the responses of the latter, which is not very "scientific" is you ask me. Peter Davies ###### From: johnf@melbpc.org.au (John Fitzsimons) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE conclusion Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 21:23:34 GMT Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia Lines: 24 Message-ID: <36499a89.16739476@news.melbpc.org.au> References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: b3-22.melbpc.org.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news.tele2.nl!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mel.connect.com.au!news2.melbpc.org.au!not-for-mail On Wed, 04 Nov 1998 10:58:13 +0000, Joseph Buggy wrote: < snip > >2) OBE is a delusional state in which >subjects believe they are flying around observing things, but are in >fact not. To me the simplest, and therefore most likely explanation is >number 2. Then why waste your time reading this newsgroup ? If your interest is "science" then there are plenty of science newsgroups for you to read. Regards, John. **************************************************** ,-._|\ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia. / Oz \ johnf@melbpc.org.au, Fidonet 3:632/309 \_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm v http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/ ###### Message-ID: <3645F963.66B1@geocities.com> From: Life-Saver Reply-To: life-saver@geocities.com Organization: none X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE conclusion References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> <36499a89.16739476@news.melbpc.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 17 Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 20:06:07 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.172.247.40 NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 15:06:07 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!news.tele2.nl!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!206.172.150.11!news1.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail John Fitzsimons wrote: > > On Wed, 04 Nov 1998 10:58:13 +0000, Joseph Buggy > wrote: > > < snip > > > >2) OBE is a delusional state in which > >subjects believe they are flying around observing things, but are in > >fact not. To me the simplest, and therefore most likely explanation is > >number 2. > > Then why waste your time reading this newsgroup ? If your interest is > "science" then there are plenty of science newsgroups for you to read. > Yeah! try it yourself and give your advice AFTER not before there is more to science than physic! ###### From: cmankey666@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE conclusion Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 04:25:34 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 22 Message-ID: <72o9fu$i0g$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> <71tdsv$p9n$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.175.189.178 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Nov 16 04:25:34 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.04 (Win16; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x1.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 152.175.189.178 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!btnet-peer!btnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!209.95.128.196!news-nyc.telia.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail In article <71tdsv$p9n$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sterno@bigbrother.net wrote: > > > > Why does it matter? If an OBE is a delusional state, who cares? If people > around the world achieve enlightenment through OBE, then what does it matter > if it is real or not. It's like asking if God is real. If you believe in > God and it adds something to your life, what does it matter if it is real. > > Personally I believe OBE's are real. > Who the hell cares about truth, right! If an obe is a delusional state, what the hell kind of enlightement is that? Are you so self-absorbed that you think that makes any sense at all? If god isn't real, then why would you believe? Because it feels good? I've an idea, get some astroglide and a towel and leave the rest of us alone! > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ###### From: drsagan11@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OBE conclusion Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 04:46:45 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 130 Message-ID: <72oanl$j4t$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <36403321.41D0018E@axyspharm.com> <3641781A.BB592B75@hotmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.175.189.178 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Nov 16 04:46:45 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.04 (Win16; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x1.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 152.175.189.178 Path: chonsp.franklin.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 In article <3641781A.BB592B75@hotmail.com>, Lucid wrote: > > --------------6D011F4A454240D50905C687 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Joseph Buggy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Again, unlikely. The test is agreed upon by both parties, as well as > > exactly what will constitute a negative result, and what will constitute > > a positive result. Applicants can try as many times as they like, and > > it doesn't cost them anything except costs incurred in transportation to > > the institute. Given the many people who claim to OBE regularly, and > > are experts at it, it seems unlikely that absolutely no one can do it > > when James Randi is around, ever. > > We claimed to be able to get out of our body. We didn't said that we get > out and end up in "this" physical world everytime...did we? > > > > Hmm, show you what? Show me how you process your emotion such as love. > well? How do you know it's real then. A Ph.D. like yourself should be able > to figure that out. > > > Gee, love is the same as claiming you can seperate you mind from your body? Are you really that confused about things are you? If you can do this, why can't you have your "insight" verified by other means? I have a number and a col >on my fridge. If you can tell me what they are then WOW if not then GROW UP NOW!! Your making a empirical claim and it has to be verified EMPIRICALLY, other wise what kind of powers do you have? Wow look, he has amazing powers of self deception, Huzzah! I'll help you test this if you contact me by E mail, but if you are a coward please don't bother me, I have a life! > --------------6D011F4A454240D50905C687 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > >   > >

Joseph Buggy wrote: >

Q:  Why don't people who can OBE demonstrate > this to James Randi, and >
collect one million dollars?  It is a simple question.
> I know, it's so simple isn't...according to your logic...but if you ever > have an oobe, you'll know that you don't always end up in this physical > world, or even if you manage to end up in this physical world, there still > a matter of time, you may be in the past or in the future, etc, etc. >
The arguments I've been hearing fall primarily into > two groups: >
1) People who can OBE are too at peace with themselves to bother with >
something as mundane and worldly as money.
> That is partly true, who need money when you know for sure that you don't > die...meaning becoming nonexistence when your physical body no longer able > to support you.  Think deeply about it for a second? You're a Ph.D., > I am sure you are capable of such task. >
This to me is unlikely.  Even if you don't care > for money, wouldn't you >
at least donate it to the sick, hungry, or needy?
> I guess you're right.  But again, you are assuming that it's a given.  > Maybe you should try the alt.stargate. ng. >
2) the tests that James Randi proposes are too difficult, > and it's hard >
to relax enough to OBE when someone is watching. > >

Again, unlikely.  The test is agreed upon by both parties, as well > as >
exactly what will constitute a negative result, and what will constitute >
a positive result.  Applicants can try as many times as they like, > and >
it doesn't cost them anything except costs incurred in transportation > to >
the institute.  Given the many people who claim to OBE regularly, > and >
are experts at it, it seems unlikely that absolutely no one can do > it >
when James Randi is around, ever.

> We claimed to be able to get out of our body.  We didn't said that > we get out and end up in "this" physical world everytime...did we? >
My conclusion is either that 1) OBE exists, but cannot > be demonstrated >
in a controlled setting ever, or 2) OBE is a delusional state in which >
subjects believe they are flying around observing things, but are in >
fact not.  To me the simplest, and therefore most likely explanation > is >
number 2.
> I think you're right again.  The simplest answer would be #2.  > But is it a good answer? If you know for sure that your beliefs are true, > then why hang around here for?  Whether you believe or not is irrelevant.  > We still have a great time here, and you will still wonder if you have > missed something by jumping into such an early conclusion...now, is this > how a Ph.D. suppose to act? >
Science doesn't have an axe to grind.  If OBE > is real, show us.
> Hmm, show you what?  Show me how you process your emotion such as > love.  well?  How do you know it's real then.  A Ph.D. like > yourself should be able to figure that out. >
Visit this web site for more information: >
http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.ht > Thanks for the advertisement, I am sure James is glad that he have a new > follower. >
Joseph J. Buggy, Ph.D.
>  Ph.D--It's a good tittle, does it come with close mind also? > >

lucid > > --------------6D011F4A454240D50905C687-- > > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own