From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 03:08:43 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 86 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!psinet-eu-nl!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58308 This is a fascinating and informative discussion, but I feel that it is drifting away slightly from the point: which is how we can account for out-of-body experiences, meaning the mind actually leaving the body, within the context of current scientific knowledge. It seems to me that those who look to the more esoteric reaches of relativity, quantum or superstring theories for possible explanations are making a kind of God-of-the-gaps argument. For those who don't know, the phrase "God of the gaps" was coined by Charles Alfred Coulson - a professor of mathematics at Oxford University and a Methodist lay preacher - and refers to the problem science poses for religion. Put simply, the problem is that, as science has been able to provide natural explanations for more and more of the Universe, God - as a possible explanation - has been confined to the narrowing gaps in our knowledge - hence "God of the gaps". Essentially, people who point to the poorly-understood areas of quantum theory as a possible source of an explanation are admitting that OOBEs can't be explained by conventional physics. They are just hoping that one will emerge from the gaps in our current understanding. The trouble is that, before you start to look for an explanation, you should have something that needs to be explained. In other words, although we have many subjective accounts of OOBEs, it has yet to be established they are anything other than psychological phenomena. Until we have persuasive evidence that the mind - or some part of it - actually detaches itself from the body and moves around independently, there is no need to look to quantum or any other theory for an explanation. Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive evidence. There is also another aspect to this problem which has been overlooked so far. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that something does leave the body then what is it? It doesn't appear to be physical - it isn't matter - since the accounts agree that the physical body remains unharmed where it was left at the beginning of the experience. Could it be energy - a sort of noncorporeal entity rather like the pure energy beings that crop up in Star Trek every now and then? I suspect this is what people envisage when they think about something leaving the body during an OOBE but does it make sense? Staying with Star Trek for a moment, imagine that I am zapped by a fiendish alien ray-gun. It doesn't vaporise me but disassembles my body cell by cell so that I'm left as a disgusting pile of gunk on the ground. Would that pile still be me? I assume that most people would agree that it wouldn't, but why not? After all, everything that made up my body would still be there, it wasn't destroyed. The answer, of course, is that it isn't the amount of matter that makes me - or any one else - an individual, it's the way that the matter is organised. We exist as arrangements or patterns of matter and energy, and if that pattern is lost then so are we. This applies to the brain and, therefore, the mind as well. I believe that the mind is a property of the physical brain, some don't, but either way we are talking about an incredibly-intricate and highly-organised organ. The memories, emotions and thoughts which make up our unique personalities exist in the pattern of electrical activity in the brain. The question is: could that pattern exist just as energy, apart from the brain, and remain stable? Let's consider a computer and its software as a crude analogue of the brain and the mind. Imagine the computer hooked up to a radio transmitter. We decide to send some files to another person but, unknown to us, their receiver is switched off when we transmit. What happens to those transmitted files? Basically, the radio beam fans out from the antenna becoming ever weaker and more attenuated the further away it gets, until it disappears forever in the background radio noise of the universe. The pattern is lost. Another problem is that the mind is not just a file of data but much more like a program or suite of programs. You can send programs as files over a radio link but they don't start to run in mid-air. They only work when they are downloaded and run on the physical computer. If you think about it, a pattern, be it a piece of music or a work of art or a human personality, can only exist for any length of time when stored within some form of physical matrix. You can't store a pattern, or run a program, in free energy which makes it very difficult to conceive of a non-corporeal mind roaming around free of the body and fully conscious. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 67 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: +L2tqBLMtci2+aVDUFEGsnFLzVwr0etjDDuKp2j7u0/W6NcVRk2hiL2G4KXGxkXzFYMgZ/SxPAHF!yn06Y3wapy5pJv/VbmRe9FjuBr1gxxgl45kCoqz9BetCvtoUXpUd9fSNoH6BVUrK6uVEMb0BDrUz!RwHEj0Z7 X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 05:44:00 GMT Distribution: world Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 05:44:00 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58322 Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net>... >This is a fascinating and informative discussion, but I feel that it >is drifting away slightly from the point: which is how we can account >for out-of-body experiences, meaning the mind actually leaving the >body, within the context of current scientific knowledge. That is only one angle in which to view it. There are many of us who don't believe that the mind, awareness, consciousness, or whatever .. leaves the body at all. >It seems to me that those who look to the more esoteric reaches of >relativity, quantum or superstring theories for possible explanations >are making a kind of God-of-the-gaps argument. For those who don't >know, the phrase "God of the gaps" was coined by Charles Alfred >Coulson - a professor of mathematics at Oxford University and a >Methodist lay preacher - and refers to the problem science poses for >religion. Put simply, the problem is that, as science has been able >to provide natural explanations for more and more of the Universe, God >- as a possible explanation - has been confined to the narrowing gaps >in our knowledge - hence "God of the gaps". Essentially, people who >point to the poorly-understood areas of quantum theory as a possible >source of an explanation are admitting that OOBEs can't be explained >by conventional physics. They are just hoping that one will emerge >from the gaps in our current understanding. Gotcha. But there is a reason why alternate explanations are sought. Ultimately, the question comes up ... how does this consciousness work? (not how does it leave the body) ...... >The trouble is that, before you start to look for an explanation, you >should have something that needs to be explained. Yes. Conscious awareness. >In other words, >although we have many subjective accounts of OOBEs, it has yet to be >established they are anything other than psychological phenomena. >Until we have persuasive evidence that the mind - or some part of it - >actually detaches itself from the body and moves around independently, >there is no need to look to quantum or any other theory for an >explanation. Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive >evidence. Nothing has to leave the body. I don't even think that's the crucial point. OBEs are a highly conscious experience. Maybe (and I do say maybe) even more so than an awake state. Why? Because in order to keep the experience going, an 'active' consciousness must constantly be applied. While awake, we needn't worry about it ... we have our senses that continually supply support ... so our awareness levels can fluctuate with no real recourse on our actual experience. This is not how it occurs with OBEs. Any fluctuation can cause the experience to cease, to become a dream .. or you may wake up. In essence, it is consciousness existing where no consciousness 'should' occur. Now, just about any book or topic I read concerning quantum physics touches on the topic of consciousness. It is just about the only arena in which I know it is even discussed. Is it so dramatic a leap to want to understand it's nature, and or how it may apply to OBEs? ###### From: Haunter@castles.com (Haunter) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 07:01:21 GMT Organization: A.S.I./Psi -App/WCS Lines: 99 Message-ID: <3a43b4ae.664572645@cnews.newsguy.com> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-695.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews2 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58314 On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 05:44:00 GMT, "Trish" wrote: > >Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net>... >>This is a fascinating and informative discussion, but I feel that it >>is drifting away slightly from the point: which is how we can account >>for out-of-body experiences, meaning the mind actually leaving the >>body, within the context of current scientific knowledge. > >That is only one angle in which to view it. There are many of us who don't >believe that the mind, awareness, consciousness, or whatever .. leaves the >body at all. > > >>It seems to me that those who look to the more esoteric reaches of >>relativity, quantum or superstring theories for possible explanations >>are making a kind of God-of-the-gaps argument. For those who don't >>know, the phrase "God of the gaps" was coined by Charles Alfred >>Coulson - a professor of mathematics at Oxford University and a >>Methodist lay preacher - and refers to the problem science poses for >>religion. Put simply, the problem is that, as science has been able >>to provide natural explanations for more and more of the Universe, God >>- as a possible explanation - has been confined to the narrowing gaps >>in our knowledge - hence "God of the gaps". Essentially, people who >>point to the poorly-understood areas of quantum theory as a possible >>source of an explanation are admitting that OOBEs can't be explained >>by conventional physics. They are just hoping that one will emerge >>from the gaps in our current understanding. > >Gotcha. But there is a reason why alternate explanations are sought. > >Ultimately, the question comes up ... how does this consciousness work? >(not how does it leave the body) ...... > > >>The trouble is that, before you start to look for an explanation, you >>should have something that needs to be explained. > >Yes. Conscious awareness. > >>In other words, >>although we have many subjective accounts of OOBEs, it has yet to be >>established they are anything other than psychological phenomena. >>Until we have persuasive evidence that the mind - or some part of it - >>actually detaches itself from the body and moves around independently, >>there is no need to look to quantum or any other theory for an >>explanation. Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive >>evidence. > > >Nothing has to leave the body. I don't even think that's the crucial point. > >OBEs are a highly conscious experience. Maybe (and I do say maybe) even >more so than an awake state. Why? Because in order to keep the experience >going, an 'active' consciousness must constantly be applied. > >While awake, we needn't worry about it ... we have our senses that >continually supply support ... so our awareness levels can fluctuate with no >real recourse on our actual experience. > >This is not how it occurs with OBEs. Any fluctuation can cause the >experience to cease, to become a dream .. or you may wake up. In essence, >it is consciousness existing where no consciousness 'should' occur. > >Now, just about any book or topic I read concerning quantum physics touches >on the topic of consciousness. It is just about the only arena in which I >know it is even discussed. Is it so dramatic a leap to want to understand >it's nature, and or how it may apply to OBEs? There are some intriguing glimpses into the various theories that address your question here: http://www.zynet.co.uk/imprint/Tucson/5.htm and here's one in particular that addresses the issue of what happens to "self" as we go to sleep and then also, in Lucid Dreams. Here's the first paragraph...the rest is about 3/4 down the page. The loss and recovery of ego functions during relaxed wakefulness and sleep: Some requisite design characteristics for a theory of consciousness. G.W.Baylor (Université de Montréal) This report summarizes previously published data on the decathexis of waking control and awareness during periods of relaxed wakefulness and sleep onset. It then points to the partial re-emergence of these ego functions during normative dreaming and to their potentially full re-emergence during lucid dreaming and hypnopompic awakening. There is some indication that these functions are recovered in the reverse order of their drop-out. To my knowledge, the relationship between these disparate phenenoma and data has not previously been published. -- Knowledge is the Antidote for Fear http://www.whitecrowsociety.com http://www.legendsmagazine.net/pan/rayn/rpm http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/3549/stories.htm ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 10:45:37 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a20e49b.6187460@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 89 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58304 On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 05:44:00 GMT, "Trish" wrote: > >Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net>... >>This is a fascinating and informative discussion, but I feel that it >>is drifting away slightly from the point: which is how we can account >>for out-of-body experiences, meaning the mind actually leaving the >>body, within the context of current scientific knowledge. > >That is only one angle in which to view it. There are many of us who don't >believe that the mind, awareness, consciousness, or whatever .. leaves the >body at all. I'm with you on that. I think that OOBEs are a phenomenon of the mind. It was just that there are some who appear to believe that the mind does leave the body and I wanted to discuss what I see as the problems with that point of view. >>It seems to me that those who look to the more esoteric reaches of >>relativity, quantum or superstring theories for possible explanations >>are making a kind of God-of-the-gaps argument. For those who don't >>know, the phrase "God of the gaps" was coined by Charles Alfred >>Coulson - a professor of mathematics at Oxford University and a >>Methodist lay preacher - and refers to the problem science poses for >>religion. Put simply, the problem is that, as science has been able >>to provide natural explanations for more and more of the Universe, God >>- as a possible explanation - has been confined to the narrowing gaps >>in our knowledge - hence "God of the gaps". Essentially, people who >>point to the poorly-understood areas of quantum theory as a possible >>source of an explanation are admitting that OOBEs can't be explained >>by conventional physics. They are just hoping that one will emerge >>from the gaps in our current understanding. > >Gotcha. But there is a reason why alternate explanations are sought. > >Ultimately, the question comes up ... how does this consciousness work? >(not how does it leave the body) ...... That's the fascinating question. If you can lay your hands on the November 18th issue of New Scientist, they have a big feature discusing just that, as well as the cover feature examining human visual perception and memory. >>The trouble is that, before you start to look for an explanation, you >>should have something that needs to be explained. > >Yes. Conscious awareness. > >>In other words, >>although we have many subjective accounts of OOBEs, it has yet to be >>established they are anything other than psychological phenomena. >>Until we have persuasive evidence that the mind - or some part of it - >>actually detaches itself from the body and moves around independently, >>there is no need to look to quantum or any other theory for an >>explanation. Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive >>evidence. > > >Nothing has to leave the body. I don't even think that's the crucial point. > >OBEs are a highly conscious experience. Maybe (and I do say maybe) even >more so than an awake state. Why? Because in order to keep the experience >going, an 'active' consciousness must constantly be applied. > >While awake, we needn't worry about it ... we have our senses that >continually supply support ... so our awareness levels can fluctuate with no >real recourse on our actual experience. > >This is not how it occurs with OBEs. Any fluctuation can cause the >experience to cease, to become a dream .. or you may wake up. In essence, >it is consciousness existing where no consciousness 'should' occur. > >Now, just about any book or topic I read concerning quantum physics touches >on the topic of consciousness. It is just about the only arena in which I >know it is even discussed. Is it so dramatic a leap to want to understand >it's nature, and or how it may apply to OBEs? Not at all. If quantum theory can be applied to the explanation of consciousness then it's a route that should be followed as far as it can take us. It's just that people of, shall we say, a more mystical bent have been drawn to the mysterious and counter-intuitive nature of the quantum world as a source of explanations for paranormal phenomena. There's undoubtedly a lot of interesting theorizing going on, but I think we're still some way off finding evidence for telepathy, for example, in quantum theory. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <3a43b4ae.664572645@cnews.newsguy.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 112 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /wsX0IVLu14j9AzQTNcTNbayC2iE7Vi26qQ1uXOu885m/y98jf4dZpa4iaz5L9gRMfFOCZV2751D!TbVhVck8Lo/oq4PX67CtK8fDB94bpxEaY8dS1ULRxHyKcT4tKPtTrLPzCThBkg79+xHNf0Kmd436!P+Op0WjUnw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 17:46:10 GMT Distribution: world Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 17:46:15 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58319 (On top) Thanks Haunter. I'll check it out over a cup of tea this evening. Haunter wrote in message <3a43b4ae.664572645@cnews.newsguy.com>... >On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 05:44:00 GMT, "Trish" wrote: > >> >>Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net>... >>>This is a fascinating and informative discussion, but I feel that it >>>is drifting away slightly from the point: which is how we can account >>>for out-of-body experiences, meaning the mind actually leaving the >>>body, within the context of current scientific knowledge. >> >>That is only one angle in which to view it. There are many of us who don't >>believe that the mind, awareness, consciousness, or whatever .. leaves the >>body at all. >> >> >>>It seems to me that those who look to the more esoteric reaches of >>>relativity, quantum or superstring theories for possible explanations >>>are making a kind of God-of-the-gaps argument. For those who don't >>>know, the phrase "God of the gaps" was coined by Charles Alfred >>>Coulson - a professor of mathematics at Oxford University and a >>>Methodist lay preacher - and refers to the problem science poses for >>>religion. Put simply, the problem is that, as science has been able >>>to provide natural explanations for more and more of the Universe, God >>>- as a possible explanation - has been confined to the narrowing gaps >>>in our knowledge - hence "God of the gaps". Essentially, people who >>>point to the poorly-understood areas of quantum theory as a possible >>>source of an explanation are admitting that OOBEs can't be explained >>>by conventional physics. They are just hoping that one will emerge >>>from the gaps in our current understanding. >> >>Gotcha. But there is a reason why alternate explanations are sought. >> >>Ultimately, the question comes up ... how does this consciousness work? >>(not how does it leave the body) ...... >> >> >>>The trouble is that, before you start to look for an explanation, you >>>should have something that needs to be explained. >> >>Yes. Conscious awareness. >> >>>In other words, >>>although we have many subjective accounts of OOBEs, it has yet to be >>>established they are anything other than psychological phenomena. >>>Until we have persuasive evidence that the mind - or some part of it - >>>actually detaches itself from the body and moves around independently, >>>there is no need to look to quantum or any other theory for an >>>explanation. Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive >>>evidence. >> >> >>Nothing has to leave the body. I don't even think that's the crucial point. >> >>OBEs are a highly conscious experience. Maybe (and I do say maybe) even >>more so than an awake state. Why? Because in order to keep the experience >>going, an 'active' consciousness must constantly be applied. >> >>While awake, we needn't worry about it ... we have our senses that >>continually supply support ... so our awareness levels can fluctuate with no >>real recourse on our actual experience. >> >>This is not how it occurs with OBEs. Any fluctuation can cause the >>experience to cease, to become a dream .. or you may wake up. In essence, >>it is consciousness existing where no consciousness 'should' occur. >> >>Now, just about any book or topic I read concerning quantum physics touches >>on the topic of consciousness. It is just about the only arena in which I >>know it is even discussed. Is it so dramatic a leap to want to understand >>it's nature, and or how it may apply to OBEs? > >There are some intriguing glimpses into the various theories that >address your question here: >http://www.zynet.co.uk/imprint/Tucson/5.htm > >and here's one in particular that addresses the issue of what happens >to "self" as we go to sleep and then also, in Lucid Dreams. Here's the >first paragraph...the rest is about 3/4 down the page. > >The loss and recovery of ego functions during relaxed wakefulness and >sleep: Some requisite design characteristics for a theory of >consciousness. > >G.W.Baylor (Université de Montréal) > >This report summarizes previously published data on the decathexis of >waking control and awareness during periods of relaxed >wakefulness and sleep onset. It then points to the partial >re-emergence of these ego functions during normative dreaming and to >their potentially full re-emergence during lucid dreaming and >hypnopompic awakening. There is some indication that these >functions are recovered in the reverse order of their drop-out. To my >knowledge, the relationship between these disparate >phenenoma and data has not previously been published. > > >-- >Knowledge is the Antidote for Fear >http://www.whitecrowsociety.com >http://www.legendsmagazine.net/pan/rayn/rpm >http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/3549/stories.htm ###### From: "Santee" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <3a43b4ae.664572645@cnews.newsguy.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 127 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:54:13 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.46.129.25 X-Complaints-To: abuse@alpha.net X-Trace: homer.alpha.net 975261227 156.46.129.25 (Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:53:47 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:53:47 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!homer.alpha.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58305 Trish wrote in message ... >(On top) > >Thanks Haunter. I'll check it out over a cup of tea this evening. Tea? Yechhhh.... Oh, and is that before, or after...*supper*? ; ) B.D. > > >Haunter wrote in message <3a43b4ae.664572645@cnews.newsguy.com>... >>On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 05:44:00 GMT, "Trish" wrote: >> >>> >>>Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net>... >>>>This is a fascinating and informative discussion, but I feel that it >>>>is drifting away slightly from the point: which is how we can account >>>>for out-of-body experiences, meaning the mind actually leaving the >>>>body, within the context of current scientific knowledge. >>> >>>That is only one angle in which to view it. There are many of us who >don't >>>believe that the mind, awareness, consciousness, or whatever .. leaves the >>>body at all. >>> >>> >>>>It seems to me that those who look to the more esoteric reaches of >>>>relativity, quantum or superstring theories for possible explanations >>>>are making a kind of God-of-the-gaps argument. For those who don't >>>>know, the phrase "God of the gaps" was coined by Charles Alfred >>>>Coulson - a professor of mathematics at Oxford University and a >>>>Methodist lay preacher - and refers to the problem science poses for >>>>religion. Put simply, the problem is that, as science has been able >>>>to provide natural explanations for more and more of the Universe, God >>>>- as a possible explanation - has been confined to the narrowing gaps >>>>in our knowledge - hence "God of the gaps". Essentially, people who >>>>point to the poorly-understood areas of quantum theory as a possible >>>>source of an explanation are admitting that OOBEs can't be explained >>>>by conventional physics. They are just hoping that one will emerge >>>>from the gaps in our current understanding. >>> >>>Gotcha. But there is a reason why alternate explanations are sought. >>> >>>Ultimately, the question comes up ... how does this consciousness work? >>>(not how does it leave the body) ...... >>> >>> >>>>The trouble is that, before you start to look for an explanation, you >>>>should have something that needs to be explained. >>> >>>Yes. Conscious awareness. >>> >>>>In other words, >>>>although we have many subjective accounts of OOBEs, it has yet to be >>>>established they are anything other than psychological phenomena. >>>>Until we have persuasive evidence that the mind - or some part of it - >>>>actually detaches itself from the body and moves around independently, >>>>there is no need to look to quantum or any other theory for an >>>>explanation. Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive >>>>evidence. >>> >>> >>>Nothing has to leave the body. I don't even think that's the crucial >point. >>> >>>OBEs are a highly conscious experience. Maybe (and I do say maybe) even >>>more so than an awake state. Why? Because in order to keep the >experience >>>going, an 'active' consciousness must constantly be applied. >>> >>>While awake, we needn't worry about it ... we have our senses that >>>continually supply support ... so our awareness levels can fluctuate with >no >>>real recourse on our actual experience. >>> >>>This is not how it occurs with OBEs. Any fluctuation can cause the >>>experience to cease, to become a dream .. or you may wake up. In essence, >>>it is consciousness existing where no consciousness 'should' occur. >>> >>>Now, just about any book or topic I read concerning quantum physics >touches >>>on the topic of consciousness. It is just about the only arena in which >I >>>know it is even discussed. Is it so dramatic a leap to want to understand >>>it's nature, and or how it may apply to OBEs? >> >>There are some intriguing glimpses into the various theories that >>address your question here: >>http://www.zynet.co.uk/imprint/Tucson/5.htm >> >>and here's one in particular that addresses the issue of what happens >>to "self" as we go to sleep and then also, in Lucid Dreams. Here's the >>first paragraph...the rest is about 3/4 down the page. >> >>The loss and recovery of ego functions during relaxed wakefulness and >>sleep: Some requisite design characteristics for a theory of >>consciousness. >> >>G.W.Baylor (Université de Montréal) >> >>This report summarizes previously published data on the decathexis of >>waking control and awareness during periods of relaxed >>wakefulness and sleep onset. It then points to the partial >>re-emergence of these ego functions during normative dreaming and to >>their potentially full re-emergence during lucid dreaming and >>hypnopompic awakening. There is some indication that these >>functions are recovered in the reverse order of their drop-out. To my >>knowledge, the relationship between these disparate >>phenenoma and data has not previously been published. >> >> >>-- >>Knowledge is the Antidote for Fear >>http://www.whitecrowsociety.com >>http://www.legendsmagazine.net/pan/rayn/rpm >>http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/3549/stories.htm > ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: 26 Nov 2000 23:00:10 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 206 Message-ID: <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 975276010 1091 10.0.3.2 (26 Nov 2000 22:00:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Nov 2000 22:00:10 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58331 ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) writes: > how we can account > for out-of-body experiences, meaning the mind actually leaving the > body, within the context of current scientific knowledge. Possibly we can't. History contains multiple cases where it was impossible to account for an phemomen within (then) current science. That is what brought us the relativity and quantum revolutions. One should, based on this experience, keep ones mind open, that OOBE may well turn out to be such an phenomen that requires such an change to be understood. It has happened before, in more unexpected places (accelerated electrons really did not look like something strange, before relativity strook at v->c). And quarks made at least one physicist exclaim "who ordered this!". > are making a kind of God-of-the-gaps argument. For those who don't > > to provide natural explanations for more and more of the Universe, God > - as a possible explanation - has been confined to the narrowing gaps > in our knowledge - hence "God of the gaps". When looking for explanations for what is happening _inside_ the universe, yes. Materialism seems to suffice for all of this. AFAIK for any explanations _why_the_universe_exists_ (or related, why it has the particular behaviour we observe and model with our theoires) there has been no narrowing to gaps. The issue is still completely unsolved and open. This "gap" will turn out to be important further down in my argument, at (1). > Essentially, people who > point to the poorly-understood areas of quantum theory as a possible > source of an explanation are admitting that OOBEs can't be explained > by conventional physics. The word "admitting" suggests these people were trying to claim that OBE is physical and have now been forced to give this up. AFAIK most paranormal believers never claimed OBE to be explained within the (current) physical. The word "assuming" would be a better fit here, for what they do. > They are just hoping that one will emerge > from the gaps in our current understanding. Which includes that one _big_ gap of what is "behind" the physics. That is where most of the paranormalist seem to be pointing to, as far as I understand their views. > The trouble is that, before you start to look for an explanation, you > should have something that needs to be explained. In other words, > although we have many subjective accounts of OOBEs, it has yet to be > established they are anything other than psychological phenomena. Nor has it been established that it is an psychological phenomena. At the moment it is still an "unknown". It _may_ be psychological, it _may_ not be. Until no one manages to falsify one of these two interpretations any open minded person should keep both in mind. > Until we have persuasive evidence that the mind - or some part of it - > actually detaches itself from the body and moves around independently, Or may have never been attached. It may be something independent, that just is usually focused on the body. Here again: it _may_ be, it _may_ not be, better keep ones mind open. > There is also another aspect to this problem which has been overlooked > so far. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that something does > leave the body then what is it? It doesn't appear to be physical - it > isn't matter IMHO that can be today regarded as observed behaviour. The "weighing souls of dying people" stuff can be regarded as failled. > - since the accounts agree that the physical body remains > unharmed where it was left at the beginning of the experience. That would not deny matter. One can immagine a design, where part of the matter leaves the body and the rest remains unharmed (just with reduced powers), like disconnecting an computer from an peripheral. A better piece of evidence would be, that no one has managed to detect anything leaving with any form of equipement that detects matter. > Could > it be energy - a sort of noncorporeal entity rather like the pure > energy beings that crop up in Star Trek every now and then? Possibly. That would be the "dualist" interpretation. > I suspect > this is what people envisage when they think about something leaving > the body during an OOBE Some do, Others take an always-external agent that unfocuses from the body, thus generating an "movement" sensation. > ground. Would that pile still be me? I assume that most people would > agree that it wouldn't, but why not? After all, everything that made > up my body would still be there, it wasn't destroyed. The answer, of > course, is that it isn't the amount of matter that makes me Jump from "my body" to "me". That _may_ be not the same thing. "me" _may_ be more than "my body" (_may_ also be not). > one else - an individual, it's the way that the matter is organised. > We exist as arrangements or patterns of matter and energy, That makes the body. The body exists as patterns of matter and energy. The "other thing" (if it exists) we dont know what it consists of. > and if that > pattern is lost then so are we. So is the body lost. If a hypothetical "non-body" retains _its_ arrangement (of what ever that exists of) it would not be lost. That is exactly the point paranormalists are making, AFAIK. > This applies to the brain and, therefore, the mind as well. I believe > that the mind is a property of the physical brain, some don't, but > either way we are talking about an incredibly-intricate and > highly-organised organ. Yes. > The memories, emotions and thoughts which > make up our unique personalities exist in the pattern of electrical > activity in the brain. And then a jump to something speculative. Any dualist or spiritist will exactly argue, that there exists an additional non-material structure that contains at least part of the pattern. > The question is: could that pattern exist just > as energy, apart from the brain, and remain stable? Running on some other (unknown, non brain) structure? > Another problem is that the mind is not just a file of data but much > more like a program or suite of programs. Actually a process (= a program in execution). In addition to program code you also have an execution state. The later is actually a better analog for an personality, as we are talking about parallel logic here and not sequential code. > They > only work when they are downloaded and run on the physical computer. Or an other (unknown to present science) non-physical structure that can process state. > stored within some form of physical matrix. You can't store a > pattern, or run a program, in free energy which makes it very > difficult to conceive of a non-corporeal mind roaming around free of > the body and fully conscious. Or some non-physical equivalent. Continuing from (1): what does the universe run on? For this unknown = ??? we can imagine 3 variants of arrangement: - mind on matter on ??? = materialism - mind and matter on ??? = dualism - matter on mind on ??? = spiritism Up to the present time there exist no known method of proving (or falsifying) any of these 3 on the base of observation. (It is possible to declare any one for false if one declares any other one as axiom, but that is not an logically defendable possition.) So for the moment all three are valid views. Materialists _chose_ the first. Paranormalists _chose_ the second or third. Skeptics (at least real ones) keep in their mind, that this is undecided, and that their choice is just that: a personal choice. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Nerd, Geek, Hacker, Unix Guru, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, LARPer, Mystic ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:01:22 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a22ee07.11072134@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 238 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58430 On 26 Nov 2000 23:00:10 +0100, Neil Franklin wrote: >ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) writes: > >> how we can account >> for out-of-body experiences, meaning the mind actually leaving the >> body, within the context of current scientific knowledge. > >Possibly we can't. > >History contains multiple cases where it was impossible to account for >an phemomen within (then) current science. That is what brought us the >relativity and quantum revolutions. One should, based on this >experience, keep ones mind open, that OOBE may well turn out to be >such an phenomen that requires such an change to be understood. Relativity and quantum theories arose from the inability of existing theories to account for observed phenomena. If OOBEs, in the sense of the mind leaving the body, are established by observation then we might have to look to something like quantum theory to provide an explanation, but the first step must be to demonstrate that such a phenomenon exists. I think the anecdotal evidence for OOBEs is very interesting but, as things stand, it seems to be a psychological rather than a physical phenomenon. >> are making a kind of God-of-the-gaps argument. For those who don't >> >> to provide natural explanations for more and more of the Universe, God >> - as a possible explanation - has been confined to the narrowing gaps >> in our knowledge - hence "God of the gaps". > >When looking for explanations for what is happening _inside_ the >universe, yes. Materialism seems to suffice for all of this. > >AFAIK for any explanations _why_the_universe_exists_ (or related, why >it has the particular behaviour we observe and model with our theoires) >there has been no narrowing to gaps. The issue is still completely >unsolved and open. I agree. >This "gap" will turn out to be important further down in my argument, >at (1). > > >> Essentially, people who >> point to the poorly-understood areas of quantum theory as a possible >> source of an explanation are admitting that OOBEs can't be explained >> by conventional physics. > >The word "admitting" suggests these people were trying to claim that >OBE is physical and have now been forced to give this up. > >AFAIK most paranormal believers never claimed OBE to be explained >within the (current) physical. The word "assuming" would be a better >fit here, for what they do. Fair enough. >> They are just hoping that one will emerge >> from the gaps in our current understanding. > >Which includes that one _big_ gap of what is "behind" the physics. That >is where most of the paranormalist seem to be pointing to, as far as I >understand their views. There are certainly some paranormalists who would like OOBEs to exist since they would provide evidence for an afterlife in which they already believe. Unfortunately for them, neither OOBEs nor some form of afterlife have been demonstrated so any attempt to argue from one to the other is doomed to be circular. >> The trouble is that, before you start to look for an explanation, you >> should have something that needs to be explained. In other words, >> although we have many subjective accounts of OOBEs, it has yet to be >> established they are anything other than psychological phenomena. > >Nor has it been established that it is an psychological phenomena. > >At the moment it is still an "unknown". It _may_ be psychological, >it _may_ not be. Until no one manages to falsify one of these two >interpretations any open minded person should keep both in mind. I'm not excluding either possibility. I just think that on the basis of what we know about the way the mind works it is more probable, at present, that it is a psychological phenomenon. >> Until we have persuasive evidence that the mind - or some part of it - >> actually detaches itself from the body and moves around independently, > >Or may have never been attached. It may be something independent, that >just is usually focused on the body. Here again: it _may_ be, it _may_ >not be, better keep ones mind open. It might be a lot of things, but until we have evidence for the phenomenon such speculation is pointless. >> There is also another aspect to this problem which has been overlooked >> so far. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that something does >> leave the body then what is it? It doesn't appear to be physical - it >> isn't matter > >IMHO that can be today regarded as observed behaviour. The "weighing >souls of dying people" stuff can be regarded as failled. > > >> - since the accounts agree that the physical body remains >> unharmed where it was left at the beginning of the experience. > >That would not deny matter. One can immagine a design, where part of >the matter leaves the body and the rest remains unharmed (just with >reduced powers), like disconnecting an computer from an peripheral. > >A better piece of evidence would be, that no one has managed to detect >anything leaving with any form of equipement that detects matter. > > >> Could >> it be energy - a sort of noncorporeal entity rather like the pure >> energy beings that crop up in Star Trek every now and then? > >Possibly. That would be the "dualist" interpretation. > > >> I suspect >> this is what people envisage when they think about something leaving >> the body during an OOBE > >Some do, Others take an always-external agent that unfocuses from the >body, thus generating an "movement" sensation. > >> ground. Would that pile still be me? I assume that most people would >> agree that it wouldn't, but why not? After all, everything that made >> up my body would still be there, it wasn't destroyed. The answer, of >> course, is that it isn't the amount of matter that makes me > >Jump from "my body" to "me". That _may_ be not the same thing. "me" >_may_ be more than "my body" (_may_ also be not). > > >> one else - an individual, it's the way that the matter is organised. >> We exist as arrangements or patterns of matter and energy, > >That makes the body. The body exists as patterns of matter and energy. >The "other thing" (if it exists) we dont know what it consists of. > > >> and if that >> pattern is lost then so are we. > >So is the body lost. If a hypothetical "non-body" retains _its_ >arrangement (of what ever that exists of) it would not be lost. >That is exactly the point paranormalists are making, AFAIK. That's what they claim, but since they can't substantiate it we aren't obliged to take it into consideration when trying to account for OOBEs. >> This applies to the brain and, therefore, the mind as well. I believe >> that the mind is a property of the physical brain, some don't, but >> either way we are talking about an incredibly-intricate and >> highly-organised organ. > >Yes. > > >> The memories, emotions and thoughts which >> make up our unique personalities exist in the pattern of electrical >> activity in the brain. > >And then a jump to something speculative. Any dualist or spiritist >will exactly argue, that there exists an additional non-material >structure that contains at least part of the pattern. No, Occam's Razor. We would only have to postulate some non-material structure if we couldn't account for the mind as a product of the activity of the physical brain. >> The question is: could that pattern exist just >> as energy, apart from the brain, and remain stable? > >Running on some other (unknown, non brain) structure? > > >> Another problem is that the mind is not just a file of data but much >> more like a program or suite of programs. > >Actually a process (= a program in execution). In addition to program >code you also have an execution state. The later is actually a better >analog for an personality, as we are talking about parallel logic here >and not sequential code. Good point. "Process" is the better term. >> They >> only work when they are downloaded and run on the physical computer. > >Or an other (unknown to present science) non-physical structure that >can process state. > > >> stored within some form of physical matrix. You can't store a >> pattern, or run a program, in free energy which makes it very >> difficult to conceive of a non-corporeal mind roaming around free of >> the body and fully conscious. > >Or some non-physical equivalent. > > >Continuing from (1): what does the universe run on? For this unknown = >??? we can imagine 3 variants of arrangement: > >- mind on matter on ??? = materialism >- mind and matter on ??? = dualism >- matter on mind on ??? = spiritism > >Up to the present time there exist no known method of proving (or >falsifying) any of these 3 on the base of observation. (It is possible >to declare any one for false if one declares any other one as axiom, >but that is not an logically defendable possition.) > >So for the moment all three are valid views. Materialists _chose_ >the first. Paranormalists _chose_ the second or third. Skeptics (at >least real ones) keep in their mind, that this is undecided, and that >their choice is just that: a personal choice. As an agnostic sceptic, I don't deny the dualist or spiritual possibilities. However, it is possible to argue that the materialistic view is to be preferred on the grounds that it has been more successful than the other two alternatives in describing and explaining the universe. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: Babylon the Small Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 141 Message-ID: <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.224.251.27 X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Nov 28 01:24:31 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x52.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.224.251.27 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDxvizx Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58420 In article <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, Neil Franklin wrote: > ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) writes: > > > The trouble is that, before you start to look for an explanation, you > > should have something that needs to be explained. In other words, > > although we have many subjective accounts of OOBEs, it has yet to be > > established they are anything other than psychological phenomena. > > Nor has it been established that it is an psychological phenomena. > > At the moment it is still an "unknown". It _may_ be psychological, > it _may_ not be. Until no one manages to falsify one of these two > interpretations any open minded person should keep both in mind. > > > Until we have persuasive evidence that the mind - or some part of it - > > actually detaches itself from the body and moves around independently, > > Or may have never been attached. It may be something independent, that > just is usually focused on the body. Here again: it _may_ be, it _may_ > not be, better keep ones mind open. The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument is that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take seriously. IMO this question is rather like asking how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. It is about the interface between the physical world, which we are fairly sure exists, and the (alleged) non-physical world, which we obviously have no _physical_ evidence for. > > > There is also another aspect to this problem which has been overlooked > > so far. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that something does > > leave the body then what is it? It doesn't appear to be physical - it > > isn't matter > > IMHO that can be today regarded as observed behaviour. The "weighing > souls of dying people" stuff can be regarded as failled. > > > - since the accounts agree that the physical body remains > > unharmed where it was left at the beginning of the experience. > > That would not deny matter. One can immagine a design, where part of > the matter leaves the body and the rest remains unharmed (just with > reduced powers), like disconnecting an computer from an peripheral. > > A better piece of evidence would be, that no one has managed to detect > anything leaving with any form of equipement that detects matter. > > > Could > > it be energy - a sort of noncorporeal entity rather like the pure > > energy beings that crop up in Star Trek every now and then? > > Possibly. That would be the "dualist" interpretation. > My guess, if I had to guess, would be that if the mind can exist outside the body, it must be in a form that we currently cannot measure. We're pretty sure gravity exists, but we still can't measure it or polarize it or analyze it. Consider radio waves. Just because we need equipment to detect and analyze them doen't mean they don't exist. > > We exist as arrangements or patterns of matter and energy, > > That makes the body. The body exists as patterns of matter and energy. > The "other thing" (if it exists) we dont know what it consists of. > > > and if that > > pattern is lost then so are we. > > So is the body lost. If a hypothetical "non-body" retains _its_ > arrangement (of what ever that exists of) it would not be lost. > That is exactly the point paranormalists are making, AFAIK. > If there is a part of me that is more than my body, we don't know what it's made of or how it works. Given the fact that we have a dearth of information regarding whether or not it exists in any measurable form, there is not much we can do, IMO, but argue both sides of the assumption as equally possible until science tosses us a bone. > > Another problem is that the mind is not just a file of data but much > > more like a program or suite of programs. > > Actually a process (= a program in execution). In addition to program > code you also have an execution state. The later is actually a better > analog for an personality, as we are talking about parallel logic here > and not sequential code. > > > They > > only work when they are downloaded and run on the physical computer. > Ah, but do they exist as such when in transit from one such physical place to another? If yes, that could give the reincarnation believers a toehold. Can they exist--even temporarily!--as energy waves that are transmitted through space, as the beam to your satellite TV hookup? This would give the ethereal body believers an edge. > Continuing from (1): what does the universe run on? For this unknown = > ??? we can imagine 3 variants of arrangement: > > - mind on matter on ??? = materialism > - mind and matter on ??? = dualism > - matter on mind on ??? = spiritism > > Up to the present time there exist no known method of proving (or > falsifying) any of these 3 on the base of observation. (It is possible > to declare any one for false if one declares any other one as axiom, > but that is not an logically defendable possition.) > > So for the moment all three are valid views. Materialists _chose_ > the first. Paranormalists _chose_ the second or third. Skeptics (at > least real ones) keep in their mind, that this is undecided, and that > their choice is just that: a personal choice. > > -- > Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ > Nerd, Geek, Hacker, Unix Guru, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, LARPer, Mystic > Hear, hear. Bravo and such. -- "There's been a change of plans...I'm afraid the meek are going to inherit the moon." --the Far Side Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: "Bart" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:35:44 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 65 Message-ID: <8vv98u$agj$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.72.25 X-Server-Date: 28 Nov 2000 03:37:02 GMT 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!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!portc03.blue.aol.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58459 Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net>... >imagine that I am zapped by a >fiendish alien ray-gun. It doesn't vaporise me but disassembles my >body cell by cell so that I'm left as a disgusting pile of gunk on the >ground. Would that pile still be me? Actually, I think that pile would then be PZ. >I assume that most people would >agree that it wouldn't, but why not? After all, everything that made >up my body would still be there, it wasn't destroyed. So... Your body was never "you" in the first place. >Let's consider a computer and its software as a crude analogue of the >brain and the mind. Imagine the computer hooked up to a radio >transmitter. We decide to send some files to another person but, >unknown to us, their receiver is switched off when we transmit. What >happens to those transmitted files? Basically, the radio beam fans >out from the antenna becoming ever weaker and more attenuated the >further away it gets, until it disappears forever in the background >radio noise of the universe. The pattern is lost. You are speaking of a low grade energy present within the physical realm. The physical realm is just an outer shell. >Another problem is that the mind is not just a file of data but much >more like a program or suite of programs. You can send programs as >files over a radio link but they don't start to run in mid-air. They >only work when they are downloaded and run on the physical computer. The program works at its origin - which is actually beyond the physical computer. It can be found on the astral as a function that the "author" discovered while moving inward during contemplation in an effort to get a computer to perform a physical function. Think of the AC motor and its "inventor". The pattern always existed. Tesla simply saw it and learned how it worked through his inner vision. He brought this pattern from the astral into the physical. The pattern for everything in the physical existed long before anything in the physical. This would include the physical body. >If you think about it, a pattern, be it a piece of music or a work of >art or a human personality, can only exist for any length of time when >stored within some form of physical matrix. You can't store a >pattern, or run a program, in free energy which makes it very >difficult to conceive of a non-corporeal mind roaming around free of >the body and fully conscious. You are attempting to view a non-physical reality from a physical perspective. That is almost hopeless. Try viewing it from a perspective that the non-physical makes the physical possible - not the other way around. When the consciousness shifts away from the physical body, it shifts to a non-physical state that is (depending on the personal discipline of the involved consciousness) the pattern for the physical. Bart ###### From: "Bart" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:50:12 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 25 Message-ID: <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.72.25 X-Server-Date: 28 Nov 2000 03:51:33 GMT 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.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58447 Trish wrote in message ... >OBEs are a highly conscious experience. Maybe (and I do say maybe) even >more so than an awake state. Why? Because in order to keep the experience >going, an 'active' consciousness must constantly be applied. This is true. >While awake, we needn't worry about it ... we have our senses that >continually supply support ... so our awareness levels can fluctuate with no >real recourse on our actual experience. This is not true... Most of us live in a non-lucid physical existance. I'm not saying that we don't have periods of intense lucidity in our physical lives, but most of us are fairly unconscious most of the time. It is true that we may be aware of our surroundings and capable of functioning in the physical - but it doesn't mean that we are operating at our peak state of consciousness at all times. If we were, I suspect this would be a planet full of saints... Bart ###### Lines: 44 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Date: 28 Nov 2000 08:05:29 GMT References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Message-ID: <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!znr.news.ans.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58431 >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) >The trouble is that, before you start to look for an explanation, you >should have something that needs to be explained. Yet many do have such experiences and needs. Some women actually need a theory of why their father's raped them, despite Freuds smug assurance that they are delusional in thinking this occured and the failure of much of the rest of the populace to believe in such things. Some people need a theory of why you can be a discontented billionaire, despite the fact that a majority of the planet's population only knows this problem from dim reports and highly unscientific surmises of various authors, having no direct experience of it themselves. Some people need to account for oobe/nde type things. . . . >Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive >evidence. When a chemist records that precipitate first appeared after x-many liters of y-molar mixture was added, that's an anecdote. It's a highly structured anecdote if done well. When a particle physicist reviews the tracks of particles spewing out of a collision and notes that one of them takes a heck of a long time to decay, "strangely", that's an anecdote. Again, its a persuasive anecdote often because of the care revealed in the tale, but we don't all have 20 umpti-gigavolt colliders sitting in the basement to verify the existence of strange particles, so we rely on the harmony of anecdotes among a very very limited group of people who have in common some experience that lead them to believe strange particles exist. Et cetera. Much oobe reporting is not as well structured as other areas of inquiry that proceed by anecdote. But then if people with a disciplined, strucutred approach to questions about strange events practice smugness more than science, the reporters don't get support in improving their recounting of experiences and in devising ways to have experiences that are more probative. For a long time, but particularly since the mushrooming of such sneer groups as are found hovering over copies of publications like Skeptical Inquirer, it has been hard to develop a dialogue about strange experiences that don't diverge into two unproductive paths: that of subjective certainty reignant and that of smugness masquerading is scientific analysis of unusual claims. I'm open to ideas for a better Middle Way of discourse. ###### Lines: 45 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Date: 28 Nov 2000 08:28:07 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Message-ID: <20001128032807.21462.00002059@ng-fd1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!europa.netcrusader.net!208.184.7.66!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58433 >From: "Trish" capuchin@gte.net >Now, just about any book or topic I read concerning quantum physics touches >on the topic of consciousness. You need to be very very careful of quantum books discussing "consciousness". Early quantum mechanicists understood that the process of measurement involves the prospect of distortion of the observable being measured. Some of them took the path of arguing that consciousness or knowledge of the measurement is in some way important to the process of determining the outcome. This point of view ignores that nonsentient, innanimate things go around "measuring" each other all the time in any consistent science. When the moon is attracted to the earth by gravity, the moon is "measuring" the earth's gravitational pull. When a tree falls in the forest it "measures" its angle with respect to the earth, "measures" the amount of air it must force aside to fall down to a horizontal attitude, and "measures" the elasticity of the ground it falls on, etc etc. If you don't believe a tree falling in the forest when there's no one around to hear nevertheless makes a sound you don't credit physical science to begin with. Anytime you talk with a physicist who still maintains that human awareness of the outcome of any "measurement" is at all important to the outcome, ask them what the universe has been doing for the billions of years it has been bumping and grinding before humans came on the scene. Ask this with a cosmologist present so that a nice lively argument about the fictitious nature of existence prior to human awareness can be enjoyed by all. Schroedinger's cat dies or doesn't whether anyone is curious or not. Any other approach leads to teleology, an interpretation of physical actions as if they are psychologically motivated. In short, discussions of consciousness and quantum level events stem from a very bad stab at an attempt to link the two that persist to this day in the literature because its a fascinating topic, but not for good reason. As a matter of fact you need to be cautious of any quantum mechanical discussion where it isn't clear why the subject is introduced, why the energies being looked at are ballpark kT or less or the distance on the order of Angstroms or so, just as special relativity discussions where the speeds aren't near or above 40% of light speed and general relativity discussions for things taking place on human scales are all suspicious at the outset for invoking theories not really needed. That's a rough and ready world map of where the Newtonian world begins to fray at the edges and quixotic, deeper reality must make an entrance on the stage. ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 34 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:49:35 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.241.129 X-Trace: news1.atl 975419602 216.78.241.129 (Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:53:22 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:53:22 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!lmu.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed.germany.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news1.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58410 Bart wrote in message <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>... :Trish wrote in message ... : :>OBEs are a highly conscious experience. Maybe (and I do say maybe) even :>more so than an awake state. Why? Because in order to keep the experience :>going, an 'active' consciousness must constantly be applied. : :This is true. : :>While awake, we needn't worry about it ... we have our senses that :>continually supply support ... so our awareness levels can fluctuate with :no :>real recourse on our actual experience. : :This is not true... Most of us live in a non-lucid physical existance. I'm :not saying that we don't have periods of intense lucidity in our physical :lives, but most of us are fairly unconscious most of the time. It is true :that we may be aware of our surroundings and capable of functioning in the :physical - but it doesn't mean that we are operating at our peak state of :consciousness at all times. If we were, I suspect this would be a planet :full of saints... : : Or we'd all be insane. I sometimes hate thinking *too* much about things. Being *too* aware and *too* conscious of our surroundings and how awful many people are toward each other in the world. There's definitely something to ignorance being bliss in this respect. I sometimes envy the ignorant. ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 25 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:53:17 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.241.129 X-Trace: news1.atl 975419824 216.78.241.129 (Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:57:04 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:57:04 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news1.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58406 Babylon the Small wrote in message <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>... :In article <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, : Neil Franklin wrote: :> ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) writes: :> : : :My guess, if I had to guess, would be that if the mind can exist outside :the body, it must be in a form that we currently cannot measure. We're :pretty sure gravity exists, but we still can't measure it or polarize it : or analyze it. Consider radio waves. Just because we need equipment to :detect and analyze them doen't mean they don't exist. OK, I'm curious here. Hasn't there been cases where a live brain is kept in a jar or something? Yes or no? If yes, is the mind still in there.. thinking? Or what? ###### From: "Cathy Credulous" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <20001128032807.21462.00002059@ng-fd1.aol.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 19 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: <1bPU5.1361$Wn3.91104@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:20:45 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.196.233.164 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@bellatlantic.net X-Trace: typhoon2.ba-dsg.net 975421245 151.196.233.164 (Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:20:45 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:20:45 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!europa.netcrusader.net!199.45.45.8!cyclone1.ba-dsg.net!typhoon2.ba-dsg.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58446 "MarkenAdms" wrote in message news:20001128032807.21462.00002059@ng-fd1.aol.com... > >From: "Trish" capuchin@gte.net > > >Now, just about any book or topic I read concerning quantum physics touches > >on the topic of consciousness. > > You need to be very very careful of quantum books discussing "consciousness". [...] Whenever I read someone trying to connect quantum whatevers with consciousness, I get my hip-waders out in preparation for the garden path filled with deep doo-doo. -- Cathy ###### From: "Cathy Credulous" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 30 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:33:50 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.196.233.164 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@bellatlantic.net X-Trace: typhoon1.ba-dsg.net 975422030 151.196.233.164 (Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:33:50 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:33:50 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!xfer10.netnews.com!netnews.com!europa.netcrusader.net!199.45.45.8!cyclone1.ba-dsg.net!typhoon1.ba-dsg.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58439 "lorz" wrote in message news:QQOU5.4052$wA6.28451@news1.atl... > > Babylon the Small wrote in message <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>... > :In article <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, > : Neil Franklin wrote: > :> ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) writes: > :> > : > > > > : > :My guess, if I had to guess, would be that if the mind can exist outside > :the body, it must be in a form that we currently cannot measure. We're > :pretty sure gravity exists, but we still can't measure it or polarize it > : or analyze it. Consider radio waves. Just because we need equipment to > :detect and analyze them doen't mean they don't exist. > > > OK, I'm curious here. Hasn't there been cases where a live brain is kept in > a jar or something? Yes or no? If yes, is the mind still in there.. > thinking? Or what? mwahahaha! Sorry, but that really tickles me. That's got to be a myth. Cathy ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:39:36 -0600 Organization: Nailbunny's Hammer Lines: 54 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-274.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-Face: .k!7leh{iTz*Ah$8`'u'O$.4Z9+jOYL|yvi39v4fL-Un]RqYdDRAg*#o{3f|Mkzf8+}'2AmMD7_7`BM/X]H1nvmSDn*M0vfiwKn^3R[Kr_o*'>L@wBpFy>X&moPw, "lorz" wrote: > Babylon the Small wrote in message <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>... > :In article <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, > : Neil Franklin wrote: > :> ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) writes: > :> > : > > > > : > :My guess, if I had to guess, would be that if the mind can exist > :outside the body, it must be in a form that we currently cannot > :measure. We're pretty sure gravity exists, but we still can't > :measure it or polarize it or analyze it. Consider radio waves. Just > :because we need equipment to detect and analyze them doen't mean > :they don't exist. > > > OK, I'm curious here. Hasn't there been cases where a live brain is > kept in a jar or something? Yes or no? If yes, is the mind still in > there.. thinking? Or what? This is a common procedure in invertebrate research -- you can isolate the cerebral ganglion (or any old ganglion you want), and put it in a dish, independent of the body. Then you can plug electrodes into various nerves, and feed in stimuli and record output. For instance, you can generate what is called "fictive swimming" in isolated leech ganglia: the nervous tissue produces rhythmic outputs that would cause swimming if there were muscles and a body out there. This is nearly impossible to do in vertebrates. The brains are bigger and messier, and require a much more sophisticated balance of salts and hormones and proteins and whatever to maintain normal function. There are also, obviously, ethical problems. There is a Japanese researcher whose name I have blissfully forgotten who has been carrying out experiments on small mammals (cats and dogs, I think). He decapitates the animals, and then sees how long he can keep the severed heads alive (and conscious!) on either a heart/lung machine or diverted circulation from another animal. He's considered a bit of a pariah...everyone I've talked to considers those experiments highly unethical and likely to be very unproductive. I understand he has been successful in 'waking up' the heads for limited periods of time, which I understand react with signs of extreme pain and stress, as you might guess. I haven't read any of the original papers on this topic. He tends not to get published in the journals I read. -- pz ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:40:25 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-890.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58452 In article <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com>, markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: > >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) [snip] > >Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive > >evidence. > > When a chemist records that precipitate first appeared after > x-many liters of y-molar mixture was added, that's an > anecdote. It's a highly structured anecdote if done well. > When a particle physicist reviews the tracks of particles > spewing out of a collision and notes that one of them takes a > heck of a long time to decay, "strangely", that's an anecdote. > Again, its a persuasive anecdote often because of the care > revealed in the tale, but we don't all have 20 umpti-gigavolt > colliders sitting in the basement to verify the existence of > strange particles, so we rely on the harmony of anecdotes > among a very very limited group of people who have in common > some experience that lead them to believe strange particles > exist. Et cetera. No, you don't quite have it. Chemistry is not a collection of anecdotes. If, as you explained it, chemists did just mix X and Y and scribbled down what they saw, that would be anecdotal...but that's not what they do. They do a whole series of experiments, producing a quantitive body of observation. They make hypotheses about what would happen, for instance, if they mixed 2X and 1Y, or X and Z, and they test those ideas. They assemble internally consistent explanations and measurements that support those ideas, and they publish them in such a way that others can replicate and test those ideas. The physicists who have access to supercolliders are also not just collecting anecdotes. They are making and reporting observations that can be verified, and measured for consistency by an even larger group of others. Their work also leads to tentative hypotheses, and predictions are made that can be evaluated. A single observation of peculiar behavior is an anecdote, until a hypothesis is made to explain that behavior and a rational set of experiments made to test it. [snip] -- pz ###### Reply-To: "dorothy dunne" From: "dorothy dunne" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:15:20 -0800 Lines: 44 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser1087.bossig.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser1087.bossig.com Message-ID: <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> X-Trace: 28 Nov 2000 09:58:52 -0600, sanduser1087.bossig.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsnerds.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!lmu.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed.germany.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!xfer10.netnews.com!netnews.com!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!198.6.0.213!uunet!ash.uu.net!dfw.uu.net!news-out.newsnerds.com!sanduser1087.bossig.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58440 MarkenAdms wrote in message news:20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com... > >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) [snip] > Much oobe reporting is not as well structured as other areas of inquiry that > proceed by anecdote. But then if people with a disciplined, strucutred > approach to questions about strange events practice smugness more than science, > the reporters don't get support in improving their recounting of experiences > and in devising ways to have experiences that are more probative. For a long > time, but particularly since the mushrooming of such sneer groups as are found > hovering over copies of publications like Skeptical Inquirer, it has been hard > to develop a dialogue about strange experiences that don't diverge into two > unproductive paths: that of subjective certainty reignant and that of smugness > masquerading is scientific analysis of unusual claims. > > I'm open to ideas for a better Middle Way of discourse. Ah, I daresay you and Ian would be in agreement on this. There *has* been a bit of discussion on what would make for better reporting; and some anecdotes have been given *some* credence by the skeptics. I recall that Sherilyn was semi-impressed by Bruce's report that he 'saw' Trish's arm flung out above her head during an OBE "visit" many months ago (before they knew each other well...). I have also seen little negative commentary on Haunter's "bird's nest" OBE. In general, though, the climate here is fairly hostile toward the idea that any paranormal component exists in the OBE phenomenon. A little tolerance for the lay "reporter" would certainly be appreciated. It would even be nice if we could discuss the paranormal possibilities without being sneered at. I don't hold out much hope for that, though. :-( ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 35 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:27:09 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.206 X-Trace: news2.atl 975432655 216.78.240.206 (Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:30:55 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:30:55 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!xfer13.netnews.com!netnews.com!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed.atl!news2.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58414 Cathy Credulous wrote in message ... : :"lorz" wrote in message :news:QQOU5.4052$wA6.28451@news1.atl... :> :> Babylon the Small wrote in message <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>... :> :In article <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, :> : Neil Franklin wrote: :> :> ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) writes: :> :> :> : :> :> :> :> : :> :My guess, if I had to guess, would be that if the mind can exist outside :> :the body, it must be in a form that we currently cannot measure. We're :> :pretty sure gravity exists, but we still can't measure it or polarize it :> : or analyze it. Consider radio waves. Just because we need equipment to :> :detect and analyze them doen't mean they don't exist. :> :> :> OK, I'm curious here. Hasn't there been cases where a live brain is kept in :> a jar or something? Yes or no? If yes, is the mind still in there.. :> thinking? Or what? : :mwahahaha! Sorry, but that really tickles me. That's got to be a myth. Hmm, maybe it was that Steve Martin movie. LOL ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 66 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:31:57 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.206 X-Trace: news2.atl 975432942 216.78.240.206 (Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:35:42 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:35:42 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news2.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58408 pz wrote in message ... :In article , "lorz" : wrote: : :> Babylon the Small wrote in message <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>... :> :In article <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, :> : Neil Franklin wrote: :> :> ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) writes: :> :> :> : :> :> :> :> : :> :My guess, if I had to guess, would be that if the mind can exist :> :outside the body, it must be in a form that we currently cannot :> :measure. We're pretty sure gravity exists, but we still can't :> :measure it or polarize it or analyze it. Consider radio waves. Just :> :because we need equipment to detect and analyze them doen't mean :> :they don't exist. :> :> :> OK, I'm curious here. Hasn't there been cases where a live brain is :> kept in a jar or something? Yes or no? If yes, is the mind still in :> there.. thinking? Or what? : :This is a common procedure in invertebrate research -- you can isolate :the cerebral ganglion (or any old ganglion you want), and put it in a :dish, independent of the body. Then you can plug electrodes into :various nerves, and feed in stimuli and record output. For instance, :you can generate what is called "fictive swimming" in isolated leech :ganglia: the nervous tissue produces rhythmic outputs that would cause :swimming if there were muscles and a body out there. So *you* would be it's mind then. It wouldn't do much of anything on it's own, right? : :This is nearly impossible to do in vertebrates. The brains are bigger :and messier, and require a much more sophisticated balance of salts and :hormones and proteins and whatever to maintain normal function. There :are also, obviously, ethical problems. : :There is a Japanese researcher whose name I have blissfully forgotten :who has been carrying out experiments on small mammals (cats and dogs, :I think). He decapitates the animals, and then sees how long he can :keep the severed heads alive (and conscious!) on either a heart/lung :machine or diverted circulation from another animal. He's considered a :bit of a pariah...everyone I've talked to considers those experiments :highly unethical and likely to be very unproductive. I understand he :has been successful in 'waking up' the heads for limited periods of :time, which I understand react with signs of extreme pain and stress, :as you might guess. Well that's pretty interesting in an 'ewwwwwwwww' kind of way. What exactly is he trying to find out in thiese experiements? : :I haven't read any of the original papers on this topic. He tends not to :get published in the journals I read. OK thanks. ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 51 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:34:13 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.206 X-Trace: news2.atl 975433079 216.78.240.206 (Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:37:59 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:37:59 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news2.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58407 pz wrote in message ... :In article <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com>, :markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: : :> >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) : :[snip] : :> >Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive :> >evidence. :> :> When a chemist records that precipitate first appeared after :> x-many liters of y-molar mixture was added, that's an :> anecdote. It's a highly structured anecdote if done well. :> When a particle physicist reviews the tracks of particles :> spewing out of a collision and notes that one of them takes a :> heck of a long time to decay, "strangely", that's an anecdote. :> Again, its a persuasive anecdote often because of the care :> revealed in the tale, but we don't all have 20 umpti-gigavolt :> colliders sitting in the basement to verify the existence of :> strange particles, so we rely on the harmony of anecdotes :> among a very very limited group of people who have in common :> some experience that lead them to believe strange particles :> exist. Et cetera. : :No, you don't quite have it. Chemistry is not a collection of :anecdotes. If, as you explained it, chemists did just mix X and Y :and scribbled down what they saw, that would be anecdotal...but :that's not what they do. They do a whole series of experiments, :producing a quantitive body of observation. They make hypotheses :about what would happen, for instance, if they mixed 2X and 1Y, :or X and Z, and they test those ideas. They assemble internally :consistent explanations and measurements that support those :ideas, and they publish them in such a way that others can :replicate and test those ideas. : :The physicists who have access to supercolliders are also not :just collecting anecdotes. They are making and reporting :observations that can be verified, and measured for consistency :by an even larger group of others. Their work also leads to :tentative hypotheses, and predictions are made that can be :evaluated. A single observation of peculiar behavior is an :anecdote, until a hypothesis is made to explain that behavior and :a rational set of experiments made to test it. :pz Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested scientifically? ###### Reply-To: "dorothy dunne" From: "dorothy dunne" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:28:57 -0800 Lines: 52 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser1087.bossig.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser1087.bossig.com Message-ID: <3a23e780@news-out.newsnerds.com> X-Trace: 28 Nov 2000 11:12:32 -0600, sanduser1087.bossig.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsnerds.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!typhoon.sonic.net!uunet!sac.uu.net!ash.uu.net!dfw.uu.net!news-out.newsnerds.com!sanduser1087.bossig.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58438 dorothy dunne wrote in message news:3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com... > > MarkenAdms wrote in message > news:20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com... > > >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) > > [snip] > > > Much oobe reporting is not as well structured as other areas of inquiry > that > > proceed by anecdote. But then if people with a disciplined, strucutred > > approach to questions about strange events practice smugness more than > science, > > the reporters don't get support in improving their recounting of > experiences > > and in devising ways to have experiences that are more probative. For a > long > > time, but particularly since the mushrooming of such sneer groups as are > found > > hovering over copies of publications like Skeptical Inquirer, it has been > hard > > to develop a dialogue about strange experiences that don't diverge into > two > > unproductive paths: that of subjective certainty reignant and that of > smugness > > masquerading is scientific analysis of unusual claims. > > > > I'm open to ideas for a better Middle Way of discourse. > > Ah, I daresay you and Ian would be in agreement on this. There *has* been a > bit of discussion on what would make for better reporting; and some > anecdotes have been given *some* credence by the skeptics. I recall that > Sherilyn was semi-impressed by Bruce's report that he 'saw' Trish's arm > flung out above her head during an OBE "visit" many months ago (before they > knew each other well...). I have also seen little negative commentary on > Haunter's "bird's nest" OBE. In general, though, the climate here is fairly > hostile toward the idea that any paranormal component exists in the OBE > phenomenon. A little tolerance for the lay "reporter" would certainly be > appreciated. It would even be nice if we could discuss the paranormal > possibilities without being sneered at. I don't hold out much hope for that, > though. :-( Must say, however, that - with the exception of Cathy's "deep doo doo" post - this thread has been remarkably civil. :-) ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:10:19 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 86 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-259.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58454 In article , "lorz" wrote: > pz wrote in message ... > :In article , "lorz" > : wrote: > : > :> Babylon the Small wrote in message > :> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>... > :> :In article <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, > :> : Neil Franklin wrote: > :> :> ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) writes: > :> :> > :> : > :> > :> > :> > :> : > :> :My guess, if I had to guess, would be that if the mind can > :> :exist outside the body, it must be in a form that we > :> :currently cannot measure. We're pretty sure gravity > :> :exists, but we still can't measure it or polarize it or > :> :analyze it. Consider radio waves. Just because we need > :> :equipment to detect and analyze them doen't mean they > :> :don't exist. > :> > :> > :> OK, I'm curious here. Hasn't there been cases where a live > :> brain is kept in a jar or something? Yes or no? If yes, is > :> the mind still in there.. thinking? Or what? > : > :This is a common procedure in invertebrate research -- you > :can isolate the cerebral ganglion (or any old ganglion you > :want), and put it in a dish, independent of the body. Then > :you can plug electrodes into various nerves, and feed in > :stimuli and record output. For instance, you can generate > :what is called "fictive swimming" in isolated leech ganglia: > :the nervous tissue produces rhythmic outputs that would cause > :swimming if there were muscles and a body out there. > > So *you* would be it's mind then. It wouldn't do much of > anything on it's own, right? Yes, it can. There's a huge literature on 'spontaneous activity' (I've actually contributed a teeny-tiny bit to it). You can even get fictive swimming *without* providing any input -- you could think of it as the leech dreaming of swimming. > > : > :This is nearly impossible to do in vertebrates. The brains > :are bigger and messier, and require a much more sophisticated > :balance of salts and hormones and proteins and whatever to > :maintain normal function. There are also, obviously, ethical > :problems. > : > :There is a Japanese researcher whose name I have blissfully > :forgotten who has been carrying out experiments on small > :mammals (cats and dogs, I think). He decapitates the animals, > :and then sees how long he can keep the severed heads alive > :(and conscious!) on either a heart/lung machine or diverted > :circulation from another animal. He's considered a bit of a > :pariah...everyone I've talked to considers those experiments > :highly unethical and likely to be very unproductive. I > :understand he has been successful in 'waking up' the heads > :for limited periods of time, which I understand react with > :signs of extreme pain and stress, as you might guess. > > Well that's pretty interesting in an 'ewwwwwwwww' kind of way. > What exactly is he trying to find out in thiese experiements? I have no idea, which is one of the reasons people find his work repugnant. There are some handwaving sort of arguments that it would provide a technique to keep someone alive while waiting for a whole-body transplant...but then it's nothing but an exercise in a technique that might be useful for a protocol that doesn't exist. > > : > :I haven't read any of the original papers on this topic. He > :tends not to get published in the journals I read. > > OK thanks. -- pz ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:14:17 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-310.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58449 In article , "lorz" wrote: > pz wrote in message ... > :In article <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com>, > :markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: > : > :> >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) > : > :[snip] > : > :> >Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive > :> >evidence. > :> > :> When a chemist records that precipitate first appeared after > :> x-many liters of y-molar mixture was added, that's an > :> anecdote. It's a highly structured anecdote if done well. > :> When a particle physicist reviews the tracks of particles > :> spewing out of a collision and notes that one of them takes a > :> heck of a long time to decay, "strangely", that's an anecdote. > :> Again, its a persuasive anecdote often because of the care > :> revealed in the tale, but we don't all have 20 umpti-gigavolt > :> colliders sitting in the basement to verify the existence of > :> strange particles, so we rely on the harmony of anecdotes > :> among a very very limited group of people who have in common > :> some experience that lead them to believe strange particles > :> exist. Et cetera. > : > :No, you don't quite have it. Chemistry is not a collection of > :anecdotes. If, as you explained it, chemists did just mix X and Y > :and scribbled down what they saw, that would be anecdotal...but > :that's not what they do. They do a whole series of experiments, > :producing a quantitive body of observation. They make hypotheses > :about what would happen, for instance, if they mixed 2X and 1Y, > :or X and Z, and they test those ideas. They assemble internally > :consistent explanations and measurements that support those > :ideas, and they publish them in such a way that others can > :replicate and test those ideas. > : > :The physicists who have access to supercolliders are also not > :just collecting anecdotes. They are making and reporting > :observations that can be verified, and measured for consistency > :by an even larger group of others. Their work also leads to > :tentative hypotheses, and predictions are made that can be > :evaluated. A single observation of peculiar behavior is an > :anecdote, until a hypothesis is made to explain that behavior and > :a rational set of experiments made to test it. > :pz > > Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested > scientifically? Like what? I suppose you could argue for something that you claim has no material effect in the world and only affects you exclusively, but then we have the problem of how *you* can say that you KNOW that it exists. Since it has no material effect on the world, we'd also have to say it must be something thoroughly inconsequential. Like god. -- pz ###### Message-ID: <3A240E59.6176@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 33 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:58:29 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-75bNIIHlFuleTwzqFUhszSoF+rRJT76ANIfdu9OLoLbbqf82sv/1tIoFfukiPN1wcclLmzcfkBEvKmY!vYNPVaatFcTENAnSKnA9j2rcjYU= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:58:31 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58369 Bart wrote: > > Trish wrote in message ... > > >OBEs are a highly conscious experience. Maybe (and I do say maybe) even > >more so than an awake state. Why? Because in order to keep the experience > >going, an 'active' consciousness must constantly be applied. > > This is true. > > >While awake, we needn't worry about it ... we have our senses that > >continually supply support ... so our awareness levels can fluctuate with > no > >real recourse on our actual experience. > > This is not true... Most of us live in a non-lucid physical existance. I'm > not saying that we don't have periods of intense lucidity in our physical > lives, but most of us are fairly unconscious most of the time. It is true > that we may be aware of our surroundings and capable of functioning in the > physical - but it doesn't mean that we are operating at our peak state of > consciousness at all times. If we were, I suspect this would be a planet > full of saints... I think Trish meant not that we are highly aware all the time while awake, but that when we are awake the relative stability of our surroundings helps to stabilize our awareness - if our attention wanders or we make misperceptions we are pulled back on track by the steady sensory input - and that OBEs are interesting because unlike in the case of ordinary dreams, during OBEs we manage to sustain a high level of awareness without such support. -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A241ED0.579B@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 19 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:08:39 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-UcPxBlF4/+6WwS8jr4iHRqkLoZW5U01bKBKUd6ndujo1r7whKv5BNPSzpEQotM1ati7SkSpfnTmaHhx!QfHIkeEkCto6ZTUKxeQ6dB8LW3c= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:08:39 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!netnews.com!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc01.blue.aol.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58502 dorothy dunne wrote: > > Ah, I daresay you and Ian would be in agreement on this. There *has* been a > bit of discussion on what would make for better reporting; and some > anecdotes have been given *some* credence by the skeptics. I recall that > Sherilyn was semi-impressed by Bruce's report that he 'saw' Trish's arm > flung out above her head during an OBE "visit" many months ago (before they > knew each other well...). I have also seen little negative commentary on > Haunter's "bird's nest" OBE. In general, though, the climate here is fairly > hostile toward the idea that any paranormal component exists in the OBE > phenomenon. A little tolerance for the lay "reporter" would certainly be > appreciated. It would even be nice if we could discuss the paranormal > possibilities without being sneered at. I don't hold out much hope for that, > though. :-( Do you have to let it bother you? -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A24207F.13B4@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <20001128032807.21462.00002059@ng-fd1.aol.com> <1bPU5.1361$Wn3.91104@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 20 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:12:01 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-ZQsVej3YGtSAb4zMRxHXB3f33zpOk8gY02iEZSYqRN2DUhpY83RF7OaUHOu5htIdD84nzMw5r+1YMFk!g3VMNGB30CP3Rgv88Aw0/W7G1z8= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:12:01 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!logbridge.uoregon.edu!howland.erols.net!nntp.flash.net!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news2.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58480 Cathy Credulous wrote: > > "MarkenAdms" wrote in message > news:20001128032807.21462.00002059@ng-fd1.aol.com... > > >From: "Trish" capuchin@gte.net > > > > >Now, just about any book or topic I read concerning quantum physics touches > > >on the topic of consciousness. > > > > You need to be very very careful of quantum books discussing "consciousness". > [...] > > Whenever I read someone trying to connect quantum whatevers with > consciousness, I get my hip-waders out in preparation for the garden > path filled with deep doo-doo. As in "The Dancing Woolly Masters"? ;) -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A24225B.40DB@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 35 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:19:58 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-KGgDBSej2iawT4jYO4+EvutF5aU28JkBStYSNWUUygx+vYIgrtDmcV34f7eu8Smxw9zQ1aI34CwvwrE!JORMgTSV1y/hEbdS0fpRjTp+1is= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:19:58 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!feeder.qis.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!portc03.blue.aol.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news2.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58489 pz wrote: > > In article , "lorz" > wrote: > > > pz wrote in message ... > > : > > :There is a Japanese researcher whose name I have blissfully > > :forgotten who has been carrying out experiments on small > > :mammals (cats and dogs, I think). He decapitates the animals, > > :and then sees how long he can keep the severed heads alive > > :(and conscious!) on either a heart/lung machine or diverted > > :circulation from another animal. He's considered a bit of a > > :pariah...everyone I've talked to considers those experiments > > :highly unethical and likely to be very unproductive. I > > :understand he has been successful in 'waking up' the heads > > :for limited periods of time, which I understand react with > > :signs of extreme pain and stress, as you might guess. > > > > Well that's pretty interesting in an 'ewwwwwwwww' kind of way. > > What exactly is he trying to find out in thiese experiements? > > I have no idea, which is one of the reasons people find his work > repugnant. There are some handwaving sort of arguments that it > would provide a technique to keep someone alive while waiting for > a whole-body transplant...but then it's nothing but an exercise > in a technique that might be useful for a protocol that doesn't > exist. A bona fide mad scientist! :) Wouldn't the other body be likely to reject the transplanted head? -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A2422EC.4D43@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 39 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:22:22 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-JYNujU6hPjSgDkWOEUkehHswoFhde2rq3OVWmRNJxvlfUiMKbPZzk41t1ePZoxpTU4GncPbHf8Kw6tZ!9iggJbvDAgOMWXOKA/39FWclVqo= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:22:23 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!schlund.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed.icl.net!netnews.com!howland.erols.net!nntp.flash.net!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news2.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58497 lorz wrote: > > Cathy Credulous wrote in message ... > : > :"lorz" wrote in message > :news:QQOU5.4052$wA6.28451@news1.atl... > :> > :> Babylon the Small wrote in message <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>... > :> :In article <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, > :> : Neil Franklin wrote: > :> :> ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) writes: > :> :> > :> : > :> > :> > :> > :> : > :> :My guess, if I had to guess, would be that if the mind can exist outside > :> :the body, it must be in a form that we currently cannot measure. We're > :> :pretty sure gravity exists, but we still can't measure it or polarize it > :> : or analyze it. Consider radio waves. Just because we need equipment to > :> :detect and analyze them doen't mean they don't exist. > :> > :> > :> OK, I'm curious here. Hasn't there been cases where a live brain is kept > in > :> a jar or something? Yes or no? If yes, is the mind still in there.. > :> thinking? Or what? > : > :mwahahaha! Sorry, but that really tickles me. That's got to be a myth. > > Hmm, maybe it was that Steve Martin movie. LOL Don't forget "The Brain that Wouldn't Die"! http://www.thebigpicturedvd.com/cgi-bin/master/viewer.cgi/The_Brain_That_Wouldn_t_Die -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A2423A5.3DF@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A2422EC.4D43@not-here.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 45 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:25:27 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-Zub9Rha42mG7mNbqrQuQzxm9uSYwKfSAK28SVUmNy8gxmQCCwPvlDCNd2Mppm9azkQaDbNv0m+ko2r/!u7PeIixojxlLNAWBBzfQcrq1GwI= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:25:27 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!schlund.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news2.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58656 Janice wrote: > > lorz wrote: > > > > Cathy Credulous wrote in message ... > > : > > :"lorz" wrote in message > > :news:QQOU5.4052$wA6.28451@news1.atl... > > :> > > :> Babylon the Small wrote in message <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>... > > :> :In article <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, > > :> : Neil Franklin wrote: > > :> :> ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) writes: > > :> :> > > :> : > > :> > > :> > > :> > > :> : > > :> :My guess, if I had to guess, would be that if the mind can exist outside > > :> :the body, it must be in a form that we currently cannot measure. We're > > :> :pretty sure gravity exists, but we still can't measure it or polarize it > > :> : or analyze it. Consider radio waves. Just because we need equipment to > > :> :detect and analyze them doen't mean they don't exist. > > :> > > :> > > :> OK, I'm curious here. Hasn't there been cases where a live brain is kept > > in > > :> a jar or something? Yes or no? If yes, is the mind still in there.. > > :> thinking? Or what? > > : > > :mwahahaha! Sorry, but that really tickles me. That's got to be a myth. > > > > Hmm, maybe it was that Steve Martin movie. LOL > > Don't forget "The Brain that Wouldn't Die"! > > http://www.thebigpicturedvd.com/cgi-bin/master/viewer.cgi/The_Brain_That_Wouldn_t_Die This link to a different review seems to work better: http://www.thecinemalaser.com/dvd_reviews/brain-that-wouldnt-die-dvd.htm -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:23:10 -0600 Organization: Nailbunny's Hammer Lines: 43 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A24225B.40DB@not-here.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-715.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-Face: .k!7leh{iTz*Ah$8`'u'O$.4Z9+jOYL|yvi39v4fL-Un]RqYdDRAg*#o{3f|Mkzf8+}'2AmMD7_7`BM/X]H1nvmSDn*M0vfiwKn^3R[Kr_o*'>L@wBpFy>X&moPw, Janice wrote: > pz wrote: > > > > In article , "lorz" > > wrote: > > > > > pz wrote in message ... > > > : > > > :There is a Japanese researcher whose name I have blissfully > > > :forgotten who has been carrying out experiments on small > > > :mammals (cats and dogs, I think). He decapitates the animals, > > > :and then sees how long he can keep the severed heads alive > > > :(and conscious!) on either a heart/lung machine or diverted > > > :circulation from another animal. He's considered a bit of a > > > :pariah...everyone I've talked to considers those experiments > > > :highly unethical and likely to be very unproductive. I > > > :understand he has been successful in 'waking up' the heads > > > :for limited periods of time, which I understand react with > > > :signs of extreme pain and stress, as you might guess. > > > > > > Well that's pretty interesting in an 'ewwwwwwwww' kind of way. > > > What exactly is he trying to find out in thiese experiements? > > > > I have no idea, which is one of the reasons people find his work > > repugnant. There are some handwaving sort of arguments that it > > would provide a technique to keep someone alive while waiting for > > a whole-body transplant...but then it's nothing but an exercise > > in a technique that might be useful for a protocol that doesn't > > exist. > > A bona fide mad scientist! :) > > Wouldn't the other body be likely to reject the transplanted head? Yes. You also wouldn't be able to make functional nervous connections, so even if you did get around the immune problem, you'd still just have a head stuck on a paralyzed, insensate body. It's a medical experiment without a practical goal. -- pz ###### From: "Dark Sage" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:23:29 -0500 Lines: 72 Message-ID: <901b3t$cas$1@bob.news.rcn.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> X-Trace: nhD92D5dcticsjmpMQoth6btGrOGci7CXvZ32S8LrUs= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Nov 2000 22:20:45 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58552 "lorz" wrote in message news:X3SU5.6920$yP6.34406@news2.atl... > > pz wrote in message ... > :In article <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com>, > :markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: > : > :> >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) > : > :[snip] > : > :> >Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive > :> >evidence. > :> > :> When a chemist records that precipitate first appeared after > :> x-many liters of y-molar mixture was added, that's an > :> anecdote. It's a highly structured anecdote if done well. > :> When a particle physicist reviews the tracks of particles > :> spewing out of a collision and notes that one of them takes a > :> heck of a long time to decay, "strangely", that's an anecdote. > :> Again, its a persuasive anecdote often because of the care > :> revealed in the tale, but we don't all have 20 umpti-gigavolt > :> colliders sitting in the basement to verify the existence of > :> strange particles, so we rely on the harmony of anecdotes > :> among a very very limited group of people who have in common > :> some experience that lead them to believe strange particles > :> exist. Et cetera. > : > :No, you don't quite have it. Chemistry is not a collection of > :anecdotes. If, as you explained it, chemists did just mix X and Y > :and scribbled down what they saw, that would be anecdotal...but > :that's not what they do. They do a whole series of experiments, > :producing a quantitive body of observation. They make hypotheses > :about what would happen, for instance, if they mixed 2X and 1Y, > :or X and Z, and they test those ideas. They assemble internally > :consistent explanations and measurements that support those > :ideas, and they publish them in such a way that others can > :replicate and test those ideas. > : > :The physicists who have access to supercolliders are also not > :just collecting anecdotes. They are making and reporting > :observations that can be verified, and measured for consistency > :by an even larger group of others. Their work also leads to > :tentative hypotheses, and predictions are made that can be > :evaluated. A single observation of peculiar behavior is an > :anecdote, until a hypothesis is made to explain that behavior and > :a rational set of experiments made to test it. > :pz > > Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested scientifically? > Yes. In Quantum Mechanics it's called 'superposition'. Superposition is where a sub-atomic particle is in an 'undefined' state. This state is where a particle contains *all* possible outcomes(as expressed in probabilities); yet, is mathematically equal to 0(none of those possibilities). By measuring/testing the particle you force the little critter to adopt at state of determininacy(defined state) in which it does not normally exist. Which leads to measurement effects the outcome. Superposition is know, but if you test for it, it goes away. (This has nothing to do with paranormal, simply a direct answer to your question.) ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:34:17 -0600 Organization: Nailbunny's Hammer Lines: 78 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <901b3t$cas$1@bob.news.rcn.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-755.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-Face: .k!7leh{iTz*Ah$8`'u'O$.4Z9+jOYL|yvi39v4fL-Un]RqYdDRAg*#o{3f|Mkzf8+}'2AmMD7_7`BM/X]H1nvmSDn*M0vfiwKn^3R[Kr_o*'>L@wBpFy>X&moPw, "Dark Sage" wrote: > "lorz" wrote in message > news:X3SU5.6920$yP6.34406@news2.atl... > > > > pz wrote in message ... > > :In article <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com>, > > :markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: > > : > > :> >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) > > : > > :[snip] > > : > > :> >Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive > > :> >evidence. > > :> > > :> When a chemist records that precipitate first appeared after > > :> x-many liters of y-molar mixture was added, that's an > > :> anecdote. It's a highly structured anecdote if done well. > > :> When a particle physicist reviews the tracks of particles > > :> spewing out of a collision and notes that one of them takes a > > :> heck of a long time to decay, "strangely", that's an anecdote. > > :> Again, its a persuasive anecdote often because of the care > > :> revealed in the tale, but we don't all have 20 umpti-gigavolt > > :> colliders sitting in the basement to verify the existence of > > :> strange particles, so we rely on the harmony of anecdotes > > :> among a very very limited group of people who have in common > > :> some experience that lead them to believe strange particles > > :> exist. Et cetera. > > : > > :No, you don't quite have it. Chemistry is not a collection of > > :anecdotes. If, as you explained it, chemists did just mix X and Y > > :and scribbled down what they saw, that would be anecdotal...but > > :that's not what they do. They do a whole series of experiments, > > :producing a quantitive body of observation. They make hypotheses > > :about what would happen, for instance, if they mixed 2X and 1Y, > > :or X and Z, and they test those ideas. They assemble internally > > :consistent explanations and measurements that support those > > :ideas, and they publish them in such a way that others can > > :replicate and test those ideas. > > : > > :The physicists who have access to supercolliders are also not > > :just collecting anecdotes. They are making and reporting > > :observations that can be verified, and measured for consistency > > :by an even larger group of others. Their work also leads to > > :tentative hypotheses, and predictions are made that can be > > :evaluated. A single observation of peculiar behavior is an > > :anecdote, until a hypothesis is made to explain that behavior and > > :a rational set of experiments made to test it. > > :pz > > > > Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested > scientifically? > > > > Yes. > In Quantum Mechanics it's called 'superposition'. > Superposition is where a sub-atomic particle is in an 'undefined' state. > This state is where a particle contains *all* possible outcomes(as > expressed in probabilities); yet, is mathematically equal to 0(none of > those possibilities). > > By measuring/testing the particle you force the little critter to adopt > at state of determininacy(defined state) in which it does not normally > exist. Which leads to measurement effects the outcome. > > Superposition is know, but if you test for it, it goes away. > (This has nothing to do with paranormal, simply a direct answer to > your question.) Your example requires a peculiarly skewed definition of 'test', since the phenomenon being tested is the indeterminacy of the particle. And Lo, the particle is indeterminate. Whether something is testable is not contingent upon getting a simple answer, or the answer you want. -- pz ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> <3A240E59.6176@not-here.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 41 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: +ryjt7/sEp667GRKr+Gr2y3zn4kZobhVUanshB8Of1sW9jL/Mxmu5AXFWjdWVuvs78IfswPuLp9n!M36FmqGKxP5CU2W3ssygv7qNBRq/5mvHFXpHcmzohuHeoD0wfE5f4SFNbMlvIVMYK0LHhzqQZ1lR!C0fDJE0= X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:58:07 GMT Distribution: world Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:58:07 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!xfer10.netnews.com!netnews.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58638 Janice wrote in message <3A240E59.6176@not-here.net>... >Bart wrote: >> >> Trish wrote in message ... >> >> >OBEs are a highly conscious experience. Maybe (and I do say maybe) even >> >more so than an awake state. Why? Because in order to keep the experience >> >going, an 'active' consciousness must constantly be applied. >> >> This is true. >> >> >While awake, we needn't worry about it ... we have our senses that >> >continually supply support ... so our awareness levels can fluctuate with >> no >> >real recourse on our actual experience. >> >> This is not true... Most of us live in a non-lucid physical existance. I'm >> not saying that we don't have periods of intense lucidity in our physical >> lives, but most of us are fairly unconscious most of the time. It is true >> that we may be aware of our surroundings and capable of functioning in the >> physical - but it doesn't mean that we are operating at our peak state of >> consciousness at all times. If we were, I suspect this would be a planet >> full of saints... > >I think Trish meant not that we are highly aware all the time while >awake, but that when we are awake the relative stability of our >surroundings helps to stabilize our awareness - if our attention wanders >or we make misperceptions we are pulled back on track by the steady >sensory input - and that OBEs are interesting because unlike in the case >of ordinary dreams, during OBEs we manage to sustain a high level of >awareness without such support. Yep. That's what I meant. ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <20001128032807.21462.00002059@ng-fd1.aol.com> <1bPU5.1361$Wn3.91104@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net> <3A24207F.13B4@not-here.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 26 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /K+neWfeDz7AbI+790pzXQtdNU+tHelopalTqM+uxZ8RwbB0g3enncgEdY9aD+7UyUUyhzYym25M!XIQqcqqWCp/08PKRMEDmrxEZgFrlNU1Gxv/WaSZr26Zh4ACMeEJEVLuBycqUKufJXYxs6GBygQPH!1t8YJwI= X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:01:50 GMT Distribution: world Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:01:50 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!machtgarnix.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58626 Janice wrote in message <3A24207F.13B4@not-here.net>... >Cathy Credulous wrote: >> >> "MarkenAdms" wrote in message >> news:20001128032807.21462.00002059@ng-fd1.aol.com... >> > >From: "Trish" capuchin@gte.net >> > >> > >Now, just about any book or topic I read concerning quantum physics touches >> > >on the topic of consciousness. >> > >> > You need to be very very careful of quantum books discussing "consciousness". >> [...] >> >> Whenever I read someone trying to connect quantum whatevers with >> consciousness, I get my hip-waders out in preparation for the garden >> path filled with deep doo-doo. > >As in "The Dancing Woolly Masters"? ;) And I'll bet she dances pretty well. Just like a puppet on strings. : ) ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A24225B.40DB@not-here.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 39 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /b/VKXptcL0G/uGg+Zz6AS3vXqyGLooNBfqq1hXp1IVuv4CzSWk6DkYxuFdHVw0I7LvmIWeqwiBO!XNoEqpwMsF71EJ9uyxNmIJyTANxCpD54BAyb0RDbHesnLasqo0nOED1Oz7YvZr9z0mG9VcUg4fTz!LMWX/0I= X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:06:55 GMT Distribution: world Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:06:55 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58642 Janice wrote in message <3A24225B.40DB@not-here.net>... >pz wrote: >> >> In article , "lorz" >> wrote: >> >> > pz wrote in message ... >> > : >> > :There is a Japanese researcher whose name I have blissfully >> > :forgotten who has been carrying out experiments on small >> > :mammals (cats and dogs, I think). He decapitates the animals, >> > :and then sees how long he can keep the severed heads alive >> > :(and conscious!) on either a heart/lung machine or diverted >> > :circulation from another animal. He's considered a bit of a >> > :pariah...everyone I've talked to considers those experiments >> > :highly unethical and likely to be very unproductive. I >> > :understand he has been successful in 'waking up' the heads >> > :for limited periods of time, which I understand react with >> > :signs of extreme pain and stress, as you might guess. >> > >> > Well that's pretty interesting in an 'ewwwwwwwww' kind of way. >> > What exactly is he trying to find out in thiese experiements? >> >> I have no idea, which is one of the reasons people find his work >> repugnant. There are some handwaving sort of arguments that it >> would provide a technique to keep someone alive while waiting for >> a whole-body transplant...but then it's nothing but an exercise >> in a technique that might be useful for a protocol that doesn't >> exist. > >A bona fide mad scientist! :) > >Wouldn't the other body be likely to reject the transplanted head? For some strange reason I recall some type of television program about this. Weird. Didn't he work on a monkey? ###### From: "Bart" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:22:25 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 30 Message-ID: <901ia9$fm9$1@slb7.atl.mindspring.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.74.b6 X-Server-Date: 29 Nov 2000 00:23:37 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58585 MarkenAdms wrote in message <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com>... >Much oobe reporting is not as well structured as other areas of inquiry that >proceed by anecdote. But then if people with a disciplined, strucutred >approach to questions about strange events practice smugness more than science, >the reporters don't get support in improving their recounting of experiences >and in devising ways to have experiences that are more probative. For a long >time, but particularly since the mushrooming of such sneer groups as are found >hovering over copies of publications like Skeptical Inquirer, it has been hard >to develop a dialogue about strange experiences that don't diverge into two >unproductive paths: that of subjective certainty reignant and that of smugness >masquerading is scientific analysis of unusual claims. Um... yeah. Same here. ;-) Bart ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:44:02 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 22 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58568 On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small wrote: [...] >The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument is >that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have >any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only >anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take seriously. Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs (DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the alternative. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:44:02 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a2438ba.13006767@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 38 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58572 On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:33:50 GMT, "Cathy Credulous" wrote: > >"lorz" wrote in message >news:QQOU5.4052$wA6.28451@news1.atl... >> >> Babylon the Small wrote in message <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>... >> :In article <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, >> : Neil Franklin wrote: >> :> ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) writes: >> :> >> : >> >> >> >> : >> :My guess, if I had to guess, would be that if the mind can exist outside >> :the body, it must be in a form that we currently cannot measure. We're >> :pretty sure gravity exists, but we still can't measure it or polarize it >> : or analyze it. Consider radio waves. Just because we need equipment to >> :detect and analyze them doen't mean they don't exist. >> >> >> OK, I'm curious here. Hasn't there been cases where a live brain is kept in >> a jar or something? Yes or no? If yes, is the mind still in there.. >> thinking? Or what? > >mwahahaha! Sorry, but that really tickles me. That's got to be a myth. Cluld be thinking of Dennis Potter's last TV play "Cold Lazarus" (at least, I think that was the title). Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:44:03 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a243939.13133658@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 27 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58567 On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:39:36 -0600, pz wrote: [...] >There is a Japanese researcher whose name I have blissfully forgotten >who has been carrying out experiments on small mammals (cats and dogs, >I think). He decapitates the animals, and then sees how long he can >keep the severed heads alive (and conscious!) on either a heart/lung >machine or diverted circulation from another animal. He's considered a >bit of a pariah...everyone I've talked to considers those experiments >highly unethical and likely to be very unproductive. I understand he >has been successful in 'waking up' the heads for limited periods of >time, which I understand react with signs of extreme pain and stress, >as you might guess. > >I haven't read any of the original papers on this topic. He tends not to >get published in the journals I read. I accept that some animal-based research is unavoidable but, quite frankly, I find that horrifying and utterly indefensible. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:44:04 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a243a9a.13486702@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vv98u$agj$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 85 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58573 On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:35:44 -0500, "Bart" wrote: > >Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net>... > >>imagine that I am zapped by a >>fiendish alien ray-gun. It doesn't vaporise me but disassembles my >>body cell by cell so that I'm left as a disgusting pile of gunk on the >>ground. Would that pile still be me? > >Actually, I think that pile would then be PZ. I know we've had our differences but I've never thought of PZ as an amorphous heap of cellular debris. >>I assume that most people would >>agree that it wouldn't, but why not? After all, everything that made >>up my body would still be there, it wasn't destroyed. > >So... Your body was never "you" in the first place. Listen, it may not be much of a body but it's the only one I've got .. even if it is just a temporary vehicle for my genes. >>Let's consider a computer and its software as a crude analogue of the >>brain and the mind. Imagine the computer hooked up to a radio >>transmitter. We decide to send some files to another person but, >>unknown to us, their receiver is switched off when we transmit. What >>happens to those transmitted files? Basically, the radio beam fans >>out from the antenna becoming ever weaker and more attenuated the >>further away it gets, until it disappears forever in the background >>radio noise of the universe. The pattern is lost. > >You are speaking of a low grade energy present within the physical realm. >The physical realm is just an outer shell. I've never actually looked inside my body - apart from a couple of X-rays - but I'm pretty sure I'm solid inside as well as on the outside .. some would say especially between the ears. >>Another problem is that the mind is not just a file of data but much >>more like a program or suite of programs. You can send programs as >>files over a radio link but they don't start to run in mid-air. They >>only work when they are downloaded and run on the physical computer. > >The program works at its origin - which is actually beyond the physical >computer. It can be found on the astral as a function that the "author" >discovered while moving inward during contemplation in an effort to get a >computer to perform a physical function. > >Think of the AC motor and its "inventor". The pattern always existed. >Tesla simply saw it and learned how it worked through his inner vision. He >brought this pattern from the astral into the physical. The pattern for >everything in the physical existed long before anything in the physical. >This would include the physical body. Doesn't this make you a Platonist? >>If you think about it, a pattern, be it a piece of music or a work of >>art or a human personality, can only exist for any length of time when >>stored within some form of physical matrix. You can't store a >>pattern, or run a program, in free energy which makes it very >>difficult to conceive of a non-corporeal mind roaming around free of >>the body and fully conscious. > >You are attempting to view a non-physical reality from a physical >perspective. That is almost hopeless. Try viewing it from a perspective >that the non-physical makes the physical possible - not the other way >around. When the consciousness shifts away from the physical body, it >shifts to a non-physical state that is (depending on the personal discipline >of the involved consciousness) the pattern for the physical. The problem with this is that we have plenty of evidence for the existence of the physical world but none for this non-physical reality that you are postulating. In fact, I would argue that, if we take reality to mean the physical universe, composed of matter and energy, then "non-physical reality" is an oxymoron and essentially meaningless. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:44:05 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a244702.16663812@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 32 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58564 On 28 Nov 2000 08:05:29 GMT, markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: [...] >>Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive >>evidence. > >When a chemist records that precipitate first appeared after x-many liters of >y-molar mixture was added, that's an anecdote. It's a highly structured >anecdote if done well. When a particle physicist reviews the tracks of >particles spewing out of a collision and notes that one of them takes a heck of >a long time to decay, "strangely", that's an anecdote. Again, its a persuasive >anecdote often because of the care revealed in the tale, but we don't all have >20 umpti-gigavolt colliders sitting in the basement to verify the existence of >strange particles, so we rely on the harmony of anecdotes among a very very >limited group of people who have in common some experience that lead them to >believe strange particles exist. Et cetera. Not quite. It's certainly true that it isn't practical for us to replicate experiments in particle physics, for example, so strictly speaking we have to take reports of them on trust. The difference is that these accounts come from a source whose credibility is based on a rigorous methodology and impeccable standards of evidence. If challenged, they are bound to provide their data and substantiate their claims or face professional ruin, a situation which doesn't obtain amongst much of the paranormal community. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:44:06 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 40 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!psinet-eu-nl!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58570 On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:15:20 -0800, "dorothy dunne" wrote: > >MarkenAdms wrote in message >news:20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com... [...] >> I'm open to ideas for a better Middle Way of discourse. > >Ah, I daresay you and Ian would be in agreement on this. There *has* been a >bit of discussion on what would make for better reporting; and some >anecdotes have been given *some* credence by the skeptics. I recall that >Sherilyn was semi-impressed by Bruce's report that he 'saw' Trish's arm >flung out above her head during an OBE "visit" many months ago (before they >knew each other well...). I have also seen little negative commentary on >Haunter's "bird's nest" OBE. In general, though, the climate here is fairly >hostile toward the idea that any paranormal component exists in the OBE >phenomenon. A little tolerance for the lay "reporter" would certainly be >appreciated. It would even be nice if we could discuss the paranormal >possibilities without being sneered at. I don't hold out much hope for that, >though. :-( I don't doubt the reports of OBEs or lucid dreams that people have given here. They're very interesting and have even given me some ideas for a few little tests that people could try out if they were willing. I'm also quite happy to discuss the possibility of paranormal aspects to OBEs although I can't say I'm sympathetic towards them. Not that I'm hostile as such, but where such claims are asserted as established fact I feel they should be challenged to meet the same standards of evidence as is expected and required of science. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: "Bart" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:08:27 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 50 Message-ID: <901l0n$fjs$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> References: <20001128032807.21462.00002059@ng-fd1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.74.b6 X-Server-Date: 29 Nov 2000 01:09:43 GMT 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!machtgarnix.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58629 MarkenAdms wrote in message <20001128032807.21462.00002059@ng-fd1.aol.com>... >nonsentient, innanimate things go around "measuring" each >other all the time in any consistent science. When the moon is attracted to >the earth by gravity, the moon is "measuring" the earth's gravitational pull. >When a tree falls in the forest it "measures" its angle with respect to the >earth, "measures" the amount of air it must force aside to fall down to a >horizontal attitude, and "measures" the elasticity of the ground it falls on, >etc etc. If you don't believe a tree falling in the forest when there's no one >around to hear nevertheless makes a sound you don't credit physical science to >begin with. This is exactly why I dislike the word "paranormal". I may make an occasional statement that would lead some to think I am referring to a paranormal experience, but basically (as Trish may recall from a few years ago), I'm talking more about an unconscious pattern recognition. When a child sees a flower, the child doesn't need to be trained to identify this flower as being beautiful - yet the child sees beauty. We don't need to understand the physics of a structure to know certain things about its nature. The study of unconscious sensitivity to certain patterns may actually be the key to understanding what many people call "paranormal". As you say... all physical things are in a constant state of "measuring" their physical surroundings. When consciousness is involved, the "measurements" can actually become predictive. When exceptional sensitivity is involved, the "measurement" might even be thought (incorrectly) to be "paranormal". I believe the practice of OBE is basically the only true way to develop "exceptional sensitivity to pattern recognition" and I believe it must be done with a spiritual focus - else the discipline required to maintain the sensitivity will become dulled. It is a personal endeavor that doesn't easily lend itself to scientific research. I apologize for shifting the topic a bit. I just like to add input where it fits. Bart ###### From: "Bart" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:11:22 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 13 Message-ID: <901l66$cpt$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.74.b6 X-Server-Date: 29 Nov 2000 01:12:38 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!fu-berlin.de!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!feeder.qis.net!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58588 lorz wrote in message ... >I sometimes envy the ignorant. This would make an incredible bumper sticker :-) Um... for your car, of course - not mine ;-) Bart ###### From: "Bart" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:30:18 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 28 Message-ID: <901m70$u3$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.74.b6 X-Server-Date: 29 Nov 2000 01:30:08 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!xfer10.netnews.com!netnews.com!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58579 lorz wrote in message ... >:> OK, I'm curious here. Hasn't there been cases where a live brain is >:> kept in a jar or something? Yes or no? If yes, is the mind still in >:> there.. thinking? Or what? >:There is a Japanese researcher whose name I have blissfully forgotten >:who has been carrying out experiments on small mammals (cats and dogs, >:I think). He decapitates the animals, and then sees how long he can >:keep the severed heads alive (and conscious!) on either a heart/lung >:machine or diverted circulation from another animal. He's considered a >:bit of a pariah...everyone I've talked to considers those experiments >:highly unethical and likely to be very unproductive. I understand he >:has been successful in 'waking up' the heads for limited periods of >:time, which I understand react with signs of extreme pain and stress, >:as you might guess. > >Well that's pretty interesting in an 'ewwwwwwwww' kind of way. What exactly >is he trying to find out in thiese experiements? Brain transplants? Extension of physical life most likely... Bart ###### Reply-To: "dorothy dunne" From: "dorothy dunne" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A24225B.40DB@not-here.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:39:51 -0800 Lines: 46 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser2001.bossig.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser2001.bossig.com Message-ID: <3a244c7d@news-out.newsnerds.com> X-Trace: 28 Nov 2000 18:23:25 -0600, sanduser2001.bossig.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsnerds.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!194.176.220.129!newsfeed.icl.net!netnews.com!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!typhoon.sonic.net!uunet!sac.uu.net!ash.uu.net!dfw.uu.net!news-out.newsnerds.com!sanduser2001.bossig.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58577 pz wrote in message news:pzm-E1F09A.16231028112000@news.newsguy.com... > In article <3A24225B.40DB@not-here.net>, Janice > wrote: > > > pz wrote: > > > > > > In article , "lorz" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > pz wrote in message ... > > > > : > > > > :There is a Japanese researcher whose name I have blissfully > > > > :forgotten who has been carrying out experiments on small > > > > :mammals (cats and dogs, I think). He decapitates the animals, > > > > :and then sees how long he can keep the severed heads alive > > > > :(and conscious!) on either a heart/lung machine or diverted > > > > :circulation from another animal. He's considered a bit of a > > > > :pariah...everyone I've talked to considers those experiments > > > > :highly unethical and likely to be very unproductive. I > > > > :understand he has been successful in 'waking up' the heads > > > > :for limited periods of time, which I understand react with > > > > :signs of extreme pain and stress, as you might guess. > > > > > > > > Well that's pretty interesting in an 'ewwwwwwwww' kind of way. > > > > What exactly is he trying to find out in thiese experiements? > > > > > > I have no idea, which is one of the reasons people find his work > > > repugnant. There are some handwaving sort of arguments that it > > > would provide a technique to keep someone alive while waiting for > > > a whole-body transplant...but then it's nothing but an exercise > > > in a technique that might be useful for a protocol that doesn't > > > exist. > > > > A bona fide mad scientist! :) > > > > Wouldn't the other body be likely to reject the transplanted head? > > Yes. You also wouldn't be able to make functional nervous connections, > so even if you did get around the immune problem, you'd still just have > a head stuck on a paralyzed, insensate body. It's a medical experiment > without a practical goal. Creepy! ###### From: "Bart" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:10:14 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 44 Message-ID: <901oj8$i0v$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.74.b6 X-Server-Date: 29 Nov 2000 02:10:48 GMT 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!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!lmu.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!xfer13.netnews.com!netnews.com!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58589 pz wrote in message ... >In article , "lorz" > wrote: >> Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested >> scientifically? > >Like what? I suppose you could argue for something that you claim >has no material effect in the world and only affects you >exclusively, but then we have the problem of how *you* can say >that you KNOW that it exists. Since it has no material effect on >the world, we'd also have to say it must be something thoroughly >inconsequential. Like god. >-- >pz Wow... what a statement. Why should I expect anything less? Or more? There is a very large segment of the physical population in the world which has focused on "God" in one way or another - and you claim this to be "thoroughly inconsequential"? With no material effect? That has got to be the most incredible thing I've ever read from you. Not that religious or spiritual patterns have directed and financed science throughout the centuries - or anything... Not that it hasn't been the goal of science to find the "source" many of us commonly refer to as "God" - or anything... It makes no difference that most everyone's ancestry was built on a foundation of "God" - or anything... God is simply "inconsequential"...... There are times when I truly believe that "pure skepticism" is a pathological disorder. This is one of those times. Bart ###### From: "Token" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 22 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: <3NZU5.106$5s2.6204@wormhole.dimensional.com> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:17:28 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.241.33.25 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 975464639 216.241.33.25 (Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:23:59 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:23:59 MST Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.frii.net!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58649 Trish wrote in message news:Aq1U5.1788$xX2.516528@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net... > > Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net>... > >This is a fascinating and informative discussion, but I feel that it > >is drifting away slightly from the point: which is how we can account > >for out-of-body experiences, meaning the mind actually leaving the > >body, within the context of current scientific knowledge. > > That is only one angle in which to view it. There are many of us who don't > believe that the mind, awareness, consciousness, or whatever .. leaves the > body at all. And then there are those of us that believe that the mind, awareness is never in the body to begin with. You can watch a football game on TV, but that doesn't mean you are there. Token ###### From: "Token" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 53 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:24:37 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.241.33.25 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 975465073 216.241.33.25 (Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:31:13 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:31:13 MST Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!wesley.videotron.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58651 lorz wrote in message news:mNOU5.4045$wA6.28109@news1.atl... > > Bart wrote in message <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>... > :Trish wrote in message ... > : > :>OBEs are a highly conscious experience. Maybe (and I do say maybe) even > :>more so than an awake state. Why? Because in order to keep the > experience > :>going, an 'active' consciousness must constantly be applied. > : > :This is true. > : > :>While awake, we needn't worry about it ... we have our senses that > :>continually supply support ... so our awareness levels can fluctuate with > :no > :>real recourse on our actual experience. > : > :This is not true... Most of us live in a non-lucid physical existance. > I'm > :not saying that we don't have periods of intense lucidity in our physical > :lives, but most of us are fairly unconscious most of the time. It is true > :that we may be aware of our surroundings and capable of functioning in the > :physical - but it doesn't mean that we are operating at our peak state of > :consciousness at all times. If we were, I suspect this would be a planet > :full of saints... > : > : > > Or we'd all be insane. I sometimes hate thinking *too* much about things. > Being *too* aware and *too* conscious of our surroundings and how awful many > people are toward each other in the world. There's definitely something to > ignorance being bliss in this respect. I sometimes envy the ignorant. > You are talking about being aware of problems in life, you aren't really talking about being aware. I'm sure you've read a page in a book on occasion only to realize you haven't a clue as to what you just read. Bizarre isn't it, that your brain still read that page, and you know it, but you have no awareness of it. Life would be about as interesting as a dream you couldn't remember if all you did all day long was be unaware. Token ###### From: "Token" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 41 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:29:22 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.241.33.25 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 975465355 216.241.33.25 (Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:35:55 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:35:55 MST Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!xfer13.netnews.com!netnews.com!newsreader.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58652 Bart wrote in message news:8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net... > Trish wrote in message ... > > >OBEs are a highly conscious experience. Maybe (and I do say maybe) even > >more so than an awake state. Why? Because in order to keep the experience > >going, an 'active' consciousness must constantly be applied. > > This is true. > > >While awake, we needn't worry about it ... we have our senses that > >continually supply support ... so our awareness levels can fluctuate with > no > >real recourse on our actual experience. > > This is not true... Most of us live in a non-lucid physical existance. I'm > not saying that we don't have periods of intense lucidity in our physical > lives, but most of us are fairly unconscious most of the time. It is true > that we may be aware of our surroundings and capable of functioning in the > physical - but it doesn't mean that we are operating at our peak state of > consciousness at all times. If we were, I suspect this would be a planet > full of saints... > > Bart > It's probably true that most of us are not aware of our surrounding reality most of the time, but this doesn't mean we aren't at our peak of consciousness at those times. If we are in a lucid dream and fully conscious we consider that a peak of consciousness so why when we are daydreaming while hiking through the woods do we not consider this too a peak of consciousness. Token > > ###### From: "Bart" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:52:28 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 73 Message-ID: <901r2g$a4c$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> <3A240E59.6176@not-here.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.74.b6 X-Server-Date: 29 Nov 2000 02:53:04 GMT 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!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!portc03.blue.aol.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58583 I'm hoping Trish took no offense. I don't think she did. The word "awake" is kind of an inaccurate term for me. I know what you mean... but it doesn't fit. So often we are "daydreaming". So often we are not paying attention to other things because we are caught up in a daily task. For me, the word "awake" is equal to the word "lucid". It describes a very small portion of our lives - that period of time when we stand and observe without becoming involved emotionally. This is when we are "awake" and are capable of viewing things from a very central perspective - fully capable of avoiding emotional and mental clouds. We have to be somewhere... either physical, non-physical, or unconscious... For many, the physical seems to be the most stable - but not for all. I know that the physical "appears" to be stable - so rarely do we realize when we have shifted into a non-physical state. We jump into it without even realizing it. We often don't understand that we have broken away from the physical even though we do it many times every day. I think one of the important things about learning OBE is that we train ourselves to maintain a specific state of consciousness as we search the various levels of awareness. I'm certainly no adept at this (as most everyone here has seen my emotional outbursts and off-color comments). But I cannot deny that I've touched levels of clarity that others seek. So I continue to talk of it in hopes that others might find a taste of what they are looking for - and then continue on with their own progress - in the physical and non-physical areas. Bart Janice wrote in message <3A240E59.6176@not-here.net>... >Bart wrote: >> >> Trish wrote in message ... >> >> >OBEs are a highly conscious experience. Maybe (and I do say maybe) even >> >more so than an awake state. Why? Because in order to keep the experience >> >going, an 'active' consciousness must constantly be applied. >> >> This is true. >> >> >While awake, we needn't worry about it ... we have our senses that >> >continually supply support ... so our awareness levels can fluctuate with >> no >> >real recourse on our actual experience. >> >> This is not true... Most of us live in a non-lucid physical existance. I'm >> not saying that we don't have periods of intense lucidity in our physical >> lives, but most of us are fairly unconscious most of the time. It is true >> that we may be aware of our surroundings and capable of functioning in the >> physical - but it doesn't mean that we are operating at our peak state of >> consciousness at all times. If we were, I suspect this would be a planet >> full of saints... > >I think Trish meant not that we are highly aware all the time while >awake, but that when we are awake the relative stability of our >surroundings helps to stabilize our awareness - if our attention wanders >or we make misperceptions we are pulled back on track by the steady >sensory input - and that OBEs are interesting because unlike in the case >of ordinary dreams, during OBEs we manage to sustain a high level of >awareness without such support. > >-- >http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### From: "Token" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3a22ee07.11072134@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 56 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: <%P_U5.109$5s2.6423@wormhole.dimensional.com> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:27:48 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.241.33.38 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 975468923 216.241.33.38 (Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:35:23 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:35:23 MST Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gblx.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58648 Ian H Spedding wrote in message news:3a22ee07.11072134@news.lineone.net... > > As an agnostic sceptic, I don't deny the dualist or spiritual > possibilities. However, it is possible to argue that the > materialistic view is to be preferred on the grounds that it has been > more successful than the other two alternatives in describing and > explaining the universe. > Just want to butt in for a second and mention that the leading edge of physics these days do not actually deal with physical reality as we know it but physical reality as we only think it to be. We don't really know that there are 3 quarks inside the neutron or that quarks even exist. Why? Because we simply cannot nor will we ever be able to see them. So why say there are Quarks at all? Because someone suggested that there were Quarks, someone else did the math to see if it was possible that something with "Quarklike" parameters (also made up) could explain how the existance of a Neutron could be possible. Using the made up Quark parameters, the math seemed to work. Voila, lot's of people now seem to think that there are 3 Quarks making up the Neutron. What is the difference between this type of science and the "science" of OBE? For one thing, we have parameters for the OBE, but we don't know what math to use on it. Quarks are easy. We have several subatomic particle that don't yet have something in common. We realize that if there were such a particle as a Quark, with such and such parameters, then the math tells us that all of these particles can have the Quark in common. Quarks..the building blocks of subatomic particles! But are they really? We don't have to really "see" an OBE anymore than we need to see a Quark, but we do need some math to bring it to scientific acceptence. We need first to know if the OBE has anything in common with something else in life. Why do cells reproduce? Who really knows. But the question isn't why they reproduce any more than the question is why a Neutron exists. All we need to find out is if OBEs and the big bang have anything in common. A "Quark" so to speak. If there can be found some commonality between some or all of the myserties of life and OBEs then we are on the road to making an OBE a scientific study rather than just a scientific observation. Of course I understand that "proving" that Quarks exist is much much easier than proving the existance of non local consciousness, but eventually science will have to bring the mysteries of the universe together that have not yet been explained (magnitism, gravity, big bang, closed universes, etc. and the OBE) using a Quarklike phenomenon. But if OBEs are left out in the cold, then that would be like leaving the electron out in the cold when working with subatomic particles. There is really no reason to. Oh well, just rambling. Token > Ian > > > Ian H Spedding > ============== ###### From: "Bart" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:30:47 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 34 Message-ID: <901tbk$jtl$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A24225B.40DB@not-here.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.74.b6 X-Server-Date: 29 Nov 2000 03:32:04 GMT 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!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!comnets.rwth-aachen.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!europa.netcrusader.net!152.163.239.131!portc03.blue.aol.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58610 pz wrote in message ... >> Wouldn't the other body be likely to reject the transplanted head? > >Yes. You also wouldn't be able to make functional nervous connections, >so even if you did get around the immune problem, you'd still just have >a head stuck on a paralyzed, insensate body. It's a medical experiment >without a practical goal. > >-- >pz Oh... not that the study of transplants, robotics, and prosthesis have improved dramatically over the years, or anything... I've read of monkey brains controlling simple machines... It's not so much that I support this type of scientific horror - it's just that I occasionally wonder what might be considered "practical" by a skeptic. I accept that skepticism has its place. I accept that science has its place. I accept that spirituality has its place. Where is PZ's place? Maybe he is a transplant that just doesn't "take". Perhaps the scientific "ethics" (born of spirituality) are beginning to take their toll? If a scientist has no vision of the future - is he a real scientist? Or is he just a witness? Bart ###### Message-ID: <3A2479B6.23D9@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A24225B.40DB@not-here.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 47 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:36:30 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-KlqQ5mYd0TdBmPu1wnW9KtHqvqqHJNMu0mOB1DKIGN+HFYLQGktym1QJxuKxqgsCcb6BfOR/AlmjYnD!5SEKJNgIfIcdCVWdFfX8LrcTPhw= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:36:34 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!lmu.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58495 pz wrote: > > In article <3A24225B.40DB@not-here.net>, Janice > wrote: > > > pz wrote: > > > > > > In article , "lorz" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > pz wrote in message ... > > > > : > > > > :There is a Japanese researcher whose name I have blissfully > > > > :forgotten who has been carrying out experiments on small > > > > :mammals (cats and dogs, I think). He decapitates the animals, > > > > :and then sees how long he can keep the severed heads alive > > > > :(and conscious!) on either a heart/lung machine or diverted > > > > :circulation from another animal. He's considered a bit of a > > > > :pariah...everyone I've talked to considers those experiments > > > > :highly unethical and likely to be very unproductive. I > > > > :understand he has been successful in 'waking up' the heads > > > > :for limited periods of time, which I understand react with > > > > :signs of extreme pain and stress, as you might guess. > > > > > > > > Well that's pretty interesting in an 'ewwwwwwwww' kind of way. > > > > What exactly is he trying to find out in thiese experiements? > > > > > > I have no idea, which is one of the reasons people find his work > > > repugnant. There are some handwaving sort of arguments that it > > > would provide a technique to keep someone alive while waiting for > > > a whole-body transplant...but then it's nothing but an exercise > > > in a technique that might be useful for a protocol that doesn't > > > exist. > > > > A bona fide mad scientist! :) > > > > Wouldn't the other body be likely to reject the transplanted head? > > Yes. You also wouldn't be able to make functional nervous connections, > so even if you did get around the immune problem, you'd still just have > a head stuck on a paralyzed, insensate body. It's a medical experiment > without a practical goal. Maybe he would like it tried on himself when the time comes. :) -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A247A72.D26@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A24225B.40DB@not-here.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 45 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:39:37 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-cfQbbfpWdG5ThGZyKeXo9NYvWhM6qFGjqb+dhiHSHwATaVcPEPRG3MyScbvf695SHUOglMjMBU2eoND!bGKx2iovV7JmMolzL+gtKXARXPs= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:39:37 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!205.231.236.10!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58655 Trish wrote: > > Janice wrote in message <3A24225B.40DB@not-here.net>... > >pz wrote: > >> > >> In article , "lorz" > >> wrote: > >> > >> > pz wrote in message ... > >> > : > >> > :There is a Japanese researcher whose name I have blissfully > >> > :forgotten who has been carrying out experiments on small > >> > :mammals (cats and dogs, I think). He decapitates the animals, > >> > :and then sees how long he can keep the severed heads alive > >> > :(and conscious!) on either a heart/lung machine or diverted > >> > :circulation from another animal. He's considered a bit of a > >> > :pariah...everyone I've talked to considers those experiments > >> > :highly unethical and likely to be very unproductive. I > >> > :understand he has been successful in 'waking up' the heads > >> > :for limited periods of time, which I understand react with > >> > :signs of extreme pain and stress, as you might guess. > >> > > >> > Well that's pretty interesting in an 'ewwwwwwwww' kind of way. > >> > What exactly is he trying to find out in thiese experiements? > >> > >> I have no idea, which is one of the reasons people find his work > >> repugnant. There are some handwaving sort of arguments that it > >> would provide a technique to keep someone alive while waiting for > >> a whole-body transplant...but then it's nothing but an exercise > >> in a technique that might be useful for a protocol that doesn't > >> exist. > > > >A bona fide mad scientist! :) > > > >Wouldn't the other body be likely to reject the transplanted head? > > For some strange reason I recall some type of television program about this. > Weird. Didn't he work on a monkey? Don't know. I think I remember reading one time about a dog's head being grafted onto another dog and showing some signs of life, but I really don't know where that was. -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 30 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:45:36 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-lUxjLoMvYL1uaRV9pARU6ySqMsgRHRMSQpI5dSZHReDfZHQCzhqnmr5faEgR28iztdWiZLl/Npr+Jxu!enc0ZZ5VkUBbQzj1XVKePuZ6Jv0= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:45:37 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58508 Ian H Spedding wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:15:20 -0800, "dorothy dunne" > wrote: > > > >Ah, I daresay you and Ian would be in agreement on this. There *has* been a > >bit of discussion on what would make for better reporting; and some > >anecdotes have been given *some* credence by the skeptics. I recall that > >Sherilyn was semi-impressed by Bruce's report that he 'saw' Trish's arm > >flung out above her head during an OBE "visit" many months ago (before they > >knew each other well...). I have also seen little negative commentary on > >Haunter's "bird's nest" OBE. In general, though, the climate here is fairly > >hostile toward the idea that any paranormal component exists in the OBE > >phenomenon. A little tolerance for the lay "reporter" would certainly be > >appreciated. It would even be nice if we could discuss the paranormal > >possibilities without being sneered at. I don't hold out much hope for that, > >though. :-( > > I don't doubt the reports of OBEs or lucid dreams that people have > given here. They're very interesting and have even given me some > ideas for a few little tests that people could try out if they were > willing. Tell us! I have a hard time thinking of new and interesting things to do in lucid dreams after having so many of them for so long. -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> <3A240E59.6176@not-here.net> <901r2g$a4c$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 55 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: +4f59+OHt5WU5FCU6zeeoeQMMOFKUKOOe40moA84nSgI5MlFNDvJ/psR8qh/ivp6+fJaJJ6dVCXJ!o7udk3bTj3bVhQG8oP5zVWmMj10s1uGjqYHGOGiPjfoBUmLa2DFOKPFZjfvYtkQzoW5OEbeQ8btF!+zEebHIW X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:01:35 GMT Distribution: world Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:01:36 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58631 Bart wrote in message <901r2g$a4c$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>... >I'm hoping Trish took no offense. I don't think she did. Course not, silly. : ) Go down | v >The word "awake" is kind of an inaccurate term for me. I know what you >mean... but it doesn't fit. So often we are "daydreaming". So often we are >not paying attention to other things because we are caught up in a daily >task. > >For me, the word "awake" is equal to the word "lucid". It describes a very >small portion of our lives - that period of time when we stand and observe >without becoming involved emotionally. This is when we are "awake" and are >capable of viewing things from a very central perspective - fully capable of >avoiding emotional and mental clouds. > >We have to be somewhere... either physical, non-physical, or unconscious... >For many, the physical seems to be the most stable - but not for all. > >I know that the physical "appears" to be stable - so rarely do we realize >when we have shifted into a non-physical state. We jump into it without >even realizing it. We often don't understand that we have broken away from >the physical even though we do it many times every day. > >I think one of the important things about learning OBE is that we train >ourselves to maintain a specific state of consciousness as we search the >various levels of awareness. I'm certainly no adept at this (as most >everyone here has seen my emotional outbursts and off-color comments). Heh. > But >I cannot deny that I've touched levels of clarity that others seek. So I >continue to talk of it in hopes that others might find a taste of what they >are looking for - and then continue on with their own progress - in the >physical and non-physical areas. > >Bart I understand what you are saying, and for the most part, I agree. But my comparison was made more to illustrate the point that the OBE state of consciousness is a difficult one to maintain .. more so than the awake state. I didn't mean it to appear that awareness doesn't fluctuate while we are awake. It does. It just easier to set yourself back on course. ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <20001128032807.21462.00002059@ng-fd1.aol.com> <901l0n$fjs$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: +L6QmwbnQI6zX4ntk5uTxxqGwELs0YuZnGUOj03N5PklxlfcvbcKzFugWf+6bNHCjWX6//lGkHWY!nwXJTRXNDOkY0QRNoCiJdffb/glBJOw0evCYui9xnWBdha/LJ0iRtKQaFEKHSt8wapNK15ziXOhA!k3SKRzP5 X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:08:42 GMT Distribution: world Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:08:42 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58632 Bart wrote in message <901l0n$fjs$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>... > >MarkenAdms wrote in message ><20001128032807.21462.00002059@ng-fd1.aol.com>... > >>nonsentient, innanimate things go around "measuring" each >>other all the time in any consistent science. When the moon is attracted >to >>the earth by gravity, the moon is "measuring" the earth's gravitational >pull. >>When a tree falls in the forest it "measures" its angle with respect to the >>earth, "measures" the amount of air it must force aside to fall down to a >>horizontal attitude, and "measures" the elasticity of the ground it falls >on, >>etc etc. If you don't believe a tree falling in the forest when there's no >one >>around to hear nevertheless makes a sound you don't credit physical science >to >>begin with. > > >This is exactly why I dislike the word "paranormal". I may make an >occasional statement that would lead some to think I am referring to a >paranormal experience, but basically (as Trish may recall from a few years >ago), I'm talking more about an unconscious pattern recognition. Oh yes, I do remember many things, oh co-defender of the SH incident. : ) >When a child sees a flower, the child doesn't need to be trained to identify >this flower as being beautiful - yet the child sees beauty. We don't need >to understand the physics of a structure to know certain things about its >nature. The study of unconscious sensitivity to certain patterns may >actually be the key to understanding what many people call "paranormal". > >As you say... all physical things are in a constant state of "measuring" >their physical surroundings. When consciousness is involved, the >"measurements" can actually become predictive. When exceptional sensitivity >is involved, the "measurement" might even be thought (incorrectly) to be >"paranormal". > >I believe the practice of OBE is basically the only true way to develop >"exceptional sensitivity to pattern recognition" and I believe it must be >done with a spiritual focus - else the discipline required to maintain the >sensitivity will become dulled. It is a personal endeavor that doesn't >easily lend itself to scientific research. > >I apologize for shifting the topic a bit. I just like to add input where it >fits. > >Bart I do recall what you mean. And it is an interesting spin on the subject. Bart, what do you think the first step towards spiritual venture should be? You know me well enough. Use me as an example, if you will. ###### From: "Token" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 16 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:09:30 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.241.33.53 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 975471400 216.241.33.53 (Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:16:40 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:16:40 MST Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!grolier!spacestar!newsfeed.frii.net!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58650 lorz wrote in message news:X3SU5.6920$yP6.34406@news2.atl... > Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested scientifically? > Certainly. Human consciousness. Ever hear of the Turing Challange? Token > > ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 23 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /Kp2lqiZTUxhvDk0aqrLPq7RRCsd8MjaPnzulzrmuszIG38PqkhEnwwrvpJ99eLP8N1F8JUY9g40!EMDb9O7t3ApGX7MJIToI1sQBglf95DoEk288XepYOXhKegPgxHCi8WDth9ZH69RowayPZM2M+3yX!6Cietrn5 X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:12:05 GMT Distribution: world Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:12:05 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58634 Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small > wrote: > >[...] > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument is >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take seriously. > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the >alternative. Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? I like that Ian. I really do. : ) ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A24225B.40DB@not-here.net> <901tbk$jtl$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 25 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /Kw5eAwpGMsHnpZ6j10GO9eiQUfoiNlk5UvtPoZ6zlgxDfTWpvIbqVGLgvajpfCi88mIkKpFaYxu!esLFF3ZJUHYwNEJrQ+sKAq7e/K9qElc+vcue79hh59jF2JxTYdzKyYupZ5lRIYqnADMB2DnKMfUb!JTD7XR98 X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:14:46 GMT Distribution: world Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:14:46 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58628 Bart wrote in message <901tbk$jtl$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>... > >pz wrote in message ... > >>> Wouldn't the other body be likely to reject the transplanted head? >> >>Yes. You also wouldn't be able to make functional nervous connections, >>so even if you did get around the immune problem, you'd still just have >>a head stuck on a paralyzed, insensate body. It's a medical experiment >>without a practical goal. >> >>-- >>pz > >Oh... not that the study of transplants, robotics, and prosthesis have >improved dramatically over the years, or anything... > >I've read of monkey brains controlling simple machines... See. I knew of some type of research involving monkeys. Argh! Something about a 'scientist' removing a monkeys head to see how long he could sustain it's life? ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 40 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: +r2abi/u2k9M6D6WO6S7upX37l08Tdh9TpfG180WAdJ1DG2zJx6aRggYjmEJiFXvcVF7zmPTYLaS!XeWqge5YxjAOvK3QPMBGVcxOE/07y6MMnaL49SoMH64Eyb3+c5vPL3y40Fpkc3//i726ygWQnmiJ!9ivCp6BZ X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:19:49 GMT Distribution: world Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:19:49 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!logbridge.uoregon.edu!feeder.qis.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58625 Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net>... >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:15:20 -0800, "dorothy dunne" > wrote: > >> >>MarkenAdms wrote in message >>news:20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com... > >[...] > >>> I'm open to ideas for a better Middle Way of discourse. >> >>Ah, I daresay you and Ian would be in agreement on this. There *has* been a >>bit of discussion on what would make for better reporting; and some >>anecdotes have been given *some* credence by the skeptics. I recall that >>Sherilyn was semi-impressed by Bruce's report that he 'saw' Trish's arm >>flung out above her head during an OBE "visit" many months ago (before they >>knew each other well...). I have also seen little negative commentary on >>Haunter's "bird's nest" OBE. In general, though, the climate here is fairly >>hostile toward the idea that any paranormal component exists in the OBE >>phenomenon. A little tolerance for the lay "reporter" would certainly be >>appreciated. It would even be nice if we could discuss the paranormal >>possibilities without being sneered at. I don't hold out much hope for that, >>though. :-( > >I don't doubt the reports of OBEs or lucid dreams that people have >given here. They're very interesting and have even given me some >ideas for a few little tests that people could try out if they were >willing. Oooh! oooh! Tell! Please ... preferably a POBE to a DOBE. K? ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 15 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /w/U2/8CEpj6H9DmnIU6wKdU/Vi3ZnquF5mqW4mCBBNLL+vmiY4k4Ezl1LL6zIGuUTBnXX/ayI9b!JCvslKRUbxlhTmaknXSL9jqF+Cv55TiRGzxYJqDu4Ffq5G4+6CAI6GooE+06bDzbWtWXkcAAgpmm!HZPpFvQm X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:20:55 GMT Distribution: world Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:20:55 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58627 Token wrote in message ... > >lorz wrote in message >news:X3SU5.6920$yP6.34406@news2.atl... > >> Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested >scientifically? >> > >Certainly. Human consciousness. Ever hear of the Turing Challange? And this has to do with a Turing machine, yes? ###### From: "Token" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 29 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:25:21 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.241.33.53 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 975472358 216.241.33.53 (Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:32:38 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:32:38 MST Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!newsfeed.frii.net!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58647 Trish wrote in message news:Hu%U5.2566$Lo6.391858@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net... > > Token wrote in message ... > > > >lorz wrote in message > >news:X3SU5.6920$yP6.34406@news2.atl... > > > >> Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested > >scientifically? > >> > > > >Certainly. Human consciousness. Ever hear of the Turing Challange? > > > And this has to do with a Turing machine, yes? > That's certainly where it began. It's a fun little game that AI scientists like to play to see if there is a series of questions that can be asked of a computer (or a human being for that matter) which when answered will prove that the machine (or human) is self aware. Solopsism exists for the very reason that this challange has not yet been answered sucessfully. We all know that we are self aware, yet none of us can prove it. Token ###### Message-ID: <3A2488DA.5316@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A24225B.40DB@not-here.net> <901tbk$jtl$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 29 NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:41:05 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-KfS6VMPJOgT+Q5BmZYbH+QCX4uMGlZfAFMKrLGL1V88vmePi4vr1cHFlvPY2hRl3strqTNdO89rCW+/!F8rBpr2I8cN2zEDRlO9fivrykaI= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:41:05 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!nntp.flash.net!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58487 Trish wrote: > > Bart wrote in message <901tbk$jtl$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>... > > > >pz wrote in message ... > > > >>> Wouldn't the other body be likely to reject the transplanted head? > >> > >>Yes. You also wouldn't be able to make functional nervous connections, > >>so even if you did get around the immune problem, you'd still just have > >>a head stuck on a paralyzed, insensate body. It's a medical experiment > >>without a practical goal. > >> > >>-- > >>pz > > > >Oh... not that the study of transplants, robotics, and prosthesis have > >improved dramatically over the years, or anything... > > > >I've read of monkey brains controlling simple machines... > > See. I knew of some type of research involving monkeys. Argh! Something > about a 'scientist' removing a monkeys head to see how long he could sustain > it's life? Some "life." If it comes to that, pull the plug on me, ok? :) -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Organization: Nailbunny's Hammer References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A24225B.40DB@not-here.net> <901tbk$jtl$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-Face: .k!7leh{iTz*Ah$8`'u'O$.4Z9+jOYL|yvi39v4fL-Un]RqYdDRAg*#o{3f|Mkzf8+}'2AmMD7_7`BM/X]H1nvmSDn*M0vfiwKn^3R[Kr_o*'>L@wBpFy>X&moPw Lines: 68 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:50:49 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.146.112.8 X-Complaints-To: abuse@onvoy.com X-Trace: news7.onvoy.net 975473449 206.146.112.8 (Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:50:49 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:50:49 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!upp1.onvoy!onvoy.com!news7.onvoy.net.POSTED!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58633 In article <901tbk$jtl$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>, "Bart" wrote: > pz wrote in message ... > > >> Wouldn't the other body be likely to reject the transplanted head? > > > >Yes. You also wouldn't be able to make functional nervous > >connections, so even if you did get around the immune problem, you'd > >still just have a head stuck on a paralyzed, insensate body. It's a > >medical experiment without a practical goal. > > > >-- pz > > Oh... not that the study of transplants, robotics, and prosthesis > have improved dramatically over the years, or anything... > > I've read of monkey brains controlling simple machines... > > It's not so much that I support this type of scientific horror - it's > just that I occasionally wonder what might be considered "practical" > by a skeptic. I accept that skepticism has its place. I accept that > science has its place. I accept that spirituality has its place. > > Where is PZ's place? Maybe he is a transplant that just doesn't > "take". Perhaps the scientific "ethics" (born of spirituality) are > beginning to take their toll? > > If a scientist has no vision of the future - is he a real scientist? > Or is he just a witness? Good scientists have a vision of the future that is brightly illuminated by present reality. The experiment described here is very, very bad science. It does not answer a question that would lead to further inquiry; it's more along the lines of morbid jiggery-pokery. I could support this kind of ethically dubious work *if* it were trying to answer a fundamental question, but unfortunately, this one is not. It's purported goal is to develop a radical transplant or life support technology. However, it fails at that, as well, for a number of reasons: 1. It's trivial. The mechanics of hooking up the vascular plumbing to the head are a tiny, tiny problem in the face of the greater challenges of maintaining a foreign graft like that, and getting nerves to regrow so that it's useful. 2. It's premature. Say a scientist perfects the technique of plugging a severed head onto a decapitated body; now what? Would you go through such a procedure? Would you want it to happen to a loved one? 3. It's unethical. Certain shallow thinkers seem to believe that any technology available ought to be deployed to save any life at any cost. This is not the case. Death is an inevitable part of life, and to forestall it temporarily by turning life into a horror is not acceptable. I must also say that I am singularly unimpressed with your brand of situational anti-scientism. I'm sure that if I'd been gung-ho about this procedure, you would have been castigating me as some kind of soulless Frankenstein; since I was against it, you claim instead that I'm without scientific vision. I suspect that your frequent assertions of your 'spirituality' are really substitutes for your absence of a true moral compass. -- pz ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:59:33 -0600 Organization: Nailbunny's Hammer Lines: 61 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <901oj8$i0v$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-258.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-Face: .k!7leh{iTz*Ah$8`'u'O$.4Z9+jOYL|yvi39v4fL-Un]RqYdDRAg*#o{3f|Mkzf8+}'2AmMD7_7`BM/X]H1nvmSDn*M0vfiwKn^3R[Kr_o*'>L@wBpFy>X&moPw, "Bart" wrote: > pz wrote in message ... > >In article , "lorz" > > wrote: > > > >> Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested > >> scientifically? > > > >Like what? I suppose you could argue for something that you claim > >has no material effect in the world and only affects you > >exclusively, but then we have the problem of how *you* can say that > >you KNOW that it exists. Since it has no material effect on the > >world, we'd also have to say it must be something thoroughly > >inconsequential. Like god. -- pz > > Wow... what a statement. Why should I expect anything less? Or > more? > > There is a very large segment of the physical population in the world > which has focused on "God" in one way or another - and you claim this > to be "thoroughly inconsequential"? With no material effect? > > That has got to be the most incredible thing I've ever read from you. > > Not that religious or spiritual patterns have directed and financed > science throughout the centuries - or anything... You seem to confuse organized religion with god. They aren't one and the same thing. I do happen to believe religion exists. People have probably practiced it for good or ill for as long as people have been around. It is an actual, physical, real-life institution. It is not inconsequential, unfortunately. God does not exist. At least, he certainly doesn't seem to have done anything for a long, long time. That makes this hypothetical entity most inconsequential. > > Not that it hasn't been the goal of science to find the "source" many > of us commonly refer to as "God" - or anything... > > It makes no difference that most everyone's ancestry was built on a > foundation of "God" - or anything... > > God is simply "inconsequential"...... Correct. > > There are times when I truly believe that "pure skepticism" is a > pathological disorder. This is one of those times. Funny. That's how I feel about religion. -- pz ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:00:20 -0600 Organization: Nailbunny's Hammer Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> <901l66$cpt$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-286.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-Face: .k!7leh{iTz*Ah$8`'u'O$.4Z9+jOYL|yvi39v4fL-Un]RqYdDRAg*#o{3f|Mkzf8+}'2AmMD7_7`BM/X]H1nvmSDn*M0vfiwKn^3R[Kr_o*'>L@wBpFy>X&moPw, "Bart" wrote: > lorz wrote in message ... > > >I sometimes envy the ignorant. > > > This would make an incredible bumper sticker :-) Um... for your car, of > course - not mine ;-) Of course not. You're one of the lucky ones. -- pz ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A24225B.40DB@not-here.net> <901tbk$jtl$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> <3A2488DA.5316@not-here.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 38 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /b4C/BlTr9OwkZvapXJUdI8vE4HhDighRbpKbCWj2qp65vJb5mLjB/XW3x998h9ea2GvUN4zLghR!0x4UCdz/h2WxNVuIPF1qR1sKGeZIzWggi+yEvvK3H1kJZtIycKxs5I198hORXoOg2mYx62rnBYQW!W6dZ/yqC X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:00:40 GMT Distribution: world Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:00:40 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!xfer13.netnews.com!netnews.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58617 Janice wrote in message <3A2488DA.5316@not-here.net>... >Trish wrote: >> >> Bart wrote in message <901tbk$jtl$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>... >> > >> >pz wrote in message ... >> > >> >>> Wouldn't the other body be likely to reject the transplanted head? >> >> >> >>Yes. You also wouldn't be able to make functional nervous connections, >> >>so even if you did get around the immune problem, you'd still just have >> >>a head stuck on a paralyzed, insensate body. It's a medical experiment >> >>without a practical goal. >> >> >> >>-- >> >>pz >> > >> >Oh... not that the study of transplants, robotics, and prosthesis have >> >improved dramatically over the years, or anything... >> > >> >I've read of monkey brains controlling simple machines... >> >> See. I knew of some type of research involving monkeys. Argh! Something >> about a 'scientist' removing a monkeys head to see how long he could sustain >> it's life? > >Some "life." If it comes to that, pull the plug on me, ok? :) You?? I was watching him doing this about a *monkey*! It was almost as bad as when Digit got his hands and head hacked off. Ugh. ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:01:39 -0600 Organization: Nailbunny's Hammer Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243939.13133658@news.lineone.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-309.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-Face: .k!7leh{iTz*Ah$8`'u'O$.4Z9+jOYL|yvi39v4fL-Un]RqYdDRAg*#o{3f|Mkzf8+}'2AmMD7_7`BM/X]H1nvmSDn*M0vfiwKn^3R[Kr_o*'>L@wBpFy>X&moPw, ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) wrote: > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:39:36 -0600, pz wrote: > > [...] > > >There is a Japanese researcher whose name I have blissfully forgotten > >who has been carrying out experiments on small mammals (cats and dogs, > >I think). He decapitates the animals, and then sees how long he can > >keep the severed heads alive (and conscious!) on either a heart/lung > >machine or diverted circulation from another animal. He's considered a > >bit of a pariah...everyone I've talked to considers those experiments > >highly unethical and likely to be very unproductive. I understand he > >has been successful in 'waking up' the heads for limited periods of > >time, which I understand react with signs of extreme pain and stress, > >as you might guess. > > > >I haven't read any of the original papers on this topic. He tends not to > >get published in the journals I read. > > I accept that some animal-based research is unavoidable but, quite > frankly, I find that horrifying and utterly indefensible. Uh-oh. That means you are lacking in 'vision'. -- pz ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:03:45 -0600 Organization: Nailbunny's Hammer Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vv98u$agj$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> <3a243a9a.13486702@news.lineone.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-427.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-Face: .k!7leh{iTz*Ah$8`'u'O$.4Z9+jOYL|yvi39v4fL-Un]RqYdDRAg*#o{3f|Mkzf8+}'2AmMD7_7`BM/X]H1nvmSDn*M0vfiwKn^3R[Kr_o*'>L@wBpFy>X&moPw, ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) wrote: [snip] > I know we've had our differences but I've never thought of PZ as an > amorphous heap of cellular debris. Just give me a little more time. We're all working on it. [snip] -- pz ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 35 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /bNDCw3jNqyDzhuab+AS1Oy8Du33CDG7FrSoXJnPcS/n9UR/+5K1zuwk8L1Wp2qdQzndanhktssc!ru2xbrPCJHGIfXR0Jj68kMbp9QaUfCFtLXZLx3lg9aqEnayEoRLLOU03NzPEWjRLTQuZKGk7DkDR!MgQdHPK2 X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:03:49 GMT Distribution: world Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:03:49 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!machtgarnix.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58613 Token wrote in message ... > >Trish wrote in message >news:Hu%U5.2566$Lo6.391858@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net... >> >> Token wrote in message ... >> > >> >lorz wrote in message >> >news:X3SU5.6920$yP6.34406@news2.atl... >> > >> >> Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested >> >scientifically? >> >> >> > >> >Certainly. Human consciousness. Ever hear of the Turing Challange? >> >> >> And this has to do with a Turing machine, yes? >> > >That's certainly where it began. It's a fun little game that AI scientists >like to play to see if there is a series of questions that can be asked of a >computer (or a human being for that matter) which when answered will prove >that the machine (or human) is self aware. Solopsism exists for the very >reason that this challange has not yet been answered sucessfully. We all >know that we are self aware, yet none of us can prove it. > >Token Ah yes. I'm reading (um .. attempting to read) about this in Penrose's book on the subject. Unfortunately, the math is far too over my head. ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Organization: Nailbunny's Hammer Distribution: world References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-Face: .k!7leh{iTz*Ah$8`'u'O$.4Z9+jOYL|yvi39v4fL-Un]RqYdDRAg*#o{3f|Mkzf8+}'2AmMD7_7`BM/X]H1nvmSDn*M0vfiwKn^3R[Kr_o*'>L@wBpFy>X&moPw Lines: 33 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:14:46 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.146.112.8 X-Complaints-To: abuse@onvoy.com X-Trace: news7.onvoy.net 975474886 206.146.112.8 (Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:14:46 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:14:46 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!upp1.onvoy!onvoy.com!news7.onvoy.net.POSTED!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58630 In article , "Trish" wrote: > Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small > > wrote: > > > >[...] > > > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument is > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take seriously. > > > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the > >alternative. > > > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? > > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) > I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote viewing/precognition. -- pz ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:17:34 -0600 Organization: Nailbunny's Hammer Lines: 34 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A24225B.40DB@not-here.net> <901tbk$jtl$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-726.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-Face: .k!7leh{iTz*Ah$8`'u'O$.4Z9+jOYL|yvi39v4fL-Un]RqYdDRAg*#o{3f|Mkzf8+}'2AmMD7_7`BM/X]H1nvmSDn*M0vfiwKn^3R[Kr_o*'>L@wBpFy>X&moPw, "Trish" wrote: > Bart wrote in message <901tbk$jtl$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>... > > > >pz wrote in message ... > > > >>> Wouldn't the other body be likely to reject the transplanted > >>> head? > >> > >>Yes. You also wouldn't be able to make functional nervous > >>connections, so even if you did get around the immune problem, > >>you'd still just have a head stuck on a paralyzed, insensate body. > >>It's a medical experiment without a practical goal. > >> > >>-- pz > > > >Oh... not that the study of transplants, robotics, and prosthesis > >have improved dramatically over the years, or anything... > > > >I've read of monkey brains controlling simple machines... > > > See. I knew of some type of research involving monkeys. Argh! > Something about a 'scientist' removing a monkeys head to see how long > he could sustain it's life? > It could have been monkeys. I've only heard about this work second hand, and knew it involved mammals -- cats in particular -- but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was butchering monkeys, too. -- pz ###### From: "Bart" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:17:43 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 118 Message-ID: <9023h4$sar$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vv98u$agj$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> <3a243a9a.13486702@news.lineone.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.74.b6 X-Server-Date: 29 Nov 2000 05:17:24 GMT 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!HSNX.atgi.net!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58587 Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243a9a.13486702@news.lineone.net>... >On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:35:44 -0500, "Bart" >wrote: > >> >>Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net>... >> >>>imagine that I am zapped by a >>>fiendish alien ray-gun. It doesn't vaporise me but disassembles my >>>body cell by cell so that I'm left as a disgusting pile of gunk on the >>>ground. Would that pile still be me? >> >>Actually, I think that pile would then be PZ. > >I know we've had our differences but I've never thought of PZ as an >amorphous heap of cellular debris. So, I guess you are beginning to understand the variety of points of view? >>>I assume that most people would >>>agree that it wouldn't, but why not? After all, everything that made >>>up my body would still be there, it wasn't destroyed. >> >>So... Your body was never "you" in the first place. > >Listen, it may not be much of a body but it's the only one I've got >.. even if it is just a temporary vehicle for my genes. Your "genes" are the physical pattern. As you said, "it's the only one I've got" - who is "I've"? Your genes? Who is "Your"? "My"? What is actually claiming "posession" of this situation you know as "you"? How long has it existed? >I've never actually looked inside my body - apart from a couple of >X-rays - but I'm pretty sure I'm solid inside as well as on the >outside .. some would say especially between the ears. 90% water... but not a big deal... When I speak of the "inside", most people in this group understand that I'm talking about an internal "conscious" experience - not a physical situation. >>>Another problem is that the mind is not just a file of data but much >>>more like a program or suite of programs. You can send programs as >>>files over a radio link but they don't start to run in mid-air. They >>>only work when they are downloaded and run on the physical computer. >> >>The program works at its origin - which is actually beyond the physical >>computer. It can be found on the astral as a function that the "author" >>discovered while moving inward during contemplation in an effort to get a >>computer to perform a physical function. >> >>Think of the AC motor and its "inventor". The pattern always existed. >>Tesla simply saw it and learned how it worked through his inner vision. He >>brought this pattern from the astral into the physical. The pattern for >>everything in the physical existed long before anything in the physical. >>This would include the physical body. > >Doesn't this make you a Platonist? :-) If you wish to limit your view to that tiny perspective, you would see me as a Platonist. Is that all I am? I've had short views of others, such as PZ. I'm not immune to forming opinions - something I should work on. If "Platonist" works for you, then use it for now. Just remember that you mentioned patterns in your own post. Didn't you also ask if I was a "Pantheist"? Didn't you also ask if I was something else? Why is it so important for you to stick me in a group? I don't put you in the same category as PZ. >we have plenty of evidence for the >existence of the physical world but none for this non-physical reality >that you are postulating. In fact, I would argue that, if we take >reality to mean the physical universe, composed of matter and energy, >then "non-physical reality" is an oxymoron and essentially >meaningless. But what if we "DON'T" take the "ENTIRETY" of reality to mean "JUST" the physical universe. In other words... the physical is only a small portion of reality for some of us. The physical is the only thing you can experiment on in the physical. Science has a very limited access to the psychological and spiritual points of reality. The scientific study is incredibly shallow in this area - but the religious and spiritual studies have gone very deep. You don't have the desire to perform the necessary discipline. You just don't believe it is necessary to discipline the consciousness. Your limited point of view is not our fault. I agree that there are a great many frauds in the "paranormal" subject. I agree that there are soooooooo many that it should raise some concern within the scientific community. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with many of the scientific demands for proof on a subject that simply does not lend itself to that type of study. So? What is the point in all this argument? Nothing leaves the body. It is a matter of moving into consciousness. It is an inward journey. Science cannot study it because science cannot attach machines to the personal experience. Most people cannot bring back evidence because most people are beginners and those who are not beginners are not interested in playing that game. They would have to spend the rest of their lives helping people who refuse the teachings of personal discipline. It's not their fault. Everyone has been told, over and over, that personal discipline and prayer is the most important thing in life. If you want proof, you have to do it yourself. Bart This IS a game. I probably shouldn't have even bothered with your post. I find you to be a "polite" individual, Ian. That is probably why I responded... ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 43 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: +r4CDiwdbQZsnqBSN83U8i01Y66xJGPEtgru7FMobI78H1dYxPHQLCm4wjIVe6FD5u1vqw5xIpfb!BGsZEPd7SOwe+9MajxXb0wLr9pV0AQpixe7MZNqEIL3UARTF1Br9v5f7WOWcSwOar+qdHDEitWtu!gSvAgkRo X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:28:41 GMT Distribution: world Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:28:41 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!londen1-snf1.gtei.net!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!sydney-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58637 pz wrote in message ... >In article , "Trish" > wrote: > >> Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... >> >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small >> > wrote: >> > >> >[...] >> > >> >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument is >> >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have >> >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only >> >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take seriously. >> > >> >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the >> >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs >> >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to >> >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the >> >alternative. >> >> >> Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? >> >> I like that Ian. I really do. : ) >> > >I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, >the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that >don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote >viewing/precognition. Yes, those that are more inclined to believe that there is a shift in consciousness, yet nothing leaves the body. You have to be careful here, because there are those in this category who believe that what they see truly is in the physical (even though they don't leave!)... and others who feel it is more of an inner "spiritual" experience, having nothing to do with the physical at all. (the quotes around "spiritual" were intended just for you PZ ... as I hate it when you shiver so) ###### From: "Bart" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:51:05 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 32 Message-ID: <9025il$ihh$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.74.b6 X-Server-Date: 29 Nov 2000 05:52:21 GMT 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!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!schlund.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58595 Token wrote in message ... >It's probably true that most of us are not aware of our surrounding reality >most of the time, but this doesn't mean we aren't at our peak of >consciousness at those times. If we are in a lucid dream and fully >conscious we consider that a peak of consciousness so why when we are >daydreaming while hiking through the woods do we not consider this too a >peak of consciousness. This is an important question. I'm not sure I know how to answer it at this time. Perhaps it doesn't require an answer - but simply a comment. My "peaks" have always been when I am not in a "conflict" mode. I have absolutely no questions in my mind. I'm loving and being given love. There really is no goal. It is a stable situation. I may observe a conflict, but it doesn't belong to me and is easily equalized. The only challenge is to maintain this state - meaning - there is no challenge provided I do not become emotionally involved. "Love" becomes a power - not an emotion. There is a great deal of joy in the simple act of extending the awareness of balance to my surroundings. Perhaps you ARE at a peak, Token. Bart ###### From: "Bart" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 02:22:28 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 49 Message-ID: <902ar0$p52$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A24225B.40DB@not-here.net> <901tbk$jtl$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.74.b6 X-Server-Date: 29 Nov 2000 07:22:08 GMT 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.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58581 pz wrote in message ... >I must also say that I am singularly unimpressed with your brand of >situational anti-scientism. Actually.... I just don't like you. I haven't liked you since the first time I saw one of your posts in this group. I certainly haven't enjoyed the way you treated people in this group and I really don't give a damn about you or anything you think. So... I suppose you are correct in your assumptions about me. I just don't like you. I don't think you are a positive force in any newsgroup that you choose to visit. I don't mind Ian. I don't mind Janice. I just don't like you. I've seen far too many thread headers that mention your name in a negative way to believe that you have anything good to say here. I've seen too many good posters leave because of your abuse. Just go away. There are other people in the world who can come in here and tell us how the brain works without being abusive. >I'm sure that if I'd been gung-ho about this >procedure, you would have been castigating me as some kind of soulless >Frankenstein; since I was against it, you claim instead that I'm without >scientific vision. You are correct - I'm prejudice. How's it feel to have it slapped back in your face? There is something to say about Spirituality. It is not a "pussy" situation. It can "forgive", but it does not "ignore". It only forgives when forgiveness is requested. You stand strong by your abusive statements. It's not something that will remain quiet and gentle when it is being attacked because it is important to human life. I can easily get off your case if you just stop being abusive. Do you think you can? Bart ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Organization: Nailbunny's Hammer References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-Face: .k!7leh{iTz*Ah$8`'u'O$.4Z9+jOYL|yvi39v4fL-Un]RqYdDRAg*#o{3f|Mkzf8+}'2AmMD7_7`BM/X]H1nvmSDn*M0vfiwKn^3R[Kr_o*'>L@wBpFy>X&moPw Lines: 18 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:30:08 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.146.112.102 X-Complaints-To: abuse@onvoy.com X-Trace: news7.onvoy.net 975504608 206.146.112.102 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 07:30:08 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 07:30:08 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!machtgarnix.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!upp1.onvoy!onvoy.com!news7.onvoy.net.POSTED!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58622 In article , "Token" wrote: > lorz wrote in message > news:X3SU5.6920$yP6.34406@news2.atl... > > > Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested > scientifically? > > > > Certainly. Human consciousness. Ever hear of the Turing Challange? > The Turing test is a scientific test for human-like consciousness. In other words, we *can* test for human consciousness. -- pz ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 23 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /Kp2lo3HG1cDVh+3yDbZrm0G/cDpzO4zrStYS7FPyTmXrbinYe6HScFGtrC40pUV8V9W6lxo8qd+!uphDAOzOgTvJ9AFZZ1nRyZu/zVLx6kFhS3Y/5mX9aQjyh6qFR7EkhP2uhi/9+bQQYnHrVAaU/pCK!eBJLaNo= X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:55:00 GMT Distribution: world Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:55:00 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!lmu.de!uni-erlangen.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!znr.news.ans.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58594 pz wrote in message ... >In article , "Token" > wrote: > >> lorz wrote in message >> news:X3SU5.6920$yP6.34406@news2.atl... >> >> > Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested >> scientifically? >> > >> >> Certainly. Human consciousness. Ever hear of the Turing Challange? >> > >The Turing test is a scientific test for human-like consciousness. In >other words, we *can* test for human consciousness. From what I understood, the test has never been completed, and the theoretical results are ambiguous, at best. Clue me in if you think differently. ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> <901l66$cpt$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 18 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:30:22 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.207 X-Trace: news1.atl 975508444 216.78.240.207 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:34:04 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:34:04 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news1.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58525 Bart wrote in message <901l66$cpt$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>... : :lorz wrote in message ... : :>I sometimes envy the ignorant. : : :This would make an incredible bumper sticker :-) Um... for your car, of :course - not mine ;-) : Hmmm now there's an idea! Maybe I'll get one for Xmas. You never envy the ignorant in the sense of the blissfulness that must go with it? ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 63 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:36:40 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.207 X-Trace: news1.atl 975508823 216.78.240.207 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:40:23 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:40:23 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed.germany.net!news.vas-net.net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news1.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58529 Token wrote in message ... : :lorz wrote in message :news:mNOU5.4045$wA6.28109@news1.atl... :> :> Bart wrote in message <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>... :> :Trish wrote in message ... :> : :> :>OBEs are a highly conscious experience. Maybe (and I do say maybe) even :> :>more so than an awake state. Why? Because in order to keep the :> experience :> :>going, an 'active' consciousness must constantly be applied. :> : :> :This is true. :> : :> :>While awake, we needn't worry about it ... we have our senses that :> :>continually supply support ... so our awareness levels can fluctuate :with :> :no :> :>real recourse on our actual experience. :> : :> :This is not true... Most of us live in a non-lucid physical existance. :> I'm :> :not saying that we don't have periods of intense lucidity in our physical :> :lives, but most of us are fairly unconscious most of the time. It is :true :> :that we may be aware of our surroundings and capable of functioning in :the :> :physical - but it doesn't mean that we are operating at our peak state of :> :consciousness at all times. If we were, I suspect this would be a planet :> :full of saints... :> : :> : :> :> Or we'd all be insane. I sometimes hate thinking *too* much about things. :> Being *too* aware and *too* conscious of our surroundings and how awful :many :> people are toward each other in the world. There's definitely something to :> ignorance being bliss in this respect. I sometimes envy the ignorant. :> : :You are talking about being aware of problems in life, you aren't really :talking about being aware. I'm sure you've read a page in a book on :occasion only to realize you haven't a clue as to what you just read. :Bizarre isn't it, that your brain still read that page, and you know it, but :you have no awareness of it. No, that would be comprehension. I would still be fully aware that I read the page wouldn't I? I just wouldn't be comprehending what I read. ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 23 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:47:42 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.207 X-Trace: news1.atl 975509486 216.78.240.207 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:51:26 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:51:26 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news1.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58515 Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... :On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small : wrote: : :[...] : :>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument is :>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have :>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only :>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take seriously. : :Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the :claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs :(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to :provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the :alternative. If the anecdoctal evidence is in great numbers does that not count for anything? ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 39 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:48:19 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.207 X-Trace: news1.atl 975509521 216.78.240.207 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:52:01 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:52:01 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news1.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58519 pz wrote in message ... :In article , "Trish" : wrote: : :> Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... :> >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small :> > wrote: :> > :> >[...] :> > :> >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument is :> >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have :> >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only :> >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take seriously. :> > :> >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the :> >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs :> >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to :> >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the :> >alternative. :> :> :> Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? :> :> I like that Ian. I really do. : ) :> : :I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, :the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that :don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote :viewing/precognition. Do you believe in any of those PZ? ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vv98u$agj$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> <3a243a9a.13486702@news.lineone.net> <9023h4$sar$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 81 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: <2O8V5.6918$wA6.46712@news1.atl> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:52:15 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.207 X-Trace: news1.atl 975509758 216.78.240.207 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:55:58 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:55:58 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!lmu.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed.germany.net!news.netcologne.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news1.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58511 Bart wrote in message <9023h4$sar$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>... : :Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243a9a.13486702@news.lineone.net>... :>On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:35:44 -0500, "Bart" :>wrote: :> :>> :>>Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net>... :>> :>>>imagine that I am zapped by a :>>>fiendish alien ray-gun. It doesn't vaporise me but disassembles my :>>>body cell by cell so that I'm left as a disgusting pile of gunk on the :>>>ground. Would that pile still be me? :>> :>>Actually, I think that pile would then be PZ. :> :>I know we've had our differences but I've never thought of PZ as an :>amorphous heap of cellular debris. : :So, I guess you are beginning to understand the variety of points of view? : :>>>I assume that most people would :>>>agree that it wouldn't, but why not? After all, everything that made :>>>up my body would still be there, it wasn't destroyed. :>> :>>So... Your body was never "you" in the first place. :> :>Listen, it may not be much of a body but it's the only one I've got :>.. even if it is just a temporary vehicle for my genes. : :Your "genes" are the physical pattern. As you said, "it's the only one I've :got" - who is "I've"? Your genes? Who is "Your"? "My"? What is actually :claiming "posession" of this situation you know as "you"? How long has it :existed? : : :>I've never actually looked inside my body - apart from a couple of :>X-rays - but I'm pretty sure I'm solid inside as well as on the :>outside .. some would say especially between the ears. : :90% water... but not a big deal... When I speak of the "inside", most people :in this group understand that I'm talking about an internal "conscious" :experience - not a physical situation. : :>>>Another problem is that the mind is not just a file of data but much :>>>more like a program or suite of programs. You can send programs as :>>>files over a radio link but they don't start to run in mid-air. They :>>>only work when they are downloaded and run on the physical computer. :>> :>>The program works at its origin - which is actually beyond the physical :>>computer. It can be found on the astral as a function that the "author" :>>discovered while moving inward during contemplation in an effort to get a :>>computer to perform a physical function. :>> :>>Think of the AC motor and its "inventor". The pattern always existed. :>>Tesla simply saw it and learned how it worked through his inner vision. :He :>>brought this pattern from the astral into the physical. The pattern for :>>everything in the physical existed long before anything in the physical. :>>This would include the physical body. :> :>Doesn't this make you a Platonist? : ::-) If you wish to limit your view to that tiny perspective, you would see :me as a Platonist. Is that all I am? I've had short views of others, such :as PZ. I'm not immune to forming opinions - something I should work on. If :"Platonist" works for you, then use it for now. Just remember that you :mentioned patterns in your own post. Didn't you also ask if I was a :"Pantheist"? Didn't you also ask if I was something else? Why is it so :important for you to stick me in a group? I don't put you in the same :category as PZ. Would that be a PZeist? ;) ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 70 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:53:37 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.207 X-Trace: news1.atl 975509840 216.78.240.207 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:57:20 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:57:20 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!news.netcologne.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news1.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58520 pz wrote in message ... :In article , "lorz" : wrote: : :> pz wrote in message ... :> :In article <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com>, :> :markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: :> : :> :> >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) :> : :> :[snip] :> : :> :> >Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive :> :> >evidence. :> :> :> :> When a chemist records that precipitate first appeared after :> :> x-many liters of y-molar mixture was added, that's an :> :> anecdote. It's a highly structured anecdote if done well. :> :> When a particle physicist reviews the tracks of particles :> :> spewing out of a collision and notes that one of them takes a :> :> heck of a long time to decay, "strangely", that's an anecdote. :> :> Again, its a persuasive anecdote often because of the care :> :> revealed in the tale, but we don't all have 20 umpti-gigavolt :> :> colliders sitting in the basement to verify the existence of :> :> strange particles, so we rely on the harmony of anecdotes :> :> among a very very limited group of people who have in common :> :> some experience that lead them to believe strange particles :> :> exist. Et cetera. :> : :> :No, you don't quite have it. Chemistry is not a collection of :> :anecdotes. If, as you explained it, chemists did just mix X and Y :> :and scribbled down what they saw, that would be anecdotal...but :> :that's not what they do. They do a whole series of experiments, :> :producing a quantitive body of observation. They make hypotheses :> :about what would happen, for instance, if they mixed 2X and 1Y, :> :or X and Z, and they test those ideas. They assemble internally :> :consistent explanations and measurements that support those :> :ideas, and they publish them in such a way that others can :> :replicate and test those ideas. :> : :> :The physicists who have access to supercolliders are also not :> :just collecting anecdotes. They are making and reporting :> :observations that can be verified, and measured for consistency :> :by an even larger group of others. Their work also leads to :> :tentative hypotheses, and predictions are made that can be :> :evaluated. A single observation of peculiar behavior is an :> :anecdote, until a hypothesis is made to explain that behavior and :> :a rational set of experiments made to test it. :> :pz :> :> Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested :> scientifically? : :Like what? I don't know. that's why I'm asking. : I suppose you could argue for something that you claim :has no material effect in the world and only affects you :exclusively, but then we have the problem of how *you* can say :that you KNOW that it exists. Since it has no material effect on :the world, we'd also have to say it must be something thoroughly :inconsequential. Like god. No, I wanted something more "material". ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <901oj8$i0v$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 35 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:58:01 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.207 X-Trace: news1.atl 975510103 216.78.240.207 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:01:43 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:01:43 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!news.netcologne.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news1.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58522 Bart wrote in message <901oj8$i0v$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>... : :pz wrote in message ... :>In article , "lorz" :> wrote: : : :>> Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested :>> scientifically? :> :>Like what? I suppose you could argue for something that you claim :>has no material effect in the world and only affects you :>exclusively, but then we have the problem of how *you* can say :>that you KNOW that it exists. Since it has no material effect on :>the world, we'd also have to say it must be something thoroughly :>inconsequential. Like god. :>-- :>pz : :Wow... what a statement. Why should I expect anything less? Or more? : :There is a very large segment of the physical population in the world which :has focused on "God" in one way or another - and you claim this to be :"thoroughly inconsequential"? With no material effect? I actually was looking for an answer to my question "Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested scientifically?" to be something more material though. It really had nothing to do with whether people do or do not believe in God. That's an old argument. I was looking for something else. ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <901oj8$i0v$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 19 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:59:24 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.207 X-Trace: news1.atl 975510186 216.78.240.207 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:03:06 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:03:06 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news1.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58517 pz wrote in message ... :In article <901oj8$i0v$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, "Bart" : wrote: : :> pz wrote in message ... :> >In article , "lorz" :> > wrote: :> :> :You seem to confuse organized religion with god. They aren't one and the same thing. Now THAT I would like as a bumper sticker! ;) ###### From: "Dark Sage" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:59:59 -0500 Lines: 167 Message-ID: <9035gk$hkt$1@bob.news.rcn.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <901b3t$cas$1@bob.news.rcn.net> X-Trace: kCzpLSM29wpTpC4PwyCf5Avblw1KAXSTl0Du/+rdzPU= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Nov 2000 14:57:24 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!machtgarnix.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!xfer13.netnews.com!netnews.com!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58554 "pz" wrote in message news:pzm-8820E5.17341728112000@news.newsguy.com... > In article <901b3t$cas$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Dark Sage" > wrote: > > > "lorz" wrote in message > > news:X3SU5.6920$yP6.34406@news2.atl... > > > > > > pz wrote in message ... > > > :In article <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com>, > > > :markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: > > > : > > > :> >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) > > > : > > > :[snip] > > > : > > > :> >Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive > > > :> >evidence. > > > :> > > > :> When a chemist records that precipitate first appeared after > > > :> x-many liters of y-molar mixture was added, that's an > > > :> anecdote. It's a highly structured anecdote if done well. > > > :> When a particle physicist reviews the tracks of particles > > > :> spewing out of a collision and notes that one of them takes a > > > :> heck of a long time to decay, "strangely", that's an anecdote. > > > :> Again, its a persuasive anecdote often because of the care > > > :> revealed in the tale, but we don't all have 20 umpti-gigavolt > > > :> colliders sitting in the basement to verify the existence of > > > :> strange particles, so we rely on the harmony of anecdotes > > > :> among a very very limited group of people who have in common > > > :> some experience that lead them to believe strange particles > > > :> exist. Et cetera. > > > : > > > :No, you don't quite have it. Chemistry is not a collection of > > > :anecdotes. If, as you explained it, chemists did just mix X and Y > > > :and scribbled down what they saw, that would be anecdotal...but > > > :that's not what they do. They do a whole series of experiments, > > > :producing a quantitive body of observation. They make hypotheses > > > :about what would happen, for instance, if they mixed 2X and 1Y, > > > :or X and Z, and they test those ideas. They assemble internally > > > :consistent explanations and measurements that support those > > > :ideas, and they publish them in such a way that others can > > > :replicate and test those ideas. > > > : > > > :The physicists who have access to supercolliders are also not > > > :just collecting anecdotes. They are making and reporting > > > :observations that can be verified, and measured for consistency > > > :by an even larger group of others. Their work also leads to > > > :tentative hypotheses, and predictions are made that can be > > > :evaluated. A single observation of peculiar behavior is an > > > :anecdote, until a hypothesis is made to explain that behavior and > > > :a rational set of experiments made to test it. > > > :pz > > > > > > Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested > > scientifically? > > > > > > > Yes. > > In Quantum Mechanics it's called 'superposition'. > > Superposition is where a sub-atomic particle is in an 'undefined' state. > > This state is where a particle contains *all* possible outcomes(as > > expressed in probabilities); yet, is mathematically equal to 0(none of > > those possibilities). > > > > By measuring/testing the particle you force the little critter to adopt > > at state of determininacy(defined state) in which it does not normally > > exist. Which leads to measurement effects the outcome. > > > > Superposition is know, but if you test for it, it goes away. > > (This has nothing to do with paranormal, simply a direct answer to > > your question.) > > Your example requires a peculiarly skewed definition of 'test', since > the phenomenon being tested is the indeterminacy of the particle. And > Lo, the particle is indeterminate. Whether something is testable is not > contingent upon getting a simple answer, or the answer you want. > > -- > pz Really.... skewed.... Time for a thought experiment, something simple, and testable. This is the example I was thinking of: Testing superposition through testing the 'spin' of an electron. David Bohm and his version of the 'EPR' paradox. (Review laws of thermodynamic now, notably: spin(energy) is conserved. Since the laws of quantum as well as classical physics dictate: 'spin' is conserved. And of course keep in mind the relationship between electricity and magnetism(hence: electromagnetic force. The magnetic 'wave' travels perpendicular the they electric 'wave'.) To be measured: electron spin Testing devices: Stern-Gerlach magnets (you may choose how they're oriented: vertically, horizontially, any thing in between.) But choosing that direction defines the axis which the electron spin must be referred, so that if the Stern-Gerlach magnet is oriented vertical, then the measured electron must have its spin up or down. There's a certain sub-atomic particle called the neutral pion, which can decay into two electrons. The pion has zero spin. Place the electron detectors(which measure spin) 'downstream' of the Stern-Gerlach magnets. The "paradoxical" part is you chose their(magnets) orientation. Throw switch now. Pion(spin = 0) away. Decays into 2 electrons traveling in opposite directions. Apply magnetic field to *one* electron..... hits detector: Measured as "up", a defined value. What really becomes mind boggling is the other detector measured the other electron as "down", a defined value. Two defined objects from an undefined object. Something from nothing? If you stop and think about it, you've also defied uncertainty too. You could argue by knowing the spin of one; and not measuring the second, you already know what it's going to be. But that's another post..... What was tested: spin. And you had the opportunity to orient the magnets(random). Did it the electrons have a defined state/spin prior magnets? Did they have a defined state/spin upon being tested/detected for spin? Did you get something for nothing: (one down spin -1 and one up spin +1 which must equal to 0 (the pion))? What this means.... If you try to test whether a spin is up or down you get an answer. The same experiement performed on electrons not measured for spin(no magnets) retain the ability to be oriented in any direction. The pair of unmeasured electrons is somehow composed of the possibilities that emerge later after the measurement was made. Or you could rotate the magnets 90 degress, and this application would consist of left/right instead of up/down. Superposition = contains all possibilites, but is equal to 0(none). Test for superposition and the answer will be a defined state, no longer superposition. Which why I said "Yes". Particles exist in a state of superposition, but you can't prove it. ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 37 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:03:03 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.167 X-Trace: news2.atl 975510796 216.78.240.167 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:13:16 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:13:16 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.atl!news2.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58523 Token wrote in message ... : :Trish wrote in message :news:Hu%U5.2566$Lo6.391858@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net... :> :> Token wrote in message ... :> > :> >lorz wrote in message :> >news:X3SU5.6920$yP6.34406@news2.atl... :> > :> >> Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested :> >scientifically? :> >> :> > :> >Certainly. Human consciousness. Ever hear of the Turing Challange? :> :> :> And this has to do with a Turing machine, yes? :> : :That's certainly where it began. It's a fun little game that AI scientists :like to play to see if there is a series of questions that can be asked of a :computer (or a human being for that matter) which when answered will prove :that the machine (or human) is self aware. Solopsism exists for the very :reason that this challange has not yet been answered sucessfully. We all :know that we are self aware, yet none of us can prove it. : :Token : Ohhh Solipsism! Thank you Token! That was a looker-upper for me! I was still looking for somehting more material but I will check this out. Thanks. ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:49:05 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 86 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-424.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58609 In article , "lorz" wrote: > pz wrote in message ... > :In article , "lorz" > : wrote: > : > :> pz wrote in message ... > :> :In article <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com>, > :> :markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: > :> : > :> :> >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) > :> : > :> :[snip] > :> : > :> :> >Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive > :> :> >evidence. > :> :> > :> :> When a chemist records that precipitate first appeared > :> :> after x-many liters of y-molar mixture was added, that's > :> :> an anecdote. It's a highly structured anecdote if done > :> :> well. When a particle physicist reviews the tracks of > :> :> particles spewing out of a collision and notes that one > :> :> of them takes a heck of a long time to decay, > :> :> "strangely", that's an anecdote. > :> :> Again, its a persuasive anecdote often because of the > :> :> care > :> :> revealed in the tale, but we don't all have 20 > :> :> umpti-gigavolt colliders sitting in the basement to > :> :> verify the existence of strange particles, so we rely on > :> :> the harmony of anecdotes among a very very limited group > :> :> of people who have in common some experience that lead > :> :> them to believe strange particles exist. Et cetera. > :> : > :> :No, you don't quite have it. Chemistry is not a collection > :> :of anecdotes. If, as you explained it, chemists did just > :> :mix X and Y and scribbled down what they saw, that would > :> :be anecdotal...but that's not what they do. They do a > :> :whole series of experiments, producing a quantitive body > :> :of observation. They make hypotheses about what would > :> :happen, for instance, if they mixed 2X and 1Y, or X and Z, > :> :and they test those ideas. They assemble internally > :> :consistent explanations and measurements that support > :> :those ideas, and they publish them in such a way that > :> :others can replicate and test those ideas. > :> : > :> :The physicists who have access to supercolliders are also > :> :not just collecting anecdotes. They are making and > :> :reporting observations that can be verified, and measured > :> :for consistency by an even larger group of others. Their > :> :work also leads to tentative hypotheses, and predictions > :> :are made that can be evaluated. A single observation of > :> :peculiar behavior is an anecdote, until a hypothesis is > :> :made to explain that behavior and a rational set of > :> :experiments made to test it. pz > :> > :> Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be > :> tested scientifically? > : > :Like what? > > I don't know. that's why I'm asking. > > > : I suppose you could argue for something that you claim > :has no material effect in the world and only affects you > :exclusively, but then we have the problem of how *you* can > :say that you KNOW that it exists. Since it has no material > :effect on the world, we'd also have to say it must be > :something thoroughly inconsequential. Like god. > > No, I wanted something more "material". One of the appealing things about the scientific method is that it seems to be a universal key for accessing the material world. If you want to restrict yourself to just 'material testing', then science is the best game in town. The *only* way to avoid the strictures of science is to divorce yourself from material affects and argue only for this immaterial, 'spiritual' fluff. I've been rather surprised at the few people who have tried to offer suggestions to you on this thread. They seem to confuse measurement with science, or the nature of the answer with the ability to ask a question. They're wrong. -- pz ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:50:07 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-435.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!machtgarnix.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58599 In article , "lorz" wrote: > Ian H Spedding wrote in message > <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... > :On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small > : wrote: > : > :[...] > : > :>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" > :>argument is that both sides are stuck with proving a > :>negative--we just don't have any evidence either way. Except > :>for the anecdotal kind, which only anthropologists and > :>marketing departments are likely to take seriously. > : > :Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with > :the claimant. In principle, whether you argue for > :disembodied OBEs (DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs > :(POBEs) you should try to provide evidence to support the > :claim, not try to disprove the alternative. > > If the anecdoctal evidence is in great numbers does that not > count for anything? No, nothing at all. We've got a huge body of anecdotal evidence for Santa Claus, for instance. -- pz ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:50:57 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-452.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58614 In article , "lorz" wrote: > pz wrote in message ... > :In article , > :"Trish" wrote: > : > :> Ian H Spedding wrote in message > :> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... > :> >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small > :> > wrote: > :> > > :> >[...] > :> > > :> >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body > :> >>departure" argument is that both sides are stuck with > :> >>proving a negative--we just don't have any evidence > :> >>either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only > :> >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to > :> >>take seriously. > :> > > :> >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with > :> >the claimant. In principle, whether you argue for > :> >disembodied OBEs (DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs > :> >(POBEs) you should try to provide evidence to support the > :> >claim, not try to disprove the alternative. > :> > :> > :> Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? > :> > :> I like that Ian. I really do. : ) > :> > : > :I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: > :the DOBEs, the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of > :paranormal explanations that don't involve minds leaving > :bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote > :viewing/precognition. > > Do you believe in any of those PZ? No. POBEs only. -- pz ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 51 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:54:35 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.207 X-Trace: news2.atl 975513497 216.78.240.207 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:58:17 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:58:17 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!schlund.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.tele.dk!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.atl!news2.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58533 Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net>... :On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:15:20 -0800, "dorothy dunne" : wrote: : :> :>MarkenAdms wrote in message :>news:20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com... : :[...] : :>> I'm open to ideas for a better Middle Way of discourse. :> :>Ah, I daresay you and Ian would be in agreement on this. There *has* been a :>bit of discussion on what would make for better reporting; and some :>anecdotes have been given *some* credence by the skeptics. I recall that :>Sherilyn was semi-impressed by Bruce's report that he 'saw' Trish's arm :>flung out above her head during an OBE "visit" many months ago (before they :>knew each other well...). I have also seen little negative commentary on :>Haunter's "bird's nest" OBE. In general, though, the climate here is fairly :>hostile toward the idea that any paranormal component exists in the OBE :>phenomenon. A little tolerance for the lay "reporter" would certainly be :>appreciated. It would even be nice if we could discuss the paranormal :>possibilities without being sneered at. I don't hold out much hope for that, :>though. :-( : :I don't doubt the reports of OBEs or lucid dreams that people have :given here. They're very interesting and have even given me some :ideas for a few little tests that people could try out if they were :willing. Tests? Ohhh what fun! : :I'm also quite happy to discuss the possibility of paranormal aspects :to OBEs although I can't say I'm sympathetic towards them. Not that :I'm hostile as such, but where such claims are asserted as established :fact I feel they should be challenged to meet the same standards of :evidence as is expected and required of science. : :Ian : : :Ian H Spedding :============== ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 38 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:55:33 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.207 X-Trace: news2.atl 975513556 216.78.240.207 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:59:16 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:59:16 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!news.netcologne.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news2.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58532 Janice wrote in message <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net>... :Ian H Spedding wrote: :> :> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:15:20 -0800, "dorothy dunne" :> wrote: :> :> :> >Ah, I daresay you and Ian would be in agreement on this. There *has* been a :> >bit of discussion on what would make for better reporting; and some :> >anecdotes have been given *some* credence by the skeptics. I recall that :> >Sherilyn was semi-impressed by Bruce's report that he 'saw' Trish's arm :> >flung out above her head during an OBE "visit" many months ago (before they :> >knew each other well...). I have also seen little negative commentary on :> >Haunter's "bird's nest" OBE. In general, though, the climate here is fairly :> >hostile toward the idea that any paranormal component exists in the OBE :> >phenomenon. A little tolerance for the lay "reporter" would certainly be :> >appreciated. It would even be nice if we could discuss the paranormal :> >possibilities without being sneered at. I don't hold out much hope for that, :> >though. :-( :> :> I don't doubt the reports of OBEs or lucid dreams that people have :> given here. They're very interesting and have even given me some :> ideas for a few little tests that people could try out if they were :> willing. : :Tell us! I have a hard time thinking of new and interesting things to :do in lucid dreams after having so many of them for so long. : Hey Janice! Did you ever do it in a moving car? (OOBE I mean :Þ) ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a244702.16663812@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 42 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:57:14 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.207 X-Trace: news2.atl 975513657 216.78.240.207 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:00:57 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:00:57 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!machtgarnix.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news2.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58528 Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a244702.16663812@news.lineone.net>... :On 28 Nov 2000 08:05:29 GMT, markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: : :[...] : :>>Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive :>>evidence. :> :>When a chemist records that precipitate first appeared after x-many liters of :>y-molar mixture was added, that's an anecdote. It's a highly structured :>anecdote if done well. When a particle physicist reviews the tracks of :>particles spewing out of a collision and notes that one of them takes a heck of :>a long time to decay, "strangely", that's an anecdote. Again, its a persuasive :>anecdote often because of the care revealed in the tale, but we don't all have :>20 umpti-gigavolt colliders sitting in the basement to verify the existence of :>strange particles, so we rely on the harmony of anecdotes among a very very :>limited group of people who have in common some experience that lead them to :>believe strange particles exist. Et cetera. : :Not quite. It's certainly true that it isn't practical for us to :replicate experiments in particle physics, for example, so strictly :speaking we have to take reports of them on trust. The difference is :that these accounts come from a source whose credibility is based on a :rigorous methodology and impeccable standards of evidence. If :challenged, they are bound to provide their data and substantiate :their claims or face professional ruin, a situation which doesn't :obtain amongst much of the paranormal community Once again how many anecdotes does it take to screw in a light bulb? errrr I mean ... How many anecdotes does it take to *mean* anything? Or doesn't it? ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:59:19 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 179 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <901b3t$cas$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <9035gk$hkt$1@bob.news.rcn.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-591.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58603 In article <9035gk$hkt$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Dark Sage" wrote: > "pz" wrote in message > news:pzm-8820E5.17341728112000@news.newsguy.com... > > In article <901b3t$cas$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Dark Sage" > > wrote: > > > > > "lorz" wrote in message > > > news:X3SU5.6920$yP6.34406@news2.atl... > > > > > > > > pz wrote in message ... > > > > :In article > > > > :<20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com>, > > > > :markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: > > > > : > > > > :> >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) > > > > : > > > > :[snip] > > > > : > > > > :> >Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves > > > > :> >persuasive evidence. > > > > :> > > > > :> When a chemist records that precipitate first > > > > :> appeared after x-many liters of y-molar mixture was > > > > :> added, that's an anecdote. It's a highly structured > > > > :> anecdote if done well. When a particle physicist > > > > :> reviews the tracks of particles spewing out of a > > > > :> collision and notes that one of them takes a heck of > > > > :> a long time to decay, "strangely", that's an > > > > :> anecdote. > > > > :> Again, its a persuasive anecdote often because of > > > > :> the care > > > > :> revealed in the tale, but we don't all have 20 > > > > :> umpti-gigavolt colliders sitting in the basement to > > > > :> verify the existence of strange particles, so we rely > > > > :> on the harmony of anecdotes among a very very limited > > > > :> group of people who have in common some experience > > > > :> that lead them to believe strange particles exist. > > > > :> Et cetera. > > > > : > > > > :No, you don't quite have it. Chemistry is not a > > > > :collection of anecdotes. If, as you explained it, > > > > :chemists did just mix X and Y and scribbled down what > > > > :they saw, that would be anecdotal...but that's not what > > > > :they do. They do a whole series of experiments, > > > > :producing a quantitive body of observation. They make > > > > :hypotheses about what would happen, for instance, if > > > > :they mixed 2X and 1Y, or X and Z, and they test those > > > > :ideas. They assemble internally consistent explanations > > > > :and measurements that support those ideas, and they > > > > :publish them in such a way that others can replicate > > > > :and test those ideas. > > > > : > > > > :The physicists who have access to supercolliders are > > > > :also not just collecting anecdotes. They are making and > > > > :reporting observations that can be verified, and > > > > :measured for consistency by an even larger group of > > > > :others. Their work also leads to tentative hypotheses, > > > > :and predictions are made that can be evaluated. A > > > > :single observation of peculiar behavior is an anecdote, > > > > :until a hypothesis is made to explain that behavior and > > > > :a rational set of experiments made to test it. pz > > > > > > > > Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be > > > > tested scientifically? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. In Quantum Mechanics it's called 'superposition'. > > > Superposition is where a sub-atomic particle is in an > > > 'undefined' state. This state is where a particle contains > > > *all* possible outcomes(as expressed in probabilities); > > > yet, is mathematically equal to 0(none of those > > > possibilities). > > > > > > By measuring/testing the particle you force the little > > > critter to adopt at state of determininacy(defined state) > > > in which it does not normally exist. Which leads to > > > measurement effects the outcome. > > > > > > Superposition is know, but if you test for it, it goes > > > away. (This has nothing to do with paranormal, simply a > > > direct answer to your question.) > > > > Your example requires a peculiarly skewed definition of > > 'test', since the phenomenon being tested is the > > indeterminacy of the particle. And Lo, the particle is > > indeterminate. Whether something is testable is not > > contingent upon getting a simple answer, or the answer you > > want. > > > > -- pz > > Really.... skewed.... Time for a thought experiment, something > simple, and testable. > > This is the example I was thinking of: > > > Testing superposition through testing the 'spin' of an > electron. David Bohm and his version of the 'EPR' paradox. > (Review laws of thermodynamic now, notably: spin(energy) is > conserved. Since the laws of quantum as well as classical > physics dictate: 'spin' is conserved. And of course keep in > mind the relationship between electricity and magnetism(hence: > electromagnetic force. The magnetic 'wave' travels > perpendicular the they electric 'wave'.) > > To be measured: electron spin Testing devices: Stern-Gerlach > magnets (you may choose how they're oriented: vertically, > horizontially, any thing in between.) But choosing that > direction defines the axis which the electron spin must be > referred, so that if the Stern-Gerlach magnet is oriented > vertical, then the measured electron must have its spin up or > down. > > There's a certain sub-atomic particle called the neutral pion, > which can decay into two electrons. The pion has zero spin. > Place the electron detectors(which measure spin) 'downstream' > of the Stern-Gerlach magnets. The "paradoxical" part is you > chose their(magnets) orientation. > > Throw switch now. > > Pion(spin = 0) away. Decays into 2 electrons traveling in > opposite directions. Apply magnetic field to *one* > electron..... hits detector: Measured as "up", a defined > value. > > What really becomes mind boggling is the other detector > measured the other electron as "down", a defined value. Two > defined objects from an undefined object. Something from > nothing? > > If you stop and think about it, you've also defied uncertainty > too. You could argue by knowing the spin of one; and not > measuring the second, you already know what it's going to be. > But that's another post..... > > What was tested: spin. And you had the opportunity to orient > the magnets(random). > > Did it the electrons have a defined state/spin prior magnets? > Did they have a defined state/spin upon being tested/detected > for spin? Did you get something for nothing: (one down spin -1 > and one up spin +1 which must equal to 0 (the pion))? > > What this means.... If you try to test whether a spin is up or > down you get an answer. The same experiement performed on > electrons not measured for spin(no magnets) retain the ability > to be oriented in any direction. The pair of unmeasured > electrons is somehow composed of the possibilities that emerge > later after the measurement was made. Or you could rotate the > magnets 90 degress, and this application would consist of > left/right instead of up/down. > > Superposition = contains all possibilites, but is equal to > 0(none). Test for superposition and the answer will be a > defined state, no longer superposition. > > Which why I said "Yes". Particles exist in a state of > superposition, but you can't prove it. You still aren't getting it. You want to argue that this property cannot be consistently or accurately measured, or that measurement imposes a state on it. So? That does not mean it is not a testable property. You want to argue that this property cannot be tidily accommodated in a simple interpretation. So? That has nothing to do with whether it is testable. Don't forget that physicists are using good ol' materialistic science to get these peculiar results. They are carrying out tests, and they are getting results. That those results seem paradoxical does not mean the tests were not made. -- pz ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:01:01 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 34 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-622.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58593 In article , "Trish" wrote: > pz wrote in message ... > >In article , > >"Token" wrote: > > > >> lorz wrote in message > >> news:X3SU5.6920$yP6.34406@news2.atl... > >> > >> > Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be > >> > tested > >> scientifically? > >> > > >> > >> Certainly. Human consciousness. Ever hear of the Turing > >> Challange? > >> > > > >The Turing test is a scientific test for human-like > >consciousness. In other words, we *can* test for human > >consciousness. > > > From what I understood, the test has never been completed, and > the theoretical results are ambiguous, at best. Clue me in if > you think differently. Again, you are confusing the results with the test. No machine has passed the Turing test. That doesn't mean that the test doesn't work; it means that human-like machine intelligences don't exist! -- pz ###### Message-ID: <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 39 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:35:52 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-MOaM5sLdauUYxGhVO+AWFalYnqD1qK4jNX0JhAFV2aGZh855AFIn76/MNOkp1YCG1Smf0HHXsw02ibx!lIzzuRipQSxfOwNh90cGZSWynwE= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:35:52 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!207.207.0.27!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news2.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58496 pz wrote: > > In article , "Trish" > wrote: > > > Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... > > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small > > > wrote: > > > > > >[...] > > > > > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument is > > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have > > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only > > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take seriously. > > > > > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the > > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs > > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to > > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the > > >alternative. > > > > > > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? > > > > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) > > > > I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, > the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that > don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote > viewing/precognition. I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as you say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 43 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:49:19 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-poFTJGPbZIGDFEr7ousY4eySCp/53GPxfo+5vzTwtzg3Y4aFuxOZiDRTE/XnYs7sP9YQQqFjV8lmqMo!RjqBV/eZ/m9jZXngr5lUgA4ibEw= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:49:19 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!207.207.0.27!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news2.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58478 lorz wrote: > > Janice wrote in message <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net>... > :Ian H Spedding wrote: > :> > :> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:15:20 -0800, "dorothy dunne" > :> wrote: > :> > :> > :> >Ah, I daresay you and Ian would be in agreement on this. There *has* > been a > :> >bit of discussion on what would make for better reporting; and some > :> >anecdotes have been given *some* credence by the skeptics. I recall that > :> >Sherilyn was semi-impressed by Bruce's report that he 'saw' Trish's arm > :> >flung out above her head during an OBE "visit" many months ago (before > they > :> >knew each other well...). I have also seen little negative commentary on > :> >Haunter's "bird's nest" OBE. In general, though, the climate here is > fairly > :> >hostile toward the idea that any paranormal component exists in the OBE > :> >phenomenon. A little tolerance for the lay "reporter" would certainly > be > :> >appreciated. It would even be nice if we could discuss the paranormal > :> >possibilities without being sneered at. I don't hold out much hope for > that, > :> >though. :-( > :> > :> I don't doubt the reports of OBEs or lucid dreams that people have > :> given here. They're very interesting and have even given me some > :> ideas for a few little tests that people could try out if they were > :> willing. > : > :Tell us! I have a hard time thinking of new and interesting things to > :do in lucid dreams after having so many of them for so long. > : > > Hey Janice! Did you ever do it in a moving car? (OOBE I mean :Þ) Yes, spontaneously. I dozed off and suddenly seemed to be right up at the ceiling. -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 39 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:55:48 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.188 X-Trace: news2.atl 975517172 216.78.240.188 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:59:32 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:59:32 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news2.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58534 pz wrote in message ... :In article , "lorz" : wrote: : :> Ian H Spedding wrote in message :> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... :> :On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small :> : wrote: :> : :> :[...] :> : :> :>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" :> :>argument is that both sides are stuck with proving a :> :>negative--we just don't have any evidence either way. Except :> :>for the anecdotal kind, which only anthropologists and :> :>marketing departments are likely to take seriously. :> : :> :Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with :> :the claimant. In principle, whether you argue for :> :disembodied OBEs (DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs :> :(POBEs) you should try to provide evidence to support the :> :claim, not try to disprove the alternative. :> :> If the anecdoctal evidence is in great numbers does that not :> count for anything? : :No, nothing at all. : :We've got a huge body of anecdotal evidence for Santa Claus, for :instance. :-- Waaaaa. Not a good analogy though. We *know* that Santa is something we have made up at the get go. It isn't something "unexplained" ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 45 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:01:46 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.188 X-Trace: news2.atl 975517529 216.78.240.188 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:05:29 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:05:29 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news2.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58541 Janice wrote in message <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net>... :pz wrote: :> :> In article , "Trish" :> wrote: :> :> > Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... :> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small :> > > wrote: :> > > :> > >[...] :> > > :> > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument is :> > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have :> > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only :> > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take seriously. :> > > :> > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the :> > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs :> > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to :> > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the :> > >alternative. :> > :> > :> > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? :> > :> > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) :> > :> :> I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, :> the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that :> don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote :> viewing/precognition. : :I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as you :say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with :but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). FYI, none of these are in the dictionary :Þ After you write that new novel perhaps you can start on the OOBE dictionary? ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 56 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:03:26 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.188 X-Trace: news2.atl 975517629 216.78.240.188 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:07:09 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:07:09 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news2.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58526 Janice wrote in message <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net>... :lorz wrote: :> :> Janice wrote in message <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net>... :> :Ian H Spedding wrote: :> :> :> :> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:15:20 -0800, "dorothy dunne" :> :> wrote: :> :> :> :> :> :> >Ah, I daresay you and Ian would be in agreement on this. There *has* :> been a :> :> >bit of discussion on what would make for better reporting; and some :> :> >anecdotes have been given *some* credence by the skeptics. I recall that :> :> >Sherilyn was semi-impressed by Bruce's report that he 'saw' Trish's arm :> :> >flung out above her head during an OBE "visit" many months ago (before :> they :> :> >knew each other well...). I have also seen little negative commentary on :> :> >Haunter's "bird's nest" OBE. In general, though, the climate here is :> fairly :> :> >hostile toward the idea that any paranormal component exists in the OBE :> :> >phenomenon. A little tolerance for the lay "reporter" would certainly :> be :> :> >appreciated. It would even be nice if we could discuss the paranormal :> :> >possibilities without being sneered at. I don't hold out much hope for :> that, :> :> >though. :-( :> :> :> :> I don't doubt the reports of OBEs or lucid dreams that people have :> :> given here. They're very interesting and have even given me some :> :> ideas for a few little tests that people could try out if they were :> :> willing. :> : :> :Tell us! I have a hard time thinking of new and interesting things to :> :do in lucid dreams after having so many of them for so long. :> : :> :> Hey Janice! Did you ever do it in a moving car? (OOBE I mean :Þ) : :Yes, spontaneously. I dozed off and suddenly seemed to be right up at :the ceiling. : Did you attempt to get out of the car? ###### Message-ID: <3A253A09.4E06@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 49 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:17:04 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-l2gVuIQQMQI+EK3lQCYt4LrxC9D2bwPnZVIarZzjdq4M/xz5PzFqOtD+4HD8qIErUhAHQTBlUPOZs6M!7IXOmy+O6wP61kasEuuQ/WQxECU= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:17:04 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc01.blue.aol.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58484 lorz wrote: > > Janice wrote in message <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net>... > :pz wrote: > :> > :> In article , "Trish" > :> wrote: > :> > :> > Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... > :> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small > :> > > wrote: > :> > > > :> > >[...] > :> > > > :> > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument > is > :> > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have > :> > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only > :> > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take > seriously. > :> > > > :> > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the > :> > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs > :> > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to > :> > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the > :> > >alternative. > :> > > :> > > :> > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? > :> > > :> > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) > :> > > :> > :> I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, > :> the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that > :> don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote > :> viewing/precognition. > : > :I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as you > :say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with > :but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). > > FYI, none of these are in the dictionary :Þ > After you write that new novel perhaps you can start on the OOBE dictionary? You are one uppity hand maiden! :Þ -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 60 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:17:45 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-v8dna3EV1KfdELj1t4eIRPrW9+XGfzY8DADrIVwFq369jd8J6Dl7gAaNCI5b1zPE9cO9uw7IFItYSCq!CXZSICugxCFYcyB6i0KrQ7gHMgg= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:17:45 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc03.blue.aol.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58476 lorz wrote: > > Janice wrote in message <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net>... > :lorz wrote: > :> > :> Janice wrote in message <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net>... > :> :Ian H Spedding wrote: > :> :> > :> :> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:15:20 -0800, "dorothy dunne" > :> :> wrote: > :> :> > :> :> > :> :> >Ah, I daresay you and Ian would be in agreement on this. There *has* > :> been a > :> :> >bit of discussion on what would make for better reporting; and some > :> :> >anecdotes have been given *some* credence by the skeptics. I recall > that > :> :> >Sherilyn was semi-impressed by Bruce's report that he 'saw' Trish's > arm > :> :> >flung out above her head during an OBE "visit" many months ago > (before > :> they > :> :> >knew each other well...). I have also seen little negative commentary > on > :> :> >Haunter's "bird's nest" OBE. In general, though, the climate here is > :> fairly > :> :> >hostile toward the idea that any paranormal component exists in the > OBE > :> :> >phenomenon. A little tolerance for the lay "reporter" would > certainly > :> be > :> :> >appreciated. It would even be nice if we could discuss the > paranormal > :> :> >possibilities without being sneered at. I don't hold out much hope > for > :> that, > :> :> >though. :-( > :> :> > :> :> I don't doubt the reports of OBEs or lucid dreams that people have > :> :> given here. They're very interesting and have even given me some > :> :> ideas for a few little tests that people could try out if they were > :> :> willing. > :> : > :> :Tell us! I have a hard time thinking of new and interesting things to > :> :do in lucid dreams after having so many of them for so long. > :> : > :> > :> Hey Janice! Did you ever do it in a moving car? (OOBE I mean :Þ) > : > :Yes, spontaneously. I dozed off and suddenly seemed to be right up at > :the ceiling. > : > > Did you attempt to get out of the car? No, I was startled and woke up. Then I fell back asleep and had some lucid dreams about riding on trains. -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:35:53 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-701.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58738 In article , "lorz" wrote: > pz wrote in message ... > :In article , "lorz" > : wrote: > : > :> Ian H Spedding wrote in message > :> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... > :> :On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small > :> : wrote: > :> : > :> :[...] > :> : > :> :>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body > :> :>departure" argument is that both sides are stuck with > :> :>proving a negative--we just don't have any evidence > :> :>either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only > :> :>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to > :> :>take seriously. > :> : > :> :Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with > :> :the claimant. In principle, whether you argue for > :> :disembodied OBEs (DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs > :> :(POBEs) you should try to provide evidence to support the > :> :claim, not try to disprove the alternative. > :> > :> If the anecdoctal evidence is in great numbers does that > :> not count for anything? > : > :No, nothing at all. > : > :We've got a huge body of anecdotal evidence for Santa Claus, > :for instance. > > Waaaaa. Not a good analogy though. We *know* that Santa is > something we have made up at the get go. It isn't something > "unexplained" That doesn't matter -- you were just asking in general if volume of anecdotal evidence was sufficient. It isn't, as my counterexample shows. If you don't like Santa, pick any other apocryphal christian saint. -- pz ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:37:45 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-718.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58741 In article <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net>, Janice wrote: > lorz wrote: > > > > Janice wrote in message <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net>... > > :lorz wrote: [snip] > > :> Hey Janice! Did you ever do it in a moving car? (OOBE I > > :> mean > > :> :Þ) > > : > > :Yes, spontaneously. I dozed off and suddenly seemed to be > > :right up at the ceiling. > > : > > > > Did you attempt to get out of the car? > > No, I was startled and woke up. Then I fell back asleep and > had some lucid dreams about riding on trains. Did you do it in a car? Did you do it in a bar? Did you do it in a train? Did you do it in the rain? Sorry. Something about these questions just sounded so geiselish, and I snapped. -- pz ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3A253A09.4E06@not-here.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 59 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:11:37 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.182 X-Trace: news3.atl 975525322 216.78.240.182 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:15:22 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:15:22 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!machtgarnix.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-fra.pop.de!schlund.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!btnet-peer!btnet!feeder.qis.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed.atl!news3.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58699 Janice wrote in message <3A253A09.4E06@not-here.net>... :lorz wrote: :> :> Janice wrote in message <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net>... :> :pz wrote: :> :> :> :> In article , "Trish" :> :> wrote: :> :> :> :> > Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... :> :> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small :> :> > > wrote: :> :> > > :> :> > >[...] :> :> > > :> :> > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument :> is :> :> > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have :> :> > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only :> :> > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take :> seriously. :> :> > > :> :> > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the :> :> > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs :> :> > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to :> :> > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the :> :> > >alternative. :> :> > :> :> > :> :> > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? :> :> > :> :> > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) :> :> > :> :> :> :> I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, :> :> the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that :> :> don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote :> :> viewing/precognition. :> : :> :I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as you :> :say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with :> :but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). :> :> FYI, none of these are in the dictionary :Þ :> After you write that new novel perhaps you can start on the OOBE dictionary? : :You are one uppity hand maiden! :Þ : Sorry, m'lady. ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 52 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:09:58 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.120 X-Trace: news3.atl 975528822 216.78.240.120 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:13:42 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:13:42 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news3.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58703 pz wrote in message ... :In article , "lorz" : wrote: : :> pz wrote in message ... :> :In article , "lorz" :> : wrote: :> : :> :> Ian H Spedding wrote in message :> :> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... :> :> :On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small :> :> : wrote: :> :> : :> :> :[...] :> :> : :> :> :>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body :> :> :>departure" argument is that both sides are stuck with :> :> :>proving a negative--we just don't have any evidence :> :> :>either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only :> :> :>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to :> :> :>take seriously. :> :> : :> :> :Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with :> :> :the claimant. In principle, whether you argue for :> :> :disembodied OBEs (DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs :> :> :(POBEs) you should try to provide evidence to support the :> :> :claim, not try to disprove the alternative. :> :> :> :> If the anecdoctal evidence is in great numbers does that :> :> not count for anything? :> : :> :No, nothing at all. :> : :> :We've got a huge body of anecdotal evidence for Santa Claus, :> :for instance. :> :> Waaaaa. Not a good analogy though. We *know* that Santa is :> something we have made up at the get go. It isn't something :> "unexplained" : :That doesn't matter -- you were just asking in general if volume :of anecdotal evidence was sufficient. It isn't, as my :counterexample shows. Ok, I am now revising my question then to: If the anecdoctal evidence of the unknown and unexplained is in great numbers does that not count for anything? ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 44 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:15:33 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.120 X-Trace: news3.atl 975529162 216.78.240.120 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:19:22 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:19:22 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!lmu.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!howland.erols.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed.atl!news3.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58704 pz wrote in message ... :In article <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net>, Janice : wrote: : :> lorz wrote: :> > :> > Janice wrote in message <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net>... :> > :lorz wrote: : :[snip] : :> > :> Hey Janice! Did you ever do it in a moving car? (OOBE I :> > :> mean :> > :> :Þ) :> > : :> > :Yes, spontaneously. I dozed off and suddenly seemed to be :> > :right up at the ceiling. :> > : :> > :> > Did you attempt to get out of the car? :> :> No, I was startled and woke up. Then I fell back asleep and :> had some lucid dreams about riding on trains. : : :Did you do it in a car? Did you do it in a bar? :Did you do it in a train? Did you do it in the rain? : :Sorry. Something about these questions just sounded so geiselish, :and I snapped. :-- Ha. Well, What I wanted to know is how that effected the OOBE if at all in the moving car. But Janice isn't elaborating at all for me. What startled you Janice? By the way I believe janice has done it in a car, and she has done it in a bar, and she has done it in a train, and she has done it in the rain! Or was that Trish? ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:06:03 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 48 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-393.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!cyclone.swbell.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58737 In article , "lorz" wrote: > pz wrote in message ... > :In article <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net>, Janice > : wrote: > : > :> lorz wrote: > :> > > :> > Janice wrote in message <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net>... > :> > :lorz wrote: > : > :[snip] > : > :> > :> Hey Janice! Did you ever do it in a moving car? (OOBE > :> > :> I mean > :> > :> :Þ) > :> > : > :> > :Yes, spontaneously. I dozed off and suddenly seemed to > :> > :be right up at the ceiling. > :> > : > :> > > :> > Did you attempt to get out of the car? > :> > :> No, I was startled and woke up. Then I fell back asleep > :> and had some lucid dreams about riding on trains. > : > : > :Did you do it in a car? Did you do it in a bar? Did you do it > :in a train? Did you do it in the rain? > : > :Sorry. Something about these questions just sounded so > :geiselish, and I snapped. -- > > Ha. Well, What I wanted to know is how that effected the OOBE > if at all in the moving car. But Janice isn't elaborating at > all for me. What startled you Janice? > > By the way I believe janice has done it in a car, and she has > done it in a bar, and she has done it in a train, and she has > done it in the rain! > > Or was that Trish? Who has done it in a dish, with a fish? Has Lorene done it in a canteen with a Marine? -- pz ###### From: "Dark Sage" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:39:25 -0500 Lines: 211 Message-ID: <9040e7$e5l$1@bob.news.rcn.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <901b3t$cas$1@bob.news.rcn.net> <9035gk$hkt$1@bob.news.rcn.net> X-Trace: aanXJVD1uER08ZKRox74BiMKmN4VK844122J4tBSpu0= X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Nov 2000 22:36:55 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!feeder.qis.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58710 "pz" wrote in message news:pzm-532D68.09591929112000@news.newsguy.com... > In article <9035gk$hkt$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Dark Sage" > wrote: > > > "pz" wrote in message > > news:pzm-8820E5.17341728112000@news.newsguy.com... > > > In article <901b3t$cas$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Dark Sage" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > "lorz" wrote in message > > > > news:X3SU5.6920$yP6.34406@news2.atl... > > > > > > > > > > pz wrote in message ... > > > > > :In article > > > > > :<20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com>, > > > > > :markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: > > > > > : > > > > > :> >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) > > > > > : > > > > > :[snip] > > > > > : > > > > > :> >Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves > > > > > :> >persuasive evidence. > > > > > :> > > > > > :> When a chemist records that precipitate first > > > > > :> appeared after x-many liters of y-molar mixture was > > > > > :> added, that's an anecdote. It's a highly structured > > > > > :> anecdote if done well. When a particle physicist > > > > > :> reviews the tracks of particles spewing out of a > > > > > :> collision and notes that one of them takes a heck of > > > > > :> a long time to decay, "strangely", that's an > > > > > :> anecdote. > > > > > :> Again, its a persuasive anecdote often because of > > > > > :> the care > > > > > :> revealed in the tale, but we don't all have 20 > > > > > :> umpti-gigavolt colliders sitting in the basement to > > > > > :> verify the existence of strange particles, so we rely > > > > > :> on the harmony of anecdotes among a very very limited > > > > > :> group of people who have in common some experience > > > > > :> that lead them to believe strange particles exist. > > > > > :> Et cetera. > > > > > : > > > > > :No, you don't quite have it. Chemistry is not a > > > > > :collection of anecdotes. If, as you explained it, > > > > > :chemists did just mix X and Y and scribbled down what > > > > > :they saw, that would be anecdotal...but that's not what > > > > > :they do. They do a whole series of experiments, > > > > > :producing a quantitive body of observation. They make > > > > > :hypotheses about what would happen, for instance, if > > > > > :they mixed 2X and 1Y, or X and Z, and they test those > > > > > :ideas. They assemble internally consistent explanations > > > > > :and measurements that support those ideas, and they > > > > > :publish them in such a way that others can replicate > > > > > :and test those ideas. > > > > > : > > > > > :The physicists who have access to supercolliders are > > > > > :also not just collecting anecdotes. They are making and > > > > > :reporting observations that can be verified, and > > > > > :measured for consistency by an even larger group of > > > > > :others. Their work also leads to tentative hypotheses, > > > > > :and predictions are made that can be evaluated. A > > > > > :single observation of peculiar behavior is an anecdote, > > > > > :until a hypothesis is made to explain that behavior and > > > > > :a rational set of experiments made to test it. pz > > > > > > > > > > Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be > > > > > tested scientifically? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. In Quantum Mechanics it's called 'superposition'. > > > > Superposition is where a sub-atomic particle is in an > > > > 'undefined' state. This state is where a particle contains > > > > *all* possible outcomes(as expressed in probabilities); > > > > yet, is mathematically equal to 0(none of those > > > > possibilities). > > > > > > > > By measuring/testing the particle you force the little > > > > critter to adopt at state of determininacy(defined state) > > > > in which it does not normally exist. Which leads to > > > > measurement effects the outcome. > > > > > > > > Superposition is know, but if you test for it, it goes > > > > away. (This has nothing to do with paranormal, simply a > > > > direct answer to your question.) > > > > > > Your example requires a peculiarly skewed definition of > > > 'test', since the phenomenon being tested is the > > > indeterminacy of the particle. And Lo, the particle is > > > indeterminate. Whether something is testable is not > > > contingent upon getting a simple answer, or the answer you > > > want. > > > > > > -- pz > > > > Really.... skewed.... Time for a thought experiment, something > > simple, and testable. > > > > This is the example I was thinking of: > > > > > > Testing superposition through testing the 'spin' of an > > electron. David Bohm and his version of the 'EPR' paradox. > > (Review laws of thermodynamic now, notably: spin(energy) is > > conserved. Since the laws of quantum as well as classical > > physics dictate: 'spin' is conserved. And of course keep in > > mind the relationship between electricity and magnetism(hence: > > electromagnetic force. The magnetic 'wave' travels > > perpendicular the they electric 'wave'.) > > > > To be measured: electron spin Testing devices: Stern-Gerlach > > magnets (you may choose how they're oriented: vertically, > > horizontially, any thing in between.) But choosing that > > direction defines the axis which the electron spin must be > > referred, so that if the Stern-Gerlach magnet is oriented > > vertical, then the measured electron must have its spin up or > > down. > > > > There's a certain sub-atomic particle called the neutral pion, > > which can decay into two electrons. The pion has zero spin. > > Place the electron detectors(which measure spin) 'downstream' > > of the Stern-Gerlach magnets. The "paradoxical" part is you > > chose their(magnets) orientation. > > > > Throw switch now. > > > > Pion(spin = 0) away. Decays into 2 electrons traveling in > > opposite directions. Apply magnetic field to *one* > > electron..... hits detector: Measured as "up", a defined > > value. > > > > What really becomes mind boggling is the other detector > > measured the other electron as "down", a defined value. Two > > defined objects from an undefined object. Something from > > nothing? > > > > If you stop and think about it, you've also defied uncertainty > > too. You could argue by knowing the spin of one; and not > > measuring the second, you already know what it's going to be. > > But that's another post..... > > > > What was tested: spin. And you had the opportunity to orient > > the magnets(random). > > > > Did it the electrons have a defined state/spin prior magnets? > > Did they have a defined state/spin upon being tested/detected > > for spin? Did you get something for nothing: (one down spin -1 > > and one up spin +1 which must equal to 0 (the pion))? > > > > What this means.... If you try to test whether a spin is up or > > down you get an answer. The same experiement performed on > > electrons not measured for spin(no magnets) retain the ability > > to be oriented in any direction. The pair of unmeasured > > electrons is somehow composed of the possibilities that emerge > > later after the measurement was made. Or you could rotate the > > magnets 90 degress, and this application would consist of > > left/right instead of up/down. > > > > Superposition = contains all possibilites, but is equal to > > 0(none). Test for superposition and the answer will be a > > defined state, no longer superposition. > > > > Which why I said "Yes". Particles exist in a state of > > superposition, but you can't prove it. > > You still aren't getting it. I was thinking the same about you. Doesn't matter I suppose. This effect is well documented, proven, and excepted by the entire discipline. There is no way to verify superposition of a particle. The act of testing for it, changes it state. > > You want to argue that this property cannot be consistently or > accurately measured, or that measurement imposes a state on it. That is correct. > So? That does not mean it is not a testable property. There is no way to verify an undetermined state. > > You want to argue that this property cannot be tidily > accommodated in a simple interpretation. So? That has nothing to > do with whether it is testable. How can test/verify something that by testing it changes the outcome? Again there is no way to test for an undetermined state. > > Don't forget that physicists are using good ol' materialistic > science to get these peculiar results. I haven't. They are carrying out > tests, and they are getting results. That those results seem > paradoxical does not mean the tests were not made. Agreed, measurements are being made. None the less, the measurements are effecting the tests and outcome. The very act of measurement changes the nature of the testee. ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:31:20 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a259aaf.3026325@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 41 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58719 On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:14:46 GMT, pz wrote: >In article , "Trish" > wrote: > >> Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... >> >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small >> > wrote: >> > >> >[...] >> > >> >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument is >> >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have >> >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only >> >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take seriously. >> > >> >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the >> >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs >> >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to >> >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the >> >alternative. >> >> >> Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? >> >> I like that Ian. I really do. : ) >> > >I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, >the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that >don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote >viewing/precognition. OK, the paranormal explanations you've mentioned can be characterised broadly as anomalous cognition, so how about AOBEs? Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:31:21 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 61 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!psinet-eu-nl!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58716 On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:35:52 GMT, Janice wrote: >pz wrote: >> >> In article , "Trish" >> wrote: >> >> > Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... >> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >[...] >> > > >> > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument is >> > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have >> > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only >> > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take seriously. >> > > >> > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the >> > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs >> > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to >> > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the >> > >alternative. >> > >> > >> > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? >> > >> > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) >> > >> >> I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, >> the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that >> don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote >> viewing/precognition. > >I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as you >say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with >but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). All right, although I've suggested AOBE for the psi-based type. So the four types of explanation are: AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous cognition such as remote viewing COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local consciousness DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave the physical body POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological phenomenon. How's that? Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:31:22 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a259f60.4227205@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 35 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!news.algonet.se!algonet!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58715 On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:47:42 -0500, "lorz" wrote: > >Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... >:On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small >: wrote: >: >:[...] >: >:>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument is >:>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have >:>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only >:>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take seriously. >: >:Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the >:claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs >:(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to >:provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the >:alternative. > >If the anecdoctal evidence is in great numbers does that not count for >anything? Anecdotal evidence can indicate that a phenomenon exists, but on its own it isn't sufficient to support any particular explanation of that phenomenon. We have plenty of reports of out-of-body experiences, for example - enough to suggest that *something* is happening - but in themselves they don't show that the mind is leaving the body. We'd need to find other evidence to prove that. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:31:24 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a25a39c.5311915@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 17 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!psinet-eu-nl!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58717 On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:34:13 -0500, "lorz" wrote: [...] >Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be tested scientifically? I can't think of anything. Actually, you could argue that what we call knowledge are explanations which have been tested to the point where we know longer doubt them. If it hasn't been tested, or can't be tested, then it isn't knowledge. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:31:25 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a25ab23.7238785@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 41 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58718 On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:45:37 GMT, Janice wrote: >Ian H Spedding wrote: >> >> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:15:20 -0800, "dorothy dunne" >> wrote: >> >> >> >Ah, I daresay you and Ian would be in agreement on this. There *has* been a >> >bit of discussion on what would make for better reporting; and some >> >anecdotes have been given *some* credence by the skeptics. I recall that >> >Sherilyn was semi-impressed by Bruce's report that he 'saw' Trish's arm >> >flung out above her head during an OBE "visit" many months ago (before they >> >knew each other well...). I have also seen little negative commentary on >> >Haunter's "bird's nest" OBE. In general, though, the climate here is fairly >> >hostile toward the idea that any paranormal component exists in the OBE >> >phenomenon. A little tolerance for the lay "reporter" would certainly be >> >appreciated. It would even be nice if we could discuss the paranormal >> >possibilities without being sneered at. I don't hold out much hope for that, >> >though. :-( >> >> I don't doubt the reports of OBEs or lucid dreams that people have >> given here. They're very interesting and have even given me some >> ideas for a few little tests that people could try out if they were >> willing. > >Tell us! I have a hard time thinking of new and interesting things to >do in lucid dreams after having so many of them for so long. I had some ideas after reading Susan Blackmore's article. If you'll bear with me, I want to gather my thoughts and put them down as a slightly more formal proposal for you all to consider. I'm sure you'll think of things that I haven't but between us we should be able to come up with a set of tests that people can try out as and when the opportunity arises. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:31:25 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a25ad3e.7778470@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!psinet-eu-nl!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58720 On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:19:49 GMT, "Trish" wrote: > >Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net>... >>On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:15:20 -0800, "dorothy dunne" >> wrote: >> >>> >>>MarkenAdms wrote in message >>>news:20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com... >> >>[...] >> >>>> I'm open to ideas for a better Middle Way of discourse. >>> >>>Ah, I daresay you and Ian would be in agreement on this. There *has* been >a >>>bit of discussion on what would make for better reporting; and some >>>anecdotes have been given *some* credence by the skeptics. I recall that >>>Sherilyn was semi-impressed by Bruce's report that he 'saw' Trish's arm >>>flung out above her head during an OBE "visit" many months ago (before >they >>>knew each other well...). I have also seen little negative commentary on >>>Haunter's "bird's nest" OBE. In general, though, the climate here is >fairly >>>hostile toward the idea that any paranormal component exists in the OBE >>>phenomenon. A little tolerance for the lay "reporter" would certainly be >>>appreciated. It would even be nice if we could discuss the paranormal >>>possibilities without being sneered at. I don't hold out much hope for >that, >>>though. :-( >> >>I don't doubt the reports of OBEs or lucid dreams that people have >>given here. They're very interesting and have even given me some >>ideas for a few little tests that people could try out if they were >>willing. > > >Oooh! oooh! Tell! > >Please ... preferably a POBE to a DOBE. K? Oh, definitely a POBE test. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 53 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: <1fiV5.3206$943.335139@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> X-Trace: +4EwKN8jHeJJBIdbRNglrBaAIg6rIZfUm4WFGQ4t8j7g5tsfyDwqCj6u5kBnIY80ce3CH+rBDUZu!F2l6i8W+d+VI7zO2o8beU4XcMpXN8Lz1b1ZNuvTQc2J3o/Qza7UQ7M61ZsbsltTTcsR51xcSH8gS!eSpuphx/ X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:41:17 GMT Distribution: world Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:41:18 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!btnet-peer1!btnet-peer0!btnet!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58743 Janice wrote in message <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net>... >pz wrote: >> >> In article , "Trish" >> wrote: >> >> > Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... >> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >[...] >> > > >> > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument is >> > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have >> > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only >> > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take seriously. >> > > >> > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the >> > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs >> > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to >> > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the >> > >alternative. >> > >> > >> > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? >> > >> > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) >> > >> >> I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, >> the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that >> don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote >> viewing/precognition. > >I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as you >say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with >but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). Alrighty then! We've got ... DOBE POBE PsiPOBE COBE Or maybe that should be PsiCOBE? : ) ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 67 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: +L2tqBGyXnzSKzzP2IfTLGDDN72iWSBEXJZ82kNys5unjkeV2gPZA4QOKAaoLtqlS+2nfq8IXpek!Bu+JoxJk46TNigEijuHCmV3AC5cg68mp52Sy6emv8aYLw3yPp0pLCA7mSJl5MFRvNcybVdIbtbE2!EP0umSkq X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:42:57 GMT Distribution: world Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:42:57 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58745 Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net>... >On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:35:52 GMT, Janice wrote: > >>pz wrote: >>> >>> In article , "Trish" >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... >>> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > >[...] >>> > > >>> > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument is >>> > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have >>> > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only >>> > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take seriously. >>> > > >>> > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the >>> > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs >>> > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to >>> > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the >>> > >alternative. >>> > >>> > >>> > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? >>> > >>> > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) >>> > >>> >>> I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, >>> the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that >>> don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote >>> viewing/precognition. >> >>I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as you >>say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with >>but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). > >All right, although I've suggested AOBE for the psi-based type. > >So the four types of explanation are: > >AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous cognition > such as remote viewing > >COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local > consciousness > >DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave the > physical body > >POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological phenomenon. > >How's that? I like it. ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 54 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: +4awYS9NbkyzS/Qar/lQ67DxIwEvk16UsxHlg0z2+7zu5IQq1/vyBrD6LJCtl6H3GBRltAF7Kw+k!wmxNScGUFKL/a/DHC9g06Yjc+KoiJc/eTF2ftXxqyDwKdr4V4yY/9hHmOr1SCbuNiOVA1sLNXUJb!zjUHZ02m X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:45:03 GMT Distribution: world Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:45:03 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58752 pz wrote in message ... >In article , "lorz" > wrote: > >> pz wrote in message ... >> :In article <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net>, Janice >> : wrote: >> : >> :> lorz wrote: >> :> > >> :> > Janice wrote in message <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net>... >> :> > :lorz wrote: >> : >> :[snip] >> : >> :> > :> Hey Janice! Did you ever do it in a moving car? (OOBE >> :> > :> I mean >> :> > :> :Þ) >> :> > : >> :> > :Yes, spontaneously. I dozed off and suddenly seemed to >> :> > :be right up at the ceiling. >> :> > : >> :> > >> :> > Did you attempt to get out of the car? >> :> >> :> No, I was startled and woke up. Then I fell back asleep >> :> and had some lucid dreams about riding on trains. >> : >> : >> :Did you do it in a car? Did you do it in a bar? Did you do it >> :in a train? Did you do it in the rain? >> : >> :Sorry. Something about these questions just sounded so >> :geiselish, and I snapped. -- >> >> Ha. Well, What I wanted to know is how that effected the OOBE >> if at all in the moving car. But Janice isn't elaborating at >> all for me. What startled you Janice? >> >> By the way I believe janice has done it in a car, and she has >> done it in a bar, and she has done it in a train, and she has >> done it in the rain! >> >> Or was that Trish? > >Who has done it in a dish, with a fish? Has Lorene done it in a >canteen with a Marine? PZ, get a hold of yourself dear. Have you been watching the Grinch who Stole Christmas again? ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3a25ad3e.7778470@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 51 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: +4MVL+4bE5+X7ymO20749uDkoO0K/WxbpQ8bFZJDs/qvUqQevGrABX6/DzBbF0YFlqOsjPZ3T56p!baIDmHa/Me/u4vK5b+fld0h5yVGG8WJyu5zyAMIyVnnx7aEjMVYPXdY+PiSI89EnrRXe9LboXFhp!D0RfDrHN X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:48:38 GMT Distribution: world Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:48:38 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58750 Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a25ad3e.7778470@news.lineone.net>... >On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:19:49 GMT, "Trish" wrote: > >> >>Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net>... >>>On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:15:20 -0800, "dorothy dunne" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>MarkenAdms wrote in message >>>>news:20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com... >>> >>>[...] >>> >>>>> I'm open to ideas for a better Middle Way of discourse. >>>> >>>>Ah, I daresay you and Ian would be in agreement on this. There *has* been >>a >>>>bit of discussion on what would make for better reporting; and some >>>>anecdotes have been given *some* credence by the skeptics. I recall that >>>>Sherilyn was semi-impressed by Bruce's report that he 'saw' Trish's arm >>>>flung out above her head during an OBE "visit" many months ago (before >>they >>>>knew each other well...). I have also seen little negative commentary on >>>>Haunter's "bird's nest" OBE. In general, though, the climate here is >>fairly >>>>hostile toward the idea that any paranormal component exists in the OBE >>>>phenomenon. A little tolerance for the lay "reporter" would certainly be >>>>appreciated. It would even be nice if we could discuss the paranormal >>>>possibilities without being sneered at. I don't hold out much hope for >>that, >>>>though. :-( >>> >>>I don't doubt the reports of OBEs or lucid dreams that people have >>>given here. They're very interesting and have even given me some >>>ideas for a few little tests that people could try out if they were >>>willing. >> >> >>Oooh! oooh! Tell! >> >>Please ... preferably a POBE to a DOBE. K? > >Oh, definitely a POBE test. Ah, the bliss! Ok then my good man ... tell tell tell! ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3a25ab23.7238785@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: <8niV5.3222$943.339559@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> X-Trace: +4Lrts3R4JrI2JSog7fg4TOdRI6kP8zbcViju4+Dlv8n18Ux3Ek5gbO5Quvhnl+s9QX7X5Lu+tOS!f0eXXD4FCVMVqkwSGmCQaWO7D66dp5qhn9a31xtNhTI4Z8tjd4xNX0WUSraODSinksrPX0YaHq6S!b2ZF7ApA X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:49:56 GMT Distribution: world Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:49:56 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!machtgarnix.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58746 Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a25ab23.7238785@news.lineone.net>... >On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:45:37 GMT, Janice wrote: > >>Ian H Spedding wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:15:20 -0800, "dorothy dunne" >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >Ah, I daresay you and Ian would be in agreement on this. There *has* been a >>> >bit of discussion on what would make for better reporting; and some >>> >anecdotes have been given *some* credence by the skeptics. I recall that >>> >Sherilyn was semi-impressed by Bruce's report that he 'saw' Trish's arm >>> >flung out above her head during an OBE "visit" many months ago (before they >>> >knew each other well...). I have also seen little negative commentary on >>> >Haunter's "bird's nest" OBE. In general, though, the climate here is fairly >>> >hostile toward the idea that any paranormal component exists in the OBE >>> >phenomenon. A little tolerance for the lay "reporter" would certainly be >>> >appreciated. It would even be nice if we could discuss the paranormal >>> >possibilities without being sneered at. I don't hold out much hope for that, >>> >though. :-( >>> >>> I don't doubt the reports of OBEs or lucid dreams that people have >>> given here. They're very interesting and have even given me some >>> ideas for a few little tests that people could try out if they were >>> willing. >> >>Tell us! I have a hard time thinking of new and interesting things to >>do in lucid dreams after having so many of them for so long. > >I had some ideas after reading Susan Blackmore's article. If you'll >bear with me, I want to gather my thoughts and put them down as a >slightly more formal proposal for you all to consider. I'm sure >you'll think of things that I haven't but between us we should be able >to come up with a set of tests that people can try out as and when the >opportunity arises. > >Ian Alrighty. Skip my last post, then. I'll be patient. ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 38 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /b4C/BbxMr7fuKc1JG77WEke7pMMuKlGGHcOAnrofqJvRv165j2yYFPIDdqPw93ob04gBmOtVK7u!gn3UyBvIDHyiQq8YHO8JwZ4XQDfCUQtf1TcfBkbSHKPCgjMQrbBtmkqIZXC5jpWFOD7+qV+ZoTGX!G1g4ZQl9 X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:58:13 GMT Distribution: world Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:58:13 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news.augsburg.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58751 pz wrote in message ... >In article , "Trish" > wrote: > >> pz wrote in message ... >> >In article , >> >"Token" wrote: >> > >> >> lorz wrote in message >> >> news:X3SU5.6920$yP6.34406@news2.atl... >> >> >> >> > Is there *anything* that we know exist but can not be >> >> > tested >> >> scientifically? >> >> > >> >> >> >> Certainly. Human consciousness. Ever hear of the Turing >> >> Challange? >> >> >> > >> >The Turing test is a scientific test for human-like >> >consciousness. In other words, we *can* test for human >> >consciousness. >> >> >> From what I understood, the test has never been completed, and >> the theoretical results are ambiguous, at best. Clue me in if >> you think differently. > >Again, you are confusing the results with the test. No machine >has passed the Turing test. That doesn't mean that the test >doesn't work; it means that human-like machine intelligences >don't exist! Were you going to add a "yet" to the end of that? ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Organization: Nailbunny's Hammer Distribution: world References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-Face: .k!7leh{iTz*Ah$8`'u'O$.4Z9+jOYL|yvi39v4fL-Un]RqYdDRAg*#o{3f|Mkzf8+}'2AmMD7_7`BM/X]H1nvmSDn*M0vfiwKn^3R[Kr_o*'>L@wBpFy>X&moPw Lines: 75 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:52:38 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.146.116.41 X-Complaints-To: abuse@onvoy.com X-Trace: news7.onvoy.net 975552758 206.146.116.41 (Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:52:38 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:52:38 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!upp1.onvoy!onvoy.com!news7.onvoy.net.POSTED!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58754 In article , "Trish" wrote: > Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net>... > >On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:35:52 GMT, Janice wrote: > > > >>pz wrote: > >>> > >>> In article , "Trish" > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > Ian H Spedding wrote in message > <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... > >>> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small > >>> > > wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > >[...] > >>> > > > >>> > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" > argument is > >>> > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't > have > >>> > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which > >>> > >>only > >>> > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take > seriously. > >>> > > > >>> > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the > >>> > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs > >>> > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to > >>> > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the > >>> > >alternative. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? > >>> > > >>> > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) > >>> > > >>> > >>> I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the > >>> DOBEs, > >>> the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that > >>> don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like > >>> ESP/remote > >>> viewing/precognition. > >> > >>I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as > >>you > >>say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with > >>but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). > > > >All right, although I've suggested AOBE for the psi-based type. > > > >So the four types of explanation are: > > > >AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous cognition > > such as remote viewing > > > >COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local > > consciousness > > > >DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave the > > physical body > > > >POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological phenomenon. > > > >How's that? > > > I like it. Yes. Now I have THREE kooky ideas to mock and disparage. -- pz ###### Message-ID: <3A25C4AE.4AA4@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 35 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:08:36 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-0tYdpfl5NmxXi61M2OUpEVkKHRU6ETxrvk0oM2eh8vxFd+wr6cNUUA9WX58ArQ/w/EG+laqUI0x2jbR!9yvW8VqfH9JfPb4FLiAk88am8jQ= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 03:08:40 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58680 pz wrote: > > In article <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net>, Janice > wrote: > > > lorz wrote: > > > > > > Janice wrote in message <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net>... > > > :lorz wrote: > > [snip] > > > > :> Hey Janice! Did you ever do it in a moving car? (OOBE I > > > :> mean > > > :> :Þ) > > > : > > > :Yes, spontaneously. I dozed off and suddenly seemed to be > > > :right up at the ceiling. > > > : > > > > > > Did you attempt to get out of the car? > > > > No, I was startled and woke up. Then I fell back asleep and > > had some lucid dreams about riding on trains. > > Did you do it in a car? Did you do it in a bar? > Did you do it in a train? Did you do it in the rain? > > Sorry. Something about these questions just sounded so geiselish, > and I snapped. Isn't great not to have to suppress your sense of humor anymore? -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A25C517.7398@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 13 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:10:21 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-oOZPH882g5eOHrL9Jp7o/YW9U9+hgt5/ao0GzG/vZynnQsjciMND8lLJLmIHYabiOboXsZtothSlEAh!61sTYN4vbvkR3i06COnzHnNoe7k= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 03:10:21 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!lmu.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58666 lorz wrote: > > Ha. Well, What I wanted to know is how that effected the OOBE if at all in > the moving car. But Janice isn't elaborating at all for me. What startled > you Janice? Suddenly seeming to see the car ceiling right in front of my "eyes"! There's nothing to elaborate. The whole rudimentary OBE lasted only a few seconds. -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A25C532.157E@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 53 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:10:49 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-LxoK+bMKUDsN0J75p4ng9Dq3qgQDiL2g2viO+wsgTeePHA3LcPDT4zGdPNIbTMqx6ZGuv3766t4J+Lw!o0iAeYUJEusB2Ebpn68bsJdO3bc= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 03:10:49 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news.augsburg.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58668 pz wrote: > > In article , "lorz" > wrote: > > > pz wrote in message ... > > :In article <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net>, Janice > > : wrote: > > : > > :> lorz wrote: > > :> > > > :> > Janice wrote in message <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net>... > > :> > :lorz wrote: > > : > > :[snip] > > : > > :> > :> Hey Janice! Did you ever do it in a moving car? (OOBE > > :> > :> I mean > > :> > :> :Þ) > > :> > : > > :> > :Yes, spontaneously. I dozed off and suddenly seemed to > > :> > :be right up at the ceiling. > > :> > : > > :> > > > :> > Did you attempt to get out of the car? > > :> > > :> No, I was startled and woke up. Then I fell back asleep > > :> and had some lucid dreams about riding on trains. > > : > > : > > :Did you do it in a car? Did you do it in a bar? Did you do it > > :in a train? Did you do it in the rain? > > : > > :Sorry. Something about these questions just sounded so > > :geiselish, and I snapped. -- > > > > Ha. Well, What I wanted to know is how that effected the OOBE > > if at all in the moving car. But Janice isn't elaborating at > > all for me. What startled you Janice? > > > > By the way I believe janice has done it in a car, and she has > > done it in a bar, and she has done it in a train, and she has > > done it in the rain! > > > > Or was that Trish? > > Who has done it in a dish, with a fish? Has Lorene done it in a > canteen with a Marine? PZ, what's gotten into you tonight! :D -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A25C560.5476@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3A253A09.4E06@not-here.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 63 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:11:35 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-za9HEASmJENseDGn2gQXv0QC/6Cw/aTJeDmOqKdQYpYAKqoYh/bh293dwc4fWrHlhnp8e2ItQVkeMms!1FVUjOXmDN/jVwpdB+vGDaGBd+w= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 03:11:35 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58663 lorz wrote: > > Janice wrote in message <3A253A09.4E06@not-here.net>... > :lorz wrote: > :> > :> Janice wrote in message <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net>... > :> :pz wrote: > :> :> > :> :> In article , "Trish" > :> :> wrote: > :> :> > :> :> > Ian H Spedding wrote in message > <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... > :> :> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small > :> :> > > wrote: > :> :> > > > :> :> > >[...] > :> :> > > > :> :> > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" > argument > :> is > :> :> > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't > have > :> :> > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only > :> :> > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take > :> seriously. > :> :> > > > :> :> > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the > :> :> > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs > :> :> > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to > :> :> > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the > :> :> > >alternative. > :> :> > > :> :> > > :> :> > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? > :> :> > > :> :> > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) > :> :> > > :> :> > :> :> I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, > :> :> the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that > :> :> don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like > ESP/remote > :> :> viewing/precognition. > :> : > :> :I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as you > :> :say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with > :> :but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). > :> > :> FYI, none of these are in the dictionary :Þ > :> After you write that new novel perhaps you can start on the OOBE > dictionary? > : > :You are one uppity hand maiden! :Þ > : > > > Sorry, m'lady. Now, now, the collar isn't necessary. -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A25C666.78C1@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 61 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:15:56 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-bysYzERl/Fx3LNgk5lEUvKNcHkHNNT3wJNdZtue2TYG/KNUZ00viQhfbCSstIeDkbwNiXQ1reHgQ+AV!x3TyXHXbYcXTrrVG+ZpkwSm/n1c= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 03:15:57 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!xfer10.netnews.com!netnews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58674 Ian H Spedding wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:35:52 GMT, Janice wrote: > > >pz wrote: > >> > >> In article , "Trish" > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... > >> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >[...] > >> > > > >> > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument is > >> > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have > >> > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only > >> > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take seriously. > >> > > > >> > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the > >> > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs > >> > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to > >> > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the > >> > >alternative. > >> > > >> > > >> > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? > >> > > >> > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) > >> > > >> > >> I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, > >> the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that > >> don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote > >> viewing/precognition. > > > >I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as you > >say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with > >but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). > > All right, although I've suggested AOBE for the psi-based type. > > So the four types of explanation are: > > AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous cognition > such as remote viewing > > COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local > consciousness > > DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave the > physical body > > POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological phenomenon. OK, but instead of just "mind" being assumed to leave in a DOBE, I think it should be "mind or spirit". -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A25C73E.3ABA@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3a25ab23.7238785@news.lineone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 43 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:19:33 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-eStAmlhBzYzHAPiefJPoCh3Y+VZbohpjO7FX36hTn8IYTyS0rVT9EO3rxNo28cUkyug0gL4Jaca8sn7!wMCGSj+2IJVxXgbLBAMPcdUZHYY= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 03:19:34 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58682 Ian H Spedding wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:45:37 GMT, Janice wrote: > > >Ian H Spedding wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:15:20 -0800, "dorothy dunne" > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> >Ah, I daresay you and Ian would be in agreement on this. There *has* been a > >> >bit of discussion on what would make for better reporting; and some > >> >anecdotes have been given *some* credence by the skeptics. I recall that > >> >Sherilyn was semi-impressed by Bruce's report that he 'saw' Trish's arm > >> >flung out above her head during an OBE "visit" many months ago (before they > >> >knew each other well...). I have also seen little negative commentary on > >> >Haunter's "bird's nest" OBE. In general, though, the climate here is fairly > >> >hostile toward the idea that any paranormal component exists in the OBE > >> >phenomenon. A little tolerance for the lay "reporter" would certainly be > >> >appreciated. It would even be nice if we could discuss the paranormal > >> >possibilities without being sneered at. I don't hold out much hope for that, > >> >though. :-( > >> > >> I don't doubt the reports of OBEs or lucid dreams that people have > >> given here. They're very interesting and have even given me some > >> ideas for a few little tests that people could try out if they were > >> willing. > > > >Tell us! I have a hard time thinking of new and interesting things to > >do in lucid dreams after having so many of them for so long. > > I had some ideas after reading Susan Blackmore's article. If you'll > bear with me, I want to gather my thoughts and put them down as a > slightly more formal proposal for you all to consider. I'm sure > you'll think of things that I haven't but between us we should be able > to come up with a set of tests that people can try out as and when the > opportunity arises. OK. Our hypersuggestible, consciously dreaming minds will be at your disposal. :) -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A25CBC0.CA3@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> <3A25C4AE.4AA4@not-here.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 41 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:38:47 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-LZzuwf7l2hNdnCMKYyY4MwL4GaVJunUqMhSf5RtyJNtV272i93dz/scq0MGLA9ntzixB7etyrRVLXMT!DSmmPrioHwfyUroLQjehCVAQ0Po= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 03:38:47 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news2.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58662 Janice wrote: > > pz wrote: > > > > In article <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net>, Janice > > wrote: > > > > > lorz wrote: > > > > > > > > Janice wrote in message <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net>... > > > > :lorz wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > :> Hey Janice! Did you ever do it in a moving car? (OOBE I > > > > :> mean > > > > :> :Þ) > > > > : > > > > :Yes, spontaneously. I dozed off and suddenly seemed to be > > > > :right up at the ceiling. > > > > : > > > > > > > > Did you attempt to get out of the car? > > > > > > No, I was startled and woke up. Then I fell back asleep and > > > had some lucid dreams about riding on trains. > > > > Did you do it in a car? Did you do it in a bar? > > Did you do it in a train? Did you do it in the rain? > > > > Sorry. Something about these questions just sounded so geiselish, > > and I snapped. > > Isn't great not to have to suppress your sense of humor anymore? Take 2: Isn't it great not to have to suppress your sense of humor anymore? -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A25D25E.4924@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> <3A240E59.6176@not-here.net> <901r2g$a4c$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 85 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:07:02 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-DYCtwjbcgwFunXZjW43snqG6vFf6dVC27V3Wdop6O/ruFLrhPzUQ++vlICVmM8mzm3qaQYAUs2LtuNx!WSRtChBZlR3zcaTzUrvT2XLLyW0= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:07:02 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!portc03.blue.aol.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58669 I tend to be more detached, less subject to emotions than most people. Even when I am experiencing emotion, crying or whatever, I can retreat mentally to a calm center of being that is untouched by it and sees it as curious but ultimately irrelevant. I guess that's the closest I come to meditation or what you might call a spiritual state of mind - trying to identify with my awareness itself, not with the conditioned bundle of mental habits that I call "myself" or with all the superficial flux through which it has to try to operate. Bart wrote: > > I'm hoping Trish took no offense. I don't think she did. > > The word "awake" is kind of an inaccurate term for me. I know what you > mean... but it doesn't fit. So often we are "daydreaming". So often we are > not paying attention to other things because we are caught up in a daily > task. > > For me, the word "awake" is equal to the word "lucid". It describes a very > small portion of our lives - that period of time when we stand and observe > without becoming involved emotionally. This is when we are "awake" and are > capable of viewing things from a very central perspective - fully capable of > avoiding emotional and mental clouds. > > We have to be somewhere... either physical, non-physical, or unconscious... > For many, the physical seems to be the most stable - but not for all. > > I know that the physical "appears" to be stable - so rarely do we realize > when we have shifted into a non-physical state. We jump into it without > even realizing it. We often don't understand that we have broken away from > the physical even though we do it many times every day. > > I think one of the important things about learning OBE is that we train > ourselves to maintain a specific state of consciousness as we search the > various levels of awareness. I'm certainly no adept at this (as most > everyone here has seen my emotional outbursts and off-color comments). But > I cannot deny that I've touched levels of clarity that others seek. So I > continue to talk of it in hopes that others might find a taste of what they > are looking for - and then continue on with their own progress - in the > physical and non-physical areas. > > Bart > > Janice wrote in message <3A240E59.6176@not-here.net>... > >Bart wrote: > >> > >> Trish wrote in message ... > >> > >> >OBEs are a highly conscious experience. Maybe (and I do say maybe) even > >> >more so than an awake state. Why? Because in order to keep the > experience > >> >going, an 'active' consciousness must constantly be applied. > >> > >> This is true. > >> > >> >While awake, we needn't worry about it ... we have our senses that > >> >continually supply support ... so our awareness levels can fluctuate > with > >> no > >> >real recourse on our actual experience. > >> > >> This is not true... Most of us live in a non-lucid physical existance. > I'm > >> not saying that we don't have periods of intense lucidity in our physical > >> lives, but most of us are fairly unconscious most of the time. It is > true > >> that we may be aware of our surroundings and capable of functioning in > the > >> physical - but it doesn't mean that we are operating at our peak state of > >> consciousness at all times. If we were, I suspect this would be a planet > >> full of saints... > > > >I think Trish meant not that we are highly aware all the time while > >awake, but that when we are awake the relative stability of our > >surroundings helps to stabilize our awareness - if our attention wanders > >or we make misperceptions we are pulled back on track by the steady > >sensory input - and that OBEs are interesting because unlike in the case > >of ordinary dreams, during OBEs we manage to sustain a high level of > >awareness without such support. > > > >-- > >http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### Reply-To: "dorothy dunne" From: "dorothy dunne" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <3A25C666.78C1@not-here.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:40:41 -0800 Lines: 89 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser2073.bossig.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser2073.bossig.com Message-ID: <3a25c861@news-out.newsnerds.com> X-Trace: 29 Nov 2000 21:24:17 -0600, sanduser2073.bossig.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsnerds.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!feeder.qis.net!europa.netcrusader.net!204.127.161.3!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!198.6.0.213!uunet!ash.uu.net!dfw.uu.net!news-out.newsnerds.com!sanduser2073.bossig.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58724 Janice wrote in message news:3A25C666.78C1@not-here.net... > Ian H Spedding wrote: > > > > On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:35:52 GMT, Janice wrote: > > > > >pz wrote: > > >> > > >> In article , "Trish" > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... > > >> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >[...] > > >> > > > > >> > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument is > > >> > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have > > >> > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only > > >> > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take seriously. > > >> > > > > >> > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the > > >> > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs > > >> > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to > > >> > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the > > >> > >alternative. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? > > >> > > > >> > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) > > >> > > > >> > > >> I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, > > >> the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that > > >> don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote > > >> viewing/precognition. > > > > > >I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as you > > >say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with > > >but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). > > > > All right, although I've suggested AOBE for the psi-based type. > > > > So the four types of explanation are: > > > > AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous cognition > > such as remote viewing > > > > COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local > > consciousness > > > > DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave the > > physical body > > > > POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological phenomenon. > > OK, but instead of just "mind" being assumed to leave in a DOBE, I think > it should be "mind or spirit". Or "etheric double" Or "energy body" Or "astral body" Really, the mind or spirit "leaving" doesn't really convey the sense or feeling of the DOBE. Because in a "disembodied" OBE you still have the feeling of functioning with a non-material body that nevertheless mimics some of the functions of the physical body, including kinesthetic sensations. It's not just a mind floating around out there. (So, OK, one more: "Spirit body" We could call it a SOBE!) Or... the "D" in DOBE could refer to any double or duplicate body that interpenetrates the physical, but disengages during an OBE. This is probably the more traditional mystical or theosophical way of conceptualizing it. ###### Message-ID: <3A25DC92.5DD9@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <3A25C666.78C1@not-here.net> <3a25c861@news-out.newsnerds.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 102 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:50:34 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-UGQx5MCHl+XqOLrto4tR5pQ0BscoDCrUUOJaamSE/9YvJQ5dKNVzkBdB0kHVRV8PQtvTc/6laV9MkUl!Ev0cwAlFNj9B3jYrTWDkzfRSvUg0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:50:34 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news2.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58681 dorothy dunne wrote: > > Janice wrote in message > news:3A25C666.78C1@not-here.net... > > Ian H Spedding wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:35:52 GMT, Janice wrote: > > > > > > >pz wrote: > > > >> > > > >> In article , "Trish" > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Ian H Spedding wrote in message > <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... > > > >> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > >[...] > > > >> > > > > > >> > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" > argument is > > > >> > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't > have > > > >> > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which > only > > > >> > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take > seriously. > > > >> > > > > > >> > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the > > > >> > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs > > > >> > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to > > > >> > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the > > > >> > >alternative. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? > > > >> > > > > >> > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the > DOBEs, > > > >> the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that > > > >> don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like > ESP/remote > > > >> viewing/precognition. > > > > > > > >I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as > you > > > >say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with > > > >but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). > > > > > > All right, although I've suggested AOBE for the psi-based type. > > > > > > So the four types of explanation are: > > > > > > AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous cognition > > > such as remote viewing > > > > > > COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local > > > consciousness > > > > > > DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave the > > > physical body > > > > > > POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological phenomenon. > > > > OK, but instead of just "mind" being assumed to leave in a DOBE, I think > > it should be "mind or spirit". > > Or "etheric double" > Or "energy body" > Or "astral body" I know, I know - there are many terms for it. How about "some spiritual entity" as an umbrella concept? > Really, the mind or spirit "leaving" doesn't really convey the sense or > feeling of the DOBE. Because in a "disembodied" OBE you still have the > feeling of functioning with a non-material body that nevertheless mimics > some of the functions of the physical body, including kinesthetic > sensations. It's not just a mind floating around out there. Yes, I think more commonly there's a perceived second body (dream body) involved, although there are *some* cases in which the experient is just a point of awareness with no body sense. I wasn't thinking of those, though, and doubt that Ian was; you don't hear about them all that often. > (So, OK, one more: > "Spirit body" We could call it a SOBE!) > > Or... the "D" in DOBE could refer to any double or duplicate body that > interpenetrates the physical, but disengages during an OBE. This is > probably the more traditional mystical or theosophical way of > conceptualizing it. Right, I think that's what we meant. -- http://sites.netscape.net/jvogelsong/ ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 70 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:15:19 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.212 X-Trace: news4.atl 975593949 216.78.240.212 (Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:19:09 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:19:09 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news4.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58697 Trish wrote in message ... : :Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net>... :>On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:35:52 GMT, Janice wrote: :> :>>pz wrote: :>>> :>>> In article , "Trish" :>>> wrote: :>>> :>>> > Ian H Spedding wrote in message :<3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... :>>> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small :>>> > > wrote: :>>> > > :>>> > >[...] :>>> > > :>>> > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" :argument is :>>> > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't :have :>>> > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only :>>> > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take :seriously. :>>> > > :>>> > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the :>>> > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs :>>> > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to :>>> > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the :>>> > >alternative. :>>> > :>>> > :>>> > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? :>>> > :>>> > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) :>>> > :>>> :>>> I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, :>>> the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that :>>> don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote :>>> viewing/precognition. :>> :>>I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as you :>>say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with :>>but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). :> :>All right, although I've suggested AOBE for the psi-based type. :> :>So the four types of explanation are: :> :>AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous cognition :> such as remote viewing :> :>COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local :> consciousness :> :>DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave the :> physical body :> :>POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological phenomenon. :> :>How's that? : : :I like it. Take notes Trish, for when we get a new webpage. ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> <3A25C532.157E@not-here.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 58 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:23:04 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.212 X-Trace: news4.atl 975594413 216.78.240.212 (Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:26:53 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:26:53 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news4.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58693 Janice wrote in message <3A25C532.157E@not-here.net>... :pz wrote: :> :> In article , "lorz" :> wrote: :> :> > pz wrote in message ... :> > :In article <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net>, Janice :> > : wrote: :> > : :> > :> lorz wrote: :> > :> > :> > :> > Janice wrote in message <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net>... :> > :> > :lorz wrote: :> > : :> > :[snip] :> > : :> > :> > :> Hey Janice! Did you ever do it in a moving car? (OOBE :> > :> > :> I mean :> > :> > :> :Þ) :> > :> > : :> > :> > :Yes, spontaneously. I dozed off and suddenly seemed to :> > :> > :be right up at the ceiling. :> > :> > : :> > :> > :> > :> > Did you attempt to get out of the car? :> > :> :> > :> No, I was startled and woke up. Then I fell back asleep :> > :> and had some lucid dreams about riding on trains. :> > : :> > : :> > :Did you do it in a car? Did you do it in a bar? Did you do it :> > :in a train? Did you do it in the rain? :> > : :> > :Sorry. Something about these questions just sounded so :> > :geiselish, and I snapped. -- :> > :> > Ha. Well, What I wanted to know is how that effected the OOBE :> > if at all in the moving car. But Janice isn't elaborating at :> > all for me. What startled you Janice? :> > :> > By the way I believe janice has done it in a car, and she has :> > done it in a bar, and she has done it in a train, and she has :> > done it in the rain! :> > :> > Or was that Trish? :> :> Who has done it in a dish, with a fish? Has Lorene done it in a :> canteen with a Marine? : :PZ, what's gotten into you tonight! :D Really! For a guy with no humor and everything. I don't even know a Marine! :Þ ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> <3A25C517.7398@not-here.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 20 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: <3wtV5.5371$Iw.33905@news4.atl> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:24:56 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.123 X-Trace: news4.atl 975594623 216.78.240.123 (Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:30:23 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:30:23 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news4.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58689 Janice wrote in message <3A25C517.7398@not-here.net>... :lorz wrote: :> :> Ha. Well, What I wanted to know is how that effected the OOBE if at all in :> the moving car. But Janice isn't elaborating at all for me. What startled :> you Janice? : :Suddenly seeming to see the car ceiling right in front of my "eyes"! : :There's nothing to elaborate. The whole rudimentary OBE lasted only a :few seconds. Well try it again one day. I'd be curious to know if you can leave the car while it is moving. Try again after writing that novel but before writing the OOBE dictionary, k? ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:52:10 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 65 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> <3A25C532.157E@not-here.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-397.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!news.netcologne.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!209.155.233.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58739 In article , "lorz" wrote: > Janice wrote in message <3A25C532.157E@not-here.net>... > :pz wrote: > :> > :> In article , "lorz" > :> wrote: > :> > :> > pz wrote in message ... > :> > :In article <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net>, Janice > :> > : wrote: > :> > : > :> > :> lorz wrote: > :> > :> > > :> > :> > Janice wrote in message <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net>... > :> > :> > :lorz wrote: > :> > : > :> > :[snip] > :> > : > :> > :> > :> Hey Janice! Did you ever do it in a moving car? > :> > :> > :> (OOBE > :> > :> > :> I mean > :> > :> > :> :Þ) > :> > :> > : > :> > :> > :Yes, spontaneously. I dozed off and suddenly seemed to > :> > :> > :be right up at the ceiling. > :> > :> > : > :> > :> > > :> > :> > Did you attempt to get out of the car? > :> > :> > :> > :> No, I was startled and woke up. Then I fell back asleep > :> > :> and had some lucid dreams about riding on trains. > :> > : > :> > : > :> > :Did you do it in a car? Did you do it in a bar? Did you do > :> > :it > :> > :in a train? Did you do it in the rain? > :> > : > :> > :Sorry. Something about these questions just sounded so > :> > :geiselish, and I snapped. -- > :> > > :> > Ha. Well, What I wanted to know is how that effected the OOBE > :> > if at all in the moving car. But Janice isn't elaborating at > :> > all for me. What startled you Janice? > :> > > :> > By the way I believe janice has done it in a car, and she has > :> > done it in a bar, and she has done it in a train, and she has > :> > done it in the rain! > :> > > :> > Or was that Trish? > :> > :> Who has done it in a dish, with a fish? Has Lorene done it in a > :> canteen with a Marine? > : > :PZ, what's gotten into you tonight! :D > > Really! For a guy with no humor and everything. I don't even know > a Marine! > :Þ Hmmm. Vaseline? Imogene? Any of those constitute a 'hit', yet? -- pz ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> <3A25C532.157E@not-here.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 76 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:20:13 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.224 X-Trace: news2.atl 975605043 216.78.240.224 (Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:24:03 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:24:03 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news2.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58700 pz wrote in message ... :In article , "lorz" : wrote: : :> Janice wrote in message <3A25C532.157E@not-here.net>... :> :pz wrote: :> :> :> :> In article , "lorz" :> :> wrote: :> :> :> :> > pz wrote in message ... :> :> > :In article <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net>, Janice :> :> > : wrote: :> :> > : :> :> > :> lorz wrote: :> :> > :> > :> :> > :> > Janice wrote in message <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net>... :> :> > :> > :lorz wrote: :> :> > : :> :> > :[snip] :> :> > : :> :> > :> > :> Hey Janice! Did you ever do it in a moving car? :> :> > :> > :> (OOBE :> :> > :> > :> I mean :> :> > :> > :> :Þ) :> :> > :> > : :> :> > :> > :Yes, spontaneously. I dozed off and suddenly seemed to :> :> > :> > :be right up at the ceiling. :> :> > :> > : :> :> > :> > :> :> > :> > Did you attempt to get out of the car? :> :> > :> :> :> > :> No, I was startled and woke up. Then I fell back asleep :> :> > :> and had some lucid dreams about riding on trains. :> :> > : :> :> > : :> :> > :Did you do it in a car? Did you do it in a bar? Did you do :> :> > :it :> :> > :in a train? Did you do it in the rain? :> :> > : :> :> > :Sorry. Something about these questions just sounded so :> :> > :geiselish, and I snapped. -- :> :> > :> :> > Ha. Well, What I wanted to know is how that effected the OOBE :> :> > if at all in the moving car. But Janice isn't elaborating at :> :> > all for me. What startled you Janice? :> :> > :> :> > By the way I believe janice has done it in a car, and she has :> :> > done it in a bar, and she has done it in a train, and she has :> :> > done it in the rain! :> :> > :> :> > Or was that Trish? :> :> :> :> Who has done it in a dish, with a fish? Has Lorene done it in a :> :> canteen with a Marine? :> : :> :PZ, what's gotten into you tonight! :D :> :> Really! For a guy with no humor and everything. I don't even know :> a Marine! :> :Þ : : :Hmmm. Vaseline? Imogene? Any of those constitute a 'hit', yet? :-- I do not own any vaseline. I do not know an Imogene. It's not a hit I must admit. So here I'll sit, and sit, and sit. ###### Message-ID: <3A26ADCE.2A69@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> <3A25C532.157E@not-here.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 70 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:43:16 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-x68EnxlRo1KBYXXx9VShXAH1gvN0nQG28jgMe67KPmgwb2Xycz9ZU8oBdH1sxqwclnVpUGhR7lp42+n!F/fZuLjduF+CIvpnefEQmDtEzDw= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:43:16 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news.augsburg.net!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58775 pz wrote: > > In article , "lorz" > wrote: > > > Janice wrote in message <3A25C532.157E@not-here.net>... > > :pz wrote: > > :> > > :> In article , "lorz" > > :> wrote: > > :> > > :> > pz wrote in message ... > > :> > :In article <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net>, Janice > > :> > : wrote: > > :> > : > > :> > :> lorz wrote: > > :> > :> > > > :> > :> > Janice wrote in message <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net>... > > :> > :> > :lorz wrote: > > :> > : > > :> > :[snip] > > :> > : > > :> > :> > :> Hey Janice! Did you ever do it in a moving car? > > :> > :> > :> (OOBE > > :> > :> > :> I mean > > :> > :> > :> :Þ) > > :> > :> > : > > :> > :> > :Yes, spontaneously. I dozed off and suddenly seemed to > > :> > :> > :be right up at the ceiling. > > :> > :> > : > > :> > :> > > > :> > :> > Did you attempt to get out of the car? > > :> > :> > > :> > :> No, I was startled and woke up. Then I fell back asleep > > :> > :> and had some lucid dreams about riding on trains. > > :> > : > > :> > : > > :> > :Did you do it in a car? Did you do it in a bar? Did you do > > :> > :it > > :> > :in a train? Did you do it in the rain? > > :> > : > > :> > :Sorry. Something about these questions just sounded so > > :> > :geiselish, and I snapped. -- > > :> > > > :> > Ha. Well, What I wanted to know is how that effected the OOBE > > :> > if at all in the moving car. But Janice isn't elaborating at > > :> > all for me. What startled you Janice? > > :> > > > :> > By the way I believe janice has done it in a car, and she has > > :> > done it in a bar, and she has done it in a train, and she has > > :> > done it in the rain! > > :> > > > :> > Or was that Trish? > > :> > > :> Who has done it in a dish, with a fish? Has Lorene done it in a > > :> canteen with a Marine? > > : > > :PZ, what's gotten into you tonight! :D > > > > Really! For a guy with no humor and everything. I don't even know > > a Marine! > > :Þ > > Hmmm. Vaseline? Imogene? Any of those constitute a 'hit', yet? Well, obviously your going into Geisel mode to begin with was a hit with Jay's getting the Dr. Seuss book as a gift last night. -- http://sites.netscape.net/jayavogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A26AED1.68B4@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> <3A25C517.7398@not-here.net> <3wtV5.5371$Iw.33905@news4.atl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 26 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:47:37 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-oOQZuvOwboeq6Vp9Lp0MKIWuOKpdUobWp2VjwFoHy50haU38IpJ93rvm5K7OgIXW7g9K3sucLtD/j92!Qw9nnzjCII/nmApYC/xk5WIsWjw= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:47:44 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!xfer13.netnews.com!netnews.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-feeds.jump.net!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58771 lorz wrote: > > Janice wrote in message <3A25C517.7398@not-here.net>... > :lorz wrote: > :> > :> Ha. Well, What I wanted to know is how that effected the OOBE if at all > in > :> the moving car. But Janice isn't elaborating at all for me. What startled > :> you Janice? > : > :Suddenly seeming to see the car ceiling right in front of my "eyes"! > : > :There's nothing to elaborate. The whole rudimentary OBE lasted only a > :few seconds. > > Well try it again one day. I'd be curious to know if you can leave the car > while it is moving. Try again after writing that novel but before writing > the OOBE dictionary, k? 'K. But long car trips to make me sleepy are few and far between, so it may be a long time before I fall asleep in a moving car again. Plus I rarely seem to dream when I doze off while riding in a car. I was probably REM-deprived that day. :) -- http://sites.netscape.net/jayavogelsong/ ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:09:59 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a26b9b1.5721784@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 79 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!machtgarnix.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58800 On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:15:19 -0500, "lorz" wrote: > >Trish wrote in message ... >: >:Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net>... >:>On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:35:52 GMT, Janice wrote: >:> >:>>pz wrote: >:>>> >:>>> In article , "Trish" >:>>> wrote: >:>>> >:>>> > Ian H Spedding wrote in message >:<3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... >:>>> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small >:>>> > > wrote: >:>>> > > >:>>> > >[...] >:>>> > > >:>>> > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" >:argument is >:>>> > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't >:have >:>>> > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only >:>>> > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take >:seriously. >:>>> > > >:>>> > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the >:>>> > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs >:>>> > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to >:>>> > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the >:>>> > >alternative. >:>>> > >:>>> > >:>>> > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? >:>>> > >:>>> > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) >:>>> > >:>>> >:>>> I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, >:>>> the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that >:>>> don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote >:>>> viewing/precognition. >:>> >:>>I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as you >:>>say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with >:>>but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). >:> >:>All right, although I've suggested AOBE for the psi-based type. >:> >:>So the four types of explanation are: >:> >:>AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous cognition >:> such as remote viewing >:> >:>COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local >:> consciousness >:> >:>DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave the >:> physical body >:> >:>POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological phenomenon. >:> >:>How's that? >: >: >:I like it. > >Take notes Trish, for when we get a new webpage. ... and there's only one software package you can use to prepare the pages ... AdOBE Acrobat! TA-DA! Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:10:00 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a26ba50.5881429@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <3A25C666.78C1@not-here.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 68 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58799 On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 03:15:57 GMT, Janice wrote: >Ian H Spedding wrote: >> >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:35:52 GMT, Janice wrote: >> >> >pz wrote: >> >> >> >> In article , "Trish" >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... >> >> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small >> >> > > wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > >[...] >> >> > > >> >> > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" argument is >> >> > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't have >> >> > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only >> >> > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take seriously. >> >> > > >> >> > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the >> >> > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs >> >> > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to >> >> > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the >> >> > >alternative. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? >> >> > >> >> > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) >> >> > >> >> >> >> I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, >> >> the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that >> >> don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote >> >> viewing/precognition. >> > >> >I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as you >> >say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with >> >but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). >> >> All right, although I've suggested AOBE for the psi-based type. >> >> So the four types of explanation are: >> >> AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous cognition >> such as remote viewing >> >> COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local >> consciousness >> >> DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave the >> physical body >> >> POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological phenomenon. > >OK, but instead of just "mind" being assumed to leave in a DOBE, I think >it should be "mind or spirit". Amendment duly noted. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:10:01 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a26bb5c.6149404@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <3A25C666.78C1@not-here.net> <3a25c861@news-out.newsnerds.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 101 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!newscore.gigabell.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58806 On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:40:41 -0800, "dorothy dunne" wrote: >Janice wrote in message >news:3A25C666.78C1@not-here.net... >> Ian H Spedding wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:35:52 GMT, Janice wrote: >> > >> > >pz wrote: >> > >> >> > >> In article , "Trish" >> > >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > Ian H Spedding wrote in message ><3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... >> > >> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small >> > >> > > wrote: >> > >> > > >> > >> > >[...] >> > >> > > >> > >> > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" >argument is >> > >> > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't >have >> > >> > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which >only >> > >> > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take >seriously. >> > >> > > >> > >> > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the >> > >> > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs >> > >> > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to >> > >> > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the >> > >> > >alternative. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? >> > >> > >> > >> > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the >DOBEs, >> > >> the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that >> > >> don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like >ESP/remote >> > >> viewing/precognition. >> > > >> > >I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as >you >> > >say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with >> > >but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). >> > >> > All right, although I've suggested AOBE for the psi-based type. >> > >> > So the four types of explanation are: >> > >> > AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous cognition >> > such as remote viewing >> > >> > COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local >> > consciousness >> > >> > DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave the >> > physical body >> > >> > POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological phenomenon. >> >> OK, but instead of just "mind" being assumed to leave in a DOBE, I think >> it should be "mind or spirit". > > >Or "etheric double" >Or "energy body" >Or "astral body" > >Really, the mind or spirit "leaving" doesn't really convey the sense or >feeling of the DOBE. Because in a "disembodied" OBE you still have the >feeling of functioning with a non-material body that nevertheless mimics >some of the functions of the physical body, including kinesthetic >sensations. It's not just a mind floating around out there. > >(So, OK, one more: >"Spirit body" We could call it a SOBE!) But are spirits a SOBEring experience? >Or... the "D" in DOBE could refer to any double or duplicate body that >interpenetrates the physical, but disengages during an OBE. This is >probably the more traditional mystical or theosophical way of >conceptualizing it. "...any double or duplicate body that interpenetrates the physical..."? Are we talking about astral sex here? Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:10:02 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a26bc48.6385079@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> <3A25C532.157E@not-here.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 65 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-fra.pop.de!newscore.gigabell.net!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58802 On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:23:04 -0500, "lorz" wrote: > >Janice wrote in message <3A25C532.157E@not-here.net>... >:pz wrote: >:> >:> In article , "lorz" >:> wrote: >:> >:> > pz wrote in message ... >:> > :In article <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net>, Janice >:> > : wrote: >:> > : >:> > :> lorz wrote: >:> > :> > >:> > :> > Janice wrote in message <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net>... >:> > :> > :lorz wrote: >:> > : >:> > :[snip] >:> > : >:> > :> > :> Hey Janice! Did you ever do it in a moving car? (OOBE >:> > :> > :> I mean >:> > :> > :> :Þ) >:> > :> > : >:> > :> > :Yes, spontaneously. I dozed off and suddenly seemed to >:> > :> > :be right up at the ceiling. >:> > :> > : >:> > :> > >:> > :> > Did you attempt to get out of the car? >:> > :> >:> > :> No, I was startled and woke up. Then I fell back asleep >:> > :> and had some lucid dreams about riding on trains. >:> > : >:> > : >:> > :Did you do it in a car? Did you do it in a bar? Did you do it >:> > :in a train? Did you do it in the rain? >:> > : >:> > :Sorry. Something about these questions just sounded so >:> > :geiselish, and I snapped. -- >:> > >:> > Ha. Well, What I wanted to know is how that effected the OOBE >:> > if at all in the moving car. But Janice isn't elaborating at >:> > all for me. What startled you Janice? >:> > >:> > By the way I believe janice has done it in a car, and she has >:> > done it in a bar, and she has done it in a train, and she has >:> > done it in the rain! >:> > >:> > Or was that Trish? >:> >:> Who has done it in a dish, with a fish? Has Lorene done it in a >:> canteen with a Marine? >: >:PZ, what's gotten into you tonight! :D > >Really! For a guy with no humor and everything. I don't even know a Marine! >:Þ PZ works with zebrafish. Does that count? Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:10:03 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a26bcbf.6504184@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> <3A25C517.7398@not-here.net> <3wtV5.5371$Iw.33905@news4.atl> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 28 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!newsxfer.eecs.umich.edu!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58809 On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:24:56 -0500, "lorz" wrote: > >Janice wrote in message <3A25C517.7398@not-here.net>... >:lorz wrote: >:> >:> Ha. Well, What I wanted to know is how that effected the OOBE if at all >in >:> the moving car. But Janice isn't elaborating at all for me. What startled >:> you Janice? >: >:Suddenly seeming to see the car ceiling right in front of my "eyes"! >: >:There's nothing to elaborate. The whole rudimentary OBE lasted only a >:few seconds. > >Well try it again one day. I'd be curious to know if you can leave the car >while it is moving. Try again after writing that novel but before writing >the OOBE dictionary, k? OT but for how long have people in the States been abbreviating OK just to K. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: "Token" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 40 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:27:21 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.241.33.114 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 975634054 216.241.33.114 (Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:27:34 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:27:34 MST Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!newsfeed1.online.no!nextra.com!news.tele.dk!209.98.98.64!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58834 lorz wrote in message news:rz8V5.6872$wA6.46562@news1.atl... > > Token wrote in message ... > :> > :> Or we'd all be insane. I sometimes hate thinking *too* much about > things. > :> Being *too* aware and *too* conscious of our surroundings and how awful > :many > :> people are toward each other in the world. There's definitely something > to > :> ignorance being bliss in this respect. I sometimes envy the ignorant. > :> > : > :You are talking about being aware of problems in life, you aren't really > :talking about being aware. I'm sure you've read a page in a book on > :occasion only to realize you haven't a clue as to what you just read. > :Bizarre isn't it, that your brain still read that page, and you know it, > but > :you have no awareness of it. > > No, that would be comprehension. I would still be fully aware that I read > the page wouldn't I? I just wouldn't be comprehending what I read. > > I didn't really phrase that very well. What I meant was when you are reading a simple page of text and suddenly you find that your eyes are at the bottom of the page, and you know you read the whole page, yet you have no recollection that you did. So of course you have to start reading the page over again and hope the same thing doesn't happen, in which case it's probably a good time to go to bed. Token > > > > ###### Message-ID: <3A26FF93.7534@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <3a26b9b1.5721784@news.lineone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 81 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:32:09 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-R2KkfRwxFLkS0Oyp90T7oM8LFkoZj4Njdpeszomv3/qvuZUmJLRWYZwDadErHHpmN0xbax/Op315M5C!eM8DxeUwAj22OS1D/ePtHw3JtYY= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 01:32:09 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!lmu.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!europa.netcrusader.net!209.130.129.214!nntp.frontiernet.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news2.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58766 Ian H Spedding wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:15:19 -0500, "lorz" wrote: > > > > >Trish wrote in message ... > >: > >:Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net>... > >:>On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:35:52 GMT, Janice wrote: > >:> > >:>>pz wrote: > >:>>> > >:>>> In article , "Trish" > >:>>> wrote: > >:>>> > >:>>> > Ian H Spedding wrote in message > >:<3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... > >:>>> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small > >:>>> > > wrote: > >:>>> > > > >:>>> > >[...] > >:>>> > > > >:>>> > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" > >:argument is > >:>>> > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't > >:have > >:>>> > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which only > >:>>> > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take > >:seriously. > >:>>> > > > >:>>> > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the > >:>>> > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs > >:>>> > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to > >:>>> > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the > >:>>> > >alternative. > >:>>> > > >:>>> > > >:>>> > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? > >:>>> > > >:>>> > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) > >:>>> > > >:>>> > >:>>> I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the DOBEs, > >:>>> the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that > >:>>> don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like ESP/remote > >:>>> viewing/precognition. > >:>> > >:>>I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as you > >:>>say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with > >:>>but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). > >:> > >:>All right, although I've suggested AOBE for the psi-based type. > >:> > >:>So the four types of explanation are: > >:> > >:>AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous cognition > >:> such as remote viewing > >:> > >:>COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local > >:> consciousness > >:> > >:>DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave the > >:> physical body > >:> > >:>POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological phenomenon. > >:> > >:>How's that? > >: > >: > >:I like it. > > > >Take notes Trish, for when we get a new webpage. > > ... and there's only one software package you can use to prepare the > pages ... AdOBE Acrobat! TA-DA! A better choice for web pages would be AdOBE Page Mill, with graphics enhanced by AdOBE Photoshop. -- http://sites.netscape.net/jayavogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A26FFF8.29ED@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <3A25C666.78C1@not-here.net> <3a25c861@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a26bb5c.6149404@news.lineone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 103 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:33:50 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-Ncy93QtbpJMb7+nlYF4iNTIFgnZyUgADqgtw0GnjEMrX0g9aApH5KlZNO5P8P3tLeGOZPtuMUJtpiVU!x5RCDuvM2r2H3l6vFQNKBYbtqpfX X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 01:33:50 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!lmu.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed.germany.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!btnet-peer!btnet!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news2.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58778 Ian H Spedding wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:40:41 -0800, "dorothy dunne" > wrote: > > >Janice wrote in message > >news:3A25C666.78C1@not-here.net... > >> Ian H Spedding wrote: > >> > > >> > On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:35:52 GMT, Janice wrote: > >> > > >> > >pz wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> In article , "Trish" > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > Ian H Spedding wrote in message > ><3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net>... > >> > >> > >On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 01:24:31 GMT, Babylon the Small > >> > >> > > wrote: > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >[...] > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >>The problem with the "psychological" versus "body departure" > >argument is > >> > >> > >>that both sides are stuck with proving a negative--we just don't > >have > >> > >> > >>any evidence either way. Except for the anecdotal kind, which > >only > >> > >> > >>anthropologists and marketing departments are likely to take > >seriously. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >Not exactly. Remember that the burden of proof rests with the > >> > >> > >claimant. In principle, whether you argue for disembodied OBEs > >> > >> > >(DOBEs) or psychologically-based OBEs (POBEs) you should try to > >> > >> > >provide evidence to support the claim, not try to disprove the > >> > >> > >alternative. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Ahahahahahaha! DOBEs and POBEs??? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > I like that Ian. I really do. : ) > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> I like it, too. I think there are three categories, though: the > >DOBEs, > >> > >> the POBEs, and a more catch-all group of paranormal explanations that > >> > >> don't involve minds leaving bodies, but seem to be more like > >ESP/remote > >> > >> viewing/precognition. > >> > > > >> > >I might make it four: DOBEs and POBEs, then psi + POBEs (PPOBEs?) as > >you > >> > >say, then the "consciousness is never really in the body to begin with > >> > >but merely shifts its focal point" school of thought (COBEs). > >> > > >> > All right, although I've suggested AOBE for the psi-based type. > >> > > >> > So the four types of explanation are: > >> > > >> > AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous cognition > >> > such as remote viewing > >> > > >> > COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local > >> > consciousness > >> > > >> > DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave the > >> > physical body > >> > > >> > POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological phenomenon. > >> > >> OK, but instead of just "mind" being assumed to leave in a DOBE, I think > >> it should be "mind or spirit". > > > > > >Or "etheric double" > >Or "energy body" > >Or "astral body" > > > >Really, the mind or spirit "leaving" doesn't really convey the sense or > >feeling of the DOBE. Because in a "disembodied" OBE you still have the > >feeling of functioning with a non-material body that nevertheless mimics > >some of the functions of the physical body, including kinesthetic > >sensations. It's not just a mind floating around out there. > > > >(So, OK, one more: > >"Spirit body" We could call it a SOBE!) > > But are spirits a SOBEring experience? > > >Or... the "D" in DOBE could refer to any double or duplicate body that > >interpenetrates the physical, but disengages during an OBE. This is > >probably the more traditional mystical or theosophical way of > >conceptualizing it. > > "...any double or duplicate body that interpenetrates the > physical..."? Are we talking about astral sex here? It always comes down to that. Can't be helped, really, what with sexual arousal being a consistent concomitant of REM and all. -- http://sites.netscape.net/jayavogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A27003B.7AAE@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> <3A25C517.7398@not-here.net> <3wtV5.5371$Iw.33905@news4.atl> <3a26bcbf.6504184@news.lineone.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 29 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:34:56 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-v43dMF3hrnN0f8r1bxauKT9T4E1rQFGKWlW8NPiNH64K333xZ4w+J7BLj7nGl0pv85sCWINGgBzUlPK!+z7rcFL/nB2PdwREuyLJhm7Zf/o= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 01:34:57 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news2.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58770 Ian H Spedding wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:24:56 -0500, "lorz" wrote: > > > > >Janice wrote in message <3A25C517.7398@not-here.net>... > >:lorz wrote: > >:> > >:> Ha. Well, What I wanted to know is how that effected the OOBE if at all > >in > >:> the moving car. But Janice isn't elaborating at all for me. What startled > >:> you Janice? > >: > >:Suddenly seeming to see the car ceiling right in front of my "eyes"! > >: > >:There's nothing to elaborate. The whole rudimentary OBE lasted only a > >:few seconds. > > > >Well try it again one day. I'd be curious to know if you can leave the car > >while it is moving. Try again after writing that novel but before writing > >the OOBE dictionary, k? > > OT but for how long have people in the States been abbreviating OK > just to K. I don't know, but it seems to be a fairly common practice. -- http://sites.netscape.net/jayavogelsong/ ###### Message-ID: <3A27015C.D98@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <8vva45$c53$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 40 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:39:46 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-Bgiz9U3PhW+/ANn2mP+HMHWZYURQNrlNtoidLZ3acAE/4BJbF278HUcCgMmoQRZuHJvZKQ7hpRQKsDq!EojvVdq0QabNrgbOwde12JTFkUc= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 01:39:46 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.flash.net!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news2.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58841 Token wrote: > > lorz wrote in message > news:rz8V5.6872$wA6.46562@news1.atl... > > > > Token wrote in message ... > > :> > > :> Or we'd all be insane. I sometimes hate thinking *too* much about > > things. > > :> Being *too* aware and *too* conscious of our surroundings and how awful > > :many > > :> people are toward each other in the world. There's definitely something > > to > > :> ignorance being bliss in this respect. I sometimes envy the ignorant. > > :> > > : > > :You are talking about being aware of problems in life, you aren't really > > :talking about being aware. I'm sure you've read a page in a book on > > :occasion only to realize you haven't a clue as to what you just read. > > :Bizarre isn't it, that your brain still read that page, and you know it, > > but > > :you have no awareness of it. > > > > No, that would be comprehension. I would still be fully aware that I read > > the page wouldn't I? I just wouldn't be comprehending what I read. > > > > > I didn't really phrase that very well. What I meant was when you are > reading a simple page of text and suddenly you find that your eyes are at > the bottom of the page, and you know you read the whole page, yet you have > no recollection that you did. So of course you have to start reading the > page over again and hope the same thing doesn't happen, in which case it's > probably a good time to go to bed. I used to have that happen a lot when I was studying for exams. Or I would get sleepy while reading and start to "hear" bits of the text as audio hallucinations. -- http://sites.netscape.net/jayavogelsong/ ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> <3A25C532.157E@not-here.net> <3a26bc48.6385079@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 66 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: +Lz3Y/eLoU/pCzXmMQxMhd7CGQuXxJDz7OqbCWQb3CHhULAWmPO8IOafkt8/xhFeqjY7Km9GJrwS!n77JPIWBhHg6knEWsmYLregyFqkWou9qqtTlEg7YCyGOKxkHRm9OwYZbtONwns9Ppd4BFWw++dbK!cFSlDhlB X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:16:51 GMT Distribution: world Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:16:51 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58830 Ian H Spedding wrote in message <3a26bc48.6385079@news.lineone.net>... >On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:23:04 -0500, "lorz" wrote: > >> >>Janice wrote in message <3A25C532.157E@not-here.net>... >>:pz wrote: >>:> >>:> In article , "lorz" >>:> wrote: >>:> >>:> > pz wrote in message ... >>:> > :In article <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net>, Janice >>:> > : wrote: >>:> > : >>:> > :> lorz wrote: >>:> > :> > >>:> > :> > Janice wrote in message <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net>... >>:> > :> > :lorz wrote: >>:> > : >>:> > :[snip] >>:> > : >>:> > :> > :> Hey Janice! Did you ever do it in a moving car? (OOBE >>:> > :> > :> I mean >>:> > :> > :> :Þ) >>:> > :> > : >>:> > :> > :Yes, spontaneously. I dozed off and suddenly seemed to >>:> > :> > :be right up at the ceiling. >>:> > :> > : >>:> > :> > >>:> > :> > Did you attempt to get out of the car? >>:> > :> >>:> > :> No, I was startled and woke up. Then I fell back asleep >>:> > :> and had some lucid dreams about riding on trains. >>:> > : >>:> > : >>:> > :Did you do it in a car? Did you do it in a bar? Did you do it >>:> > :in a train? Did you do it in the rain? >>:> > : >>:> > :Sorry. Something about these questions just sounded so >>:> > :geiselish, and I snapped. -- >>:> > >>:> > Ha. Well, What I wanted to know is how that effected the OOBE >>:> > if at all in the moving car. But Janice isn't elaborating at >>:> > all for me. What startled you Janice? >>:> > >>:> > By the way I believe janice has done it in a car, and she has >>:> > done it in a bar, and she has done it in a train, and she has >>:> > done it in the rain! >>:> > >>:> > Or was that Trish? >>:> >>:> Who has done it in a dish, with a fish? Has Lorene done it in a >>:> canteen with a Marine? >>: >>:PZ, what's gotten into you tonight! :D >> >>Really! For a guy with no humor and everything. I don't even know a Marine! >>:Þ > >PZ works with zebrafish. Does that count? Undoubtably a hit. : ) ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 07:21:25 +0100 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 27 Message-ID: <3A274365.BB090DB4@algonet.se> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <3a26b9b1.5721784@news.lineone.net> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du36-27.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: cubacola.tninet.se 975651685 27344 195.100.27.36 (1 Dec 2000 06:21:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Dec 2000 06:21:25 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: sv,en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58779 Ian H Spedding wrote: > ... and there's only one software package you can use to prepare the > pages ... AdOBE Acrobat! TA-DA! No, that would be ghastly, needing an plugin to load and whatnot. Go for ordinary HTML, using EMACS if you use a ´nix or Notepad if you´re using Windows. PDF is a good idea, but IMO badly implemented, at least the reader. No matter how many MHz and MB RAM you throw at it, the page rendering never seems to speed up. And then it is a proprietary format, which makes it a no-no. > Ian See you out there... /Gunnar --------------------- - Question Authority! - Yeah, Says Who? --------------------- ###### Lines: 31 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Date: 01 Dec 2000 07:32:22 GMT References: <901l0n$fjs$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Message-ID: <20001201023222.24040.00002581@ng-fs1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news.augsburg.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58810 >From: "Bart" Bartma12@ix.netcom.com >MarkenAdms wrote in message ><20001128032807.21462.00002059@ng-fd1.aol.com>... >>nonsentient, innanimate things go around "measuring" each >>other all the time in any consistent science. . . . >As you say... all physical things are in a constant state of "measuring" >their physical surroundings. When consciousness is involved, the >"measurements" can actually become predictive. I'm not sure I completely agree with the second statement. In one sense, to exert the will on the world involves determining what shall be the measurement or interacrtion to occur. But that act of imposing the will is a vague concept that involves deep arguments about the illusion of choice in a supposedly deterministic or limited probablistic world, one in which a concatenation of causes and effects exists without interruption by any kind of ghost in the machine. If there is a ghost in the machine there is something to be a predictor or determiner of outcomes independent of historical determinations preceeding, but if there isn't of what point is there to say that measurements can become predictive beyond being another way of saying a chain of events continues? I believe it sidesteps the whole question to readily posit that some acts of measurement become predictive, and I believe this premise is an error of some of the earlier quantum mechanicists which leads to the lingering of the consciousness-quantum dialogue. ###### Lines: 42 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Date: 01 Dec 2000 07:52:53 GMT References: <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Message-ID: <20001201025253.24040.00002582@ng-fs1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58813 >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) >So the four types of explanation are: > >AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous cognition > such as remote viewing Of the type where information is generating elsewhere and arrives at a localized mind, or of the kind where a mind goes somewhere? >COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local > consciousness Easiest, once "delusion" is dismised, as none of the well known four forces of nature readily support a physical mind departing in the manner most reporters describe their experience of it. >DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave the > physical body Which make sense, to me, as distinct from COBE above only if you are positing a physical basis of the detachable mind. >POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological phenomenon. Which answers not enough unless you specify the school of psychology involved, but is somewhat informative still. >How's that? > >Ian What of bedtime oobes - boobes? Boobes theory holds that the OOBE is an extension of sensations of warmth and softness (in bed) taken to an extremum so that the experience of ecstatic floating is global, dominating the entire sensorium. The oobe in this case is so visceral that it "occurs" distal from the brain but is reported there. Is that what is being talked of here as "psychological"? ###### Lines: 89 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Date: 01 Dec 2000 08:26:21 GMT References: <%P_U5.109$5s2.6423@wormhole.dimensional.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Message-ID: <20001201032621.24040.00002583@ng-fs1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58812 >From: "Token" notme@noway.com >Just want to butt in for a second and mention that the leading edge of >physics these days do not actually deal with physical reality as we know it >but physical reality as we only think it to be. I'm not sure what a meaningful difference between knowing reality and thinking it to be some way is. In both cases all we have is sensory input and the capacity to harmonize this into a consistent whole, resulting in knowledge or belief however named. Newton gave an adequate enough definition of "physical" by linking it to the idea of any perceptible difference being accounted for by a difference in motion. All the modern speculation about reality some theorists might do seems to continue this simple line of thought with only brief refuge into "hypothesis making" in the form of a particle zoo yet to be reduced to different and accountable packets of motion, but all the speculators seem intent on reducing the particle zoo to motions. In short, there is nothing about physical reality we ever need to suppose escapes Newton's original definition of "physical" set out in the Principia. The problem of oobe might be like the problem of the quark only tougher, perhaps mathematically tractable once a proper reference frame is described, as you suggest, except that there is a profoundly puzzling aspect to it that is unlike any other physical or scientific question. This is that it may not be physical at all. Nothing about it is ultimately reduced to finding what motion differes upon any particular change in perception. None of the four forces match up well to how people report experiencing oobes. Strong and weak are too range limited to be considered; there is little other than a repeated motif of "floating up" in some oobe reports (but not all) to suggest gravity plays much role as the vis-viva medium of the mind, and gravity is a pretty much "one note" conveyor of information anyhow; and lastly seldom do any oobe reports describe minds severally under the influence of very strong electromagnetic influences ubiquitous in modern society. For any physically based mind to be leaving a body, what stuff it is of and what energy operates it seems not physical to judge by reported experiences and the indifference of these experiences to physical factors. This leaves the "within brain" (or within lower viscera in a boobe theory) account of oobes, which are definitely physical, but these theories don't do enough to account for some oobe/nde events in which fiducial data actually is involved, not just a string of things anyone could well imagine. I don't see physical laws accounting for oobe, so I have trouble following the methods of physical science as providing definitive answers eventually. Thus when >Ian H Spedding wrote in message >However, it is possible to argue that the >> materialistic view is to be preferred on the grounds that it has been >> more successful than the other two alternatives in describing and >> explaining the universe. That's completely true. Not only in general but in the detail that the definition of "physical" used by Newton, and upon which all modern physical/materialist science is based, has required no alteration over the centuries dispite stunning developments. It may also be completely irrelevant if oobe fall out of the rule that "differing phenomena differ due to differing motions", to paraphrase the still true ultimate physical rule laid down by Newton. The semblance of motion reported in oobe accounts seldom match what is to be expected by something controlled by a gravity, electromagnetic, strong/weak field. Nevertheless a few such accounts contain fiducial data showing the sharing of information in one location at another under conditions where corporeal senses are insufficient. Thus >For one thing, we have parameters for the OBE, but we don't know what >math to use on it. might be in error as we need math in physical science because everything to be explained can be reduced to a motion that differs in some way from all other events needing explanation. We don't know that the best frame of reference for oobe is mathematical as we don't really know oobe is fundamentally physical in nature. >but we do need some math to bring it to scientific acceptence. Might not be true then, if what we really need is to remind people what "physical" means in the first place and to show how something might be a phenomena yet not a physical one. Success in understanding the physical world doesn't mean it is the only world in existence. ###### Lines: 74 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Date: 01 Dec 2000 08:59:57 GMT References: <3a244702.16663812@news.lineone.net> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Message-ID: <20001201035957.24040.00002584@ng-fs1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58815 >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) >>>Anecdotes, I'm afraid, are not in themselves persuasive >>>evidence. >> >On 28 Nov 2000 08:05:29 GMT, markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: >>When a chemist records that . . . >Not quite. It's certainly true that it isn't practical for us to >replicate experiments in particle physics, for example, so strictly >speaking we have to take reports of them on trust. No. I'm free to reject them. I need not take anything on trust. That very premise is at the heart of the same freedom used by people who reject that there is anything needing accounting for in oobe reports. > The difference is >that these accounts come from a source whose credibility is based on a >rigorous methodology and impeccable standards of evidence. I'd rather say that it is based on the fact that particle physicists are as cussed in nature as anyone else, and much resemble dueling gentlemen of another era in their desire to skewer one another when they can to their own greater glory and advancement. Stark fear keeps particle physicists honest (t the extent they are) as any number of other particle physicists would rend another's reputation to shreds if the ammunition came to hand. Rigorous methodology merely means no one has yet found a way to do someone else in if that method is followed - NOT that its a GOOD method. Ever hear the one about people reporting a certain fundamental constant associated with the electron, and agreeing pretty nicely with each other, until someone actually DID do a rigorous experiment in a way that prevent self-censure if a variant value emerged, thereby setting the benchmark for the value that the other "rigorous" researchers eventually migrated to? Particle physicists are as capable as anyone else of wearing the emporer's new clothes. Confirmation in science of some important measurement has several instances where a maverick came along and actually did a good honest measurement which previous "replicators" were to timind to call correctly because a big name had set the benchmark value or for some other reason of human failure, and not lack of laboratory data rigorously collected according to impeccable standards of evidence and religiously fudged to "get the right answer" because "this is how we do the calculation to get the right answer", circularly. > If challenged, they are bound to provide their data and substantiate >their claims or face professional ruin, a situation which doesn't >obtain amongst much of the paranormal community. We partially agree. Much of the paranormal community understands that once you state a belief not in accordance with the prejudices reigning in certain circles you are consigned to being tolerated but not really listened to, your ideas heard but not mulled over any longer than is necessary to find a quick plonk of them based on either good reasoning or rhetorical trick - who really cares which? If you are a particle physicist people will actually look at your evidence with an interest in whether it might or might not be worth forming an opinion on. You have good press if you claim to be a particle physicist (because you know how to make bombs that kill efficiently maybe?) whereas you have atrocious press if you make claims that describe exactly what you have experienced in the world but too much resemble huckster claims. It may not really matter what kind of evidence you present in the paranormal world as few people really have an open mind and their own, their very own independant ability to think critically. Much of paranormal chat is silly, and some of it is mercenary silliness preying on the credulity of others so as to better lighten the onerous load of their wallet, but for others it is merely reporting of experiences in a way not much different from reporting from the particle collider but for the sophistication of the one and the crude attempts at clear articulation from the other. They are all of them a collection of anecdotes which thereafter can be treated in a structured way or in an offhand way, as if not really important other than as amusement over other's lack of intelligence. ###### Lines: 14 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Date: 01 Dec 2000 09:02:32 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Message-ID: <20001201040232.24040.00002585@ng-fs1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58811 >From: "lorz" lorz@bellsouth.net >Once again how many anecdotes does it take to screw in a light bulb? errrr >I mean ... How many anecdotes does it take to *mean* anything? Or doesn't >it? The problem of induction is no more resolved for the rigorous laboratory scientist than for anyone else. You can have 10 million trials that tell you THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NEUTRINO and if you announce that fact you're sunk on the first detection of any kind of neutrino, an extremely elusive but apparently real subatomic particle. Hey - after 10 million trials it looked like a safe bet! ###### Lines: 20 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Date: 01 Dec 2000 09:07:31 GMT References: <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Message-ID: <20001201040731.24040.00002586@ng-fs1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news.augsburg.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!europa.netcrusader.net!152.163.239.129!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58814 >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) >I don't doubt the reports of OBEs or lucid dreams that people have >given here. They're very interesting and have even given me some >ideas for a few little tests that people could try out if they were >willing. Problem is, are the tests suitable for determining information about the whole spectrum of possible oobe events - from the imagined to the "real" and al possible shades of the real? You can't replicate certain asteroid collisions no matter how long you look into the sky. In my own case I haven't even tried to have any oobe in over 2 decades, but the fiducial data in the original one was so strong that I don't need another instance to solve the problem of inductive proof for me. I don't know if I can or can't repeat the original event, but it would be like insisting on flying to Hawaii a second time to establish that there really is such a place as Diamond Head after seeing it and walking on it the once. ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:17:46 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <3a26b9b1.5721784@news.lineone.net> <3A274365.BB090DB4@algonet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-678.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news.augsburg.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!sjc1.nntp.concentric.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58828 In article <3A274365.BB090DB4@algonet.se>, dervak@algonet.se wrote: > Ian H Spedding wrote: > > > ... and there's only one software package you can use to > > prepare the pages ... AdOBE Acrobat! TA-DA! > > No, that would be ghastly, needing an plugin to load and > whatnot. > > Go for ordinary HTML, using EMACS if you use a ´nix or Notepad > if you´re using Windows. > > PDF is a good idea, but IMO badly implemented, at least the > reader. No matter how many MHz and MB RAM you throw at it, the > page rendering never seems to speed up. > > And then it is a proprietary format, which makes it a no-no. You missed the joke. Ad*OBE*. Get it? I wonder if it was written in OBEron. -- pz ###### Message-ID: <3A27C440.58B@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <20001201025253.24040.00002582@ng-fs1.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 59 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:31:22 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-vSNf0lIGLCta47/a3/1GErCMaqTbmFW9hNWVYqPz3z1EAWNNi1prBebq0kBKszEipv2TDXh1lMMh07c!dPyFcsVSr6yDeSmFuva2cjxCpDY= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:31:12 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!news.netcologne.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn4feed!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!207.207.0.27!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news6.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58840 MarkenAdms wrote: > > >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) > > >So the four types of explanation are: > > > >AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous cognition > > such as remote viewing > > Of the type where information is generating elsewhere and arrives at a > localized mind, or of the kind where a mind goes somewhere? From this perspective the information is "out there" and arrives at the mind via some extrasensory channel such as a hypothetical clairvoyant sense; the mind itself doesn't literally go anywhere. > >COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local > > consciousness > > Easiest, once "delusion" is dismised, as none of the well known four forces of > nature readily support a physical mind departing in the manner most reporters > describe their experience of it. Right, this one presupposes that consciousness is never really in the body to begin with but merely identifies with it heavily most of the time then switches its focus during OBEs. > >DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave the > > physical body > > Which make sense, to me, as distinct from COBE above only if you are positing a > physical basis of the detachable mind. Right, a removable mind or spirit form of some kind. > >POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological phenomenon. > > Which answers not enough unless you specify the school of psychology involved, > but is somewhat informative still. > What of bedtime oobes - boobes? Boobes theory holds that the OOBE is an > extension of sensations of warmth and softness (in bed) taken to an extremum so > that the experience of ecstatic floating is global, dominating the entire > sensorium. The oobe in this case is so visceral that it "occurs" distal from > the brain but is reported there. Is that what is being talked of here as > "psychological"? That would fall under psychological, but I've never heard of it before. I'm more familiar with the Susan Blackmore-style notion of a memory map starting to take over as the best current model of the self and the environment when the regular perceptual map is disrupted at sleep onset because sensory input is curtailed and muscular atonia or even paralysis sets in. In this view the memory-based mental image blends with what can still be detected of the state of the physical body to create the illusion of a mobile duplicate body leaving the immobilized physical one. -- http://sites.netscape.net/jayavogelsong/ ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <3a26b9b1.5721784@news.lineone.net> <3A274365.BB090DB4@algonet.se> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 31 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /bdhN4HRqgRXVDGDQMWaM1a1fdV94Q2fmfxPo39pc5IZBfibalBUdaeLkDwphsADmeZ90fOTRTLA!p4nzxZ3lXmzithC8FPafju4TJOAl4Ma8ikerphyzPeOwGeeXU70wCCjxEpLm5tZiA8NnRNi5e8AO!s4t6klM= X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:04:28 GMT Distribution: world Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:04:28 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58902 pz wrote in message ... >In article <3A274365.BB090DB4@algonet.se>, dervak@algonet.se >wrote: > >> Ian H Spedding wrote: >> >> > ... and there's only one software package you can use to >> > prepare the pages ... AdOBE Acrobat! TA-DA! >> >> No, that would be ghastly, needing an plugin to load and >> whatnot. >> >> Go for ordinary HTML, using EMACS if you use a ´nix or Notepad >> if you´re using Windows. >> >> PDF is a good idea, but IMO badly implemented, at least the >> reader. No matter how many MHz and MB RAM you throw at it, the >> page rendering never seems to speed up. >> >> And then it is a proprietary format, which makes it a no-no. > >You missed the joke. Ad*OBE*. Get it? > >I wonder if it was written in OBEron. >-- >pz Don't feel bad Gunnar. I missed it too, at first. Guess we're just not used to the skeptics being so giddy lately ...... : ) ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <20001201025253.24040.00002582@ng-fs1.aol.com> <3A27C440.58B@not-here.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 60 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: +Lqm+4n/ZyTwwG2Kw0FFTC2C+oAWGuxl2SQ+QEszBqqLjFbAA/RdGjck5IkF694QhUXw3gxZGN5Q!qSa/lCBmNSYD2AlIyOqJyynZ27+QhYvqHJFlcJii4zmHAeHX66f4a0q8hO2Nnl5jEpn3WEhg8YZy!nvIIKMM= X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:07:51 GMT Distribution: world Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:07:51 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58904 Janice wrote in message <3A27C440.58B@not-here.net>... >MarkenAdms wrote: >> >> >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) >> >> >So the four types of explanation are: >> > >> >AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous cognition >> > such as remote viewing >> >> Of the type where information is generating elsewhere and arrives at a >> localized mind, or of the kind where a mind goes somewhere? > >From this perspective the information is "out there" and arrives at the >mind via some extrasensory channel such as a hypothetical clairvoyant >sense; the mind itself doesn't literally go anywhere. > >> >COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local >> > consciousness >> >> Easiest, once "delusion" is dismised, as none of the well known four forces of >> nature readily support a physical mind departing in the manner most reporters >> describe their experience of it. > >Right, this one presupposes that consciousness is never really in the >body to begin with but merely identifies with it heavily most of the >time then switches its focus during OBEs. > >> >DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave the >> > physical body >> >> Which make sense, to me, as distinct from COBE above only if you are positing a >> physical basis of the detachable mind. > >Right, a removable mind or spirit form of some kind. > >> >POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological phenomenon. >> >> Which answers not enough unless you specify the school of psychology involved, >> but is somewhat informative still. > >> What of bedtime oobes - boobes? Boobes theory holds that the OOBE is an >> extension of sensations of warmth and softness (in bed) taken to an extremum so >> that the experience of ecstatic floating is global, dominating the entire >> sensorium. The oobe in this case is so visceral that it "occurs" distal from >> the brain but is reported there. Is that what is being talked of here as >> "psychological"? > >That would fall under psychological, but I've never heard of it before. Neither have I. Perhaps he's thinking of boobs. (warmth .. softness .. bed). ; ) ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 02:06:12 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a284127.4164715@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a244702.16663812@news.lineone.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 47 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!psinet-eu-nl!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58881 On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:57:14 -0500, "lorz" wrote: [...] >Once again how many anecdotes does it take to screw in a light bulb? errrr >I mean ... How many anecdotes does it take to *mean* anything? Or doesn't >it? It depends on what you mean by "*mean* anything" ... which doesn't answer your question. :-) Put it this way: I have never had a lucid dream or out-of-body-experience, although I had heard of them. When I joined this group I began reading many reports of LDs and OBEs from people who, as far as I could tell, were trying to be as honest and as accurate as they could. Some appeared to believe that the mind actually left the body during an OBE, others that the experience was more akin to remote viewing, yet others that consciousness is an external phenomenon temporarily located in an individual and yet others that these experiences are purely psychological phenomena. Which of these explanations is true? All the proponents of the different explanations seem to be equally honest, equally sincere - and equally convinced. The answer is that there is no way to tell which is true just from the reports - the anecdotes - alone. The quantity and the quality of the accounts tells me that something is happening - but not what. To try and find out which is true I would have to devise ways of testing each of the different explanations - to find evidence that would support one or other of them. There is a saying that if you tell a lie loud enough and often enough some people will come to believe it (hence politics :-)) This is why you can't rely on anecdotes as evidence for anything - they might be true but people also lie and make mistakes. There are some very persuasive liars out there - people who will tell you what you want to hear because they know that you want to hear it - and there are people who believe with every fibre of their being things for which there is not a shred of evidence. Sincerity and plausibility don't prove anything. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 02:06:13 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a284ac6.6628185@news.lineone.net> References: <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <20001201040731.24040.00002586@ng-fs1.aol.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 44 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58889 On 01 Dec 2000 09:07:31 GMT, markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: >>From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) > >>I don't doubt the reports of OBEs or lucid dreams that people have >>given here. They're very interesting and have even given me some >>ideas for a few little tests that people could try out if they were >>willing. > >Problem is, are the tests suitable for determining information about the whole >spectrum of possible oobe events - from the imagined to the "real" and al >possible shades of the real? You can't replicate certain asteroid collisions >no matter how long you look into the sky. Nothing so grand. The tests I'm thinking of are more like exercises to see what can and can't be done in LDs/OBEs, largely to satisfy my curiosity since I've never had these experiences myself. >In my own case I haven't even tried to have any oobe in over 2 decades, but the >fiducial data in the original one was so strong that I don't need another >instance to solve the problem of inductive proof for me. I don't know if I can >or can't repeat the original event, but it would be like insisting on flying to >Hawaii a second time to establish that there really is such a place as Diamond >Head after seeing it and walking on it the once. I'm a little surprised to read that, given what you've written previously about science. I can understand that your earlier experiences were utterly convincing for you, but you must know that people have been convinced about many things that were untrue. Personal conviction is unreliable, especially when based on information obtained in dream or dream-like states. The example of your visit to Diamond Head makes a good point, although perhaps not the one you had in mind. I've no doubt that the one visit was sufficient to convince *you* that the place exists, but if you wanted to *prove* to me, or any other people who've never been there, that it exists we will need more than just your word. The problem isn't so much one of induction as one of replication. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 02:06:14 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a2850f4.8210325@news.lineone.net> References: <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <20001201025253.24040.00002582@ng-fs1.aol.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 34 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58885 On 01 Dec 2000 07:52:53 GMT, markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: >>From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) [...] >>POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological phenomenon. > >Which answers not enough unless you specify the school of psychology involved, >but is somewhat informative still. I used the word "psychological" simply in the sense of 'arising in the mind' as distinct from actually occuring remote from the body or being caused wholly or in part by some external agency. >>How's that? >> >>Ian > >What of bedtime oobes - boobes? Boobes theory holds that the OOBE is an >extension of sensations of warmth and softness (in bed) taken to an extremum so >that the experience of ecstatic floating is global, dominating the entire >sensorium. The oobe in this case is so visceral that it "occurs" distal from >the brain but is reported there. Is that what is being talked of here as >"psychological"? Yes, these would be POBEs if there was no claim that the dream consciousness had physically moved outside the body in any way. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 02:45:23 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a285981.10399185@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <3a26b9b1.5721784@news.lineone.net> <3A274365.BB090DB4@algonet.se> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 41 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!psinet-eu-nl!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58887 On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:04:28 GMT, "Trish" wrote: > >pz wrote in message ... >>In article <3A274365.BB090DB4@algonet.se>, dervak@algonet.se >>wrote: >> >>> Ian H Spedding wrote: >>> >>> > ... and there's only one software package you can use to >>> > prepare the pages ... AdOBE Acrobat! TA-DA! >>> >>> No, that would be ghastly, needing an plugin to load and >>> whatnot. >>> >>> Go for ordinary HTML, using EMACS if you use a ´nix or Notepad >>> if you´re using Windows. >>> >>> PDF is a good idea, but IMO badly implemented, at least the >>> reader. No matter how many MHz and MB RAM you throw at it, the >>> page rendering never seems to speed up. >>> >>> And then it is a proprietary format, which makes it a no-no. >> >>You missed the joke. Ad*OBE*. Get it? >> >>I wonder if it was written in OBEron. >>-- >>pz > >Don't feel bad Gunnar. I missed it too, at first. Guess we're just not >used to the skeptics being so giddy lately ...... : ) Well, it was only a little joke... Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### Message-ID: <3A286DEB.51C0@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <20001201025253.24040.00002582@ng-fs1.aol.com> <3A27C440.58B@not-here.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 23 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 21:35:12 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-zCzDcE0jY0Oh6Q9PSFsl2Yy6VOi3BWlLiili6GU9Fz35ukCUc/O8ZdPVoclyNEHeHe71CGtx6XULo2U!BomJYw1O8qYiV1NIALku+Trzt4s= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 03:35:13 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.flash.net!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news2.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58851 Trish wrote: > > Janice wrote in message <3A27C440.58B@not-here.net>... > >MarkenAdms wrote: > > > >> What of bedtime oobes - boobes? Boobes theory holds that the OOBE is an > >> extension of sensations of warmth and softness (in bed) taken to an > extremum so > >> that the experience of ecstatic floating is global, dominating the entire > >> sensorium. The oobe in this case is so visceral that it "occurs" distal > from > >> the brain but is reported there. Is that what is being talked of here as > >> "psychological"? > > > >That would fall under psychological, but I've never heard of it before. > > Neither have I. Perhaps he's thinking of boobs. (warmth .. softness .. > bed). ; ) OK. Enough astral sex talk for you for awhile. :) -- http://sites.netscape.net/jayavogelsong/ ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:56:06 +0100 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 29 Message-ID: <3A28C736.113E92FD@algonet.se> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <3a26b9b1.5721784@news.lineone.net> <3A274365.BB090DB4@algonet.se> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du55-92.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: zingo.tninet.se 975750967 7086 195.100.92.55 (2 Dec 2000 09:56:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Dec 2000 09:56:07 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: sv,en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!newsfeed1.online.no!nextra.com!news.algonet.se!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58855 Trish wrote: > Don't feel bad Gunnar. I don´t. I miss some things sometimes. That´s life. > I missed it too, at first. Guess we're just not used to the skeptics > being so giddy lately ...... : ) No, especially not PZ who has told us time and time again he has no sense of humor. I will stand by my comments tho. If everyone making (static) web pages learned to use HTML properly, using a simple text editor, then the pages would be half the size, twice as fast, and ten times as stable as the kind of crap made by, say, Frontpage. HTML isn´t difficult, for crying out loud. My grandmother could learn it in a few hours. See you out there... /Gunnar --------------------- - Question Authority! - Yeah, Says Who? --------------------- ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 09:50:02 -0600 Organization: Nailbunny's Hammer Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <3a26b9b1.5721784@news.lineone.net> <3A274365.BB090DB4@algonet.se> <3A28C736.113E92FD@algonet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-737.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) X-Face: .k!7leh{iTz*Ah$8`'u'O$.4Z9+jOYL|yvi39v4fL-Un]RqYdDRAg*#o{3f|Mkzf8+}'2AmMD7_7`BM/X]H1nvmSDn*M0vfiwKn^3R[Kr_o*'>L@wBpFy>X&moPw, dervak@algonet.se wrote: > Trish wrote: > > > Don't feel bad Gunnar. > > I don´t. I miss some things sometimes. That´s life. > > > I missed it too, at first. Guess we're just not used to the skeptics > > being so giddy lately ...... : ) > > No, especially not PZ who has told us time and time again he has no > sense of humor. Right. Which should give you cause for worry: if *I* got the joke, but you couldn't... > > I will stand by my comments tho. If everyone making (static) web pages > learned to use HTML properly, using a simple text editor, then the pages > would be half the size, twice as fast, and ten times as stable as the > kind of crap made by, say, Frontpage. Yes. I do all my web page work with a text editor, and suggest in addition that everyone learn CSS as well as HTML. The way to *really* streamline a page is to separate content from rendering information. > > HTML isn´t difficult, for crying out loud. My grandmother could learn it > in a few hours. -- pz ###### Message-ID: <3A2939CB.5565@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <3a26b9b1.5721784@news.lineone.net> <3A274365.BB090DB4@algonet.se> <3A28C736.113E92FD@algonet.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 12:05:03 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-D8pGDdqvA1KbFQszR1ci7aBLgob+yUK6vHScgYec37U9BR2UrE3sCzDMYxSmNlRC2q0XNlaCKfnFXAp!MX203TR/PoXxkEkfHy2adTg5R8w= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:05:03 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!blackbush.xlink.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.tele.dk!209.98.98.64!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!nntp.flash.net!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58847 Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote: > > Trish wrote: > > > Don't feel bad Gunnar. > > I don´t. I miss some things sometimes. That´s life. > > > I missed it too, at first. Guess we're just not used to the skeptics > > being so giddy lately ...... : ) > > No, especially not PZ who has told us time and time again he has no > sense of humor. Heh. That's a joke right there. -- http://sites.netscape.net/jayavogelsong/ ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: 02 Dec 2000 22:42:49 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 63 Message-ID: <6u7l5ijy92.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <20001201040731.24040.00002586@ng-fs1.aol.com> <3a284ac6.6628185@news.lineone.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 975793372 692 10.0.3.2 (2 Dec 2000 21:42:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Dec 2000 21:42:52 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58920 ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) writes: > On 01 Dec 2000 09:07:31 GMT, markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: > > >or can't repeat the original event, but it would be like insisting on flyingto > >Hawaii a second time to establish that there really is such a place as Diamond > >Head after seeing it and walking on it the once. > > I'm a little surprised to read that, given what you've written > previously about science. I can understand that your earlier > experiences were utterly convincing for you, but you must know that > people have been convinced about many things that were untrue. Sure personal conviction can be wrong (it can be right also). It definitely can not constitute proof of anything. > The example of your visit to Diamond Head makes a good point, although > perhaps not the one you had in mind. I've no doubt that the one visit > was sufficient to convince *you* that the place exists, but if you > wanted to *prove* to me, or any other people who've never been there, > that it exists we will need more than just your word. The problem > isn't so much one of induction as one of replication. Yes. Actually his example is the best demonstration of that point I have ever seen here up to this day: that one can not replicate (thanks for that word) any experience over the net, nor any proof derived from that experience. One can only give an personal view (often called a claim here). Actually the above problem is a special case of an far bigger problem I have seen with the discusisons on this group: that one can not prove _anything_ via an news group (possible with the exeption of proving that ASCII sequences can be transmitted from one person to the others). One can only transmit personal views. Sort of makes any demand to deliver proof (as often seen demanded here) total nonsense. None can be deliverd, due to the limits of this medium. As an example: no one here can even prove their claimed sex. Pointing to an web site with pictures is no proof, as you can not prove to be the owner of the site (same name means nothing, that can be faked, or coincidence), and even if it is your site the photos can be faked. Now try to assess the chances of proving something as compicated as materialism (= spirit does not exist) or paranormalism (= spirit exists) over the net. Somewhere around zero, IMNSHO. Cyberspace seems to be about as anti-proof as astral space. :-) I am actually quite surprised that none of the many victims of "prove that" demands have never pointed out this point. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Nerd, Geek, Hacker, Unix Guru, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, LARPer, Mystic ###### From: Sherilyn <621@sherilyn.org.uk> Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 00:50:50 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 24 Message-ID: <90c5d9$1vl$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a244702.16663812@news.lineone.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.222.158.29 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Dec 03 00:50:50 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.17 i586) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x60.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 194.222.158.29 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsutrice Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news-ham1.dfn.de!news-ber1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58978 In article , "lorz" wrote: > > > Once again how many anecdotes does it take to screw in a light bulb? errrr > I mean ... How many anecdotes does it take to *mean* anything? Or doesn't > it? An anecdote is a story. Stories by themselves are fiction. If we could believe the stories of our ancestors, there would be little need for archeology. If we could believe the stories of our contemporaries, there would be no need for elections, recounts, courts, etc. Facts are not simple, nor indivisible. Facts are like broken teeth. You might be tempted to think we'd be better off without them. -- Email handle is time-encoded to foil spammers. Use recent handles only. Filter on domain name only. http://www.sherilyn.org.uk/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ###### From: Sherilyn <621@sherilyn.org.uk> Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: 2 Dec 2000 17:01:42 -0800 Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] Lines: 15 Message-ID: <90c61m02i2l@drn.newsguy.com> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <6uy9y68kd1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <8vv1ga$msd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3a243643.12375597@news.lineone.net> <3A253147.4BDA@not-here.net> <3a259b89.3244880@news.lineone.net> <3a26b9b1.5721784@news.lineone.net> <3A274365.BB090DB4@algonet.se> <3A28C736.113E92FD@algonet.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-668.newsdawg.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58989 In article , pz says... > [...] > >Yes. I do all my web page work with a text editor, and suggest in >addition that everyone learn CSS as well as HTML. The way to *really* >streamline a page is to separate content from rendering information. > My people are hovering on this, and wondering what will happen, but not really caring that much. There is the XML route and the HTML route, and I think we're all kinda leaning towards the XML way of doing things (which probably rules out CSS, but maybe not). Either way, it would be relatively easy to switch, because of the way we do things. We are not in the business of writing raw HTML, so it's a software design issue. ###### Lines: 39 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Date: 03 Dec 2000 06:04:24 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Message-ID: <20001203010424.28881.00002760@ng-cl1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!portc.blue.aol.com.MISMATCH!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:59029 >From: "Trish" capuchin@gte.net >Janice wrote in message <3A27C440.58B@not-here.net>... >>MarkenAdms wrote: >>> What of bedtime oobes - boobes? Boobes theory holds that the OOBE is an >>> extension of sensations of warmth and softness (in bed) taken to an >extremum so >>> that the experience of ecstatic floating is global, dominating the entire >>> sensorium. The oobe in this case is so visceral that it "occurs" distal >from >>> the brain but is reported there. Is that what is being talked of here as >>> "psychological"? >> >>That would fall under psychological, but I've never heard of it before. > >Neither have I. Perhaps he's thinking of boobs. (warmth .. softness .. >bed). ; ) I was half serious and half joking. Janice provided the best technical take on what I was vaguely grasping for in the serious sense. The maping bit is probably better than to just say various organs are in some languid, pleasing state that leaves one feeling floating. Reports in alt.out-of-body have extensive bedtime/sleepiness orientation of some reports. I've only had a waking, hyperalert oobe, conducted during an exercise that precludes sleep or nap-like relaxation, and I've never had more than a sense of incorporeal detachment when dozing/waking (that is disconcerting until I realize that's MY arm so close to my throat!) and so it strikes me very much that some oobe's have something to do with sleep or reduced consciousness states while other's don't at all. I thought some kind of category for oobe related to the vague category of "bedtime" really is needed as a class as it is a variety of experience where we have some reason to suppose the person experiencing it is not as attentive as usual, even if it is a lucid dream. I happen to think of warm, soft cushy things when I think of sleep. Half serious, half joking. ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <20001203010424.28881.00002760@ng-cl1.aol.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 65 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: +L/oBgUTKwuRMeBI1niZtHzD9mrg78cRBzNfCar23whRLoLOih86G5iKeiOAh+PVXNHZ3+qABykm!5SDD2KnUtckEqoR0CSNJ89TdCidaOyUq26gNK2rTI4f6YTpMk5ge+shrvZ4bfRE7Z1PjhsKT3Je6!JxiF5qJbMQ== X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 02:19:03 GMT Distribution: world Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 02:19:04 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!lmu.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:59089 MarkenAdms wrote in message <20001203010424.28881.00002760@ng-cl1.aol.com>... >>From: "Trish" capuchin@gte.net > >>Janice wrote in message <3A27C440.58B@not-here.net>... >>>MarkenAdms wrote: > >>>> What of bedtime oobes - boobes? Boobes theory holds that the OOBE is an >>>> extension of sensations of warmth and softness (in bed) taken to an >>extremum so >>>> that the experience of ecstatic floating is global, dominating the entire >>>> sensorium. The oobe in this case is so visceral that it "occurs" distal >>from >>>> the brain but is reported there. Is that what is being talked of here as >>>> "psychological"? >>> >>>That would fall under psychological, but I've never heard of it before. >> >>Neither have I. Perhaps he's thinking of boobs. (warmth .. softness .. >>bed). ; ) > >I was half serious and half joking. Janice provided the best technical take on >what I was vaguely grasping for in the serious sense. The maping bit is >probably better than to just say various organs are in some languid, pleasing >state that leaves one feeling floating. Reports in alt.out-of-body have >extensive bedtime/sleepiness orientation of some reports. I've only had a >waking, hyperalert oobe, conducted during an exercise that precludes sleep or >nap-like relaxation, and I've never had more than a sense of incorporeal >detachment when dozing/waking (that is disconcerting until I realize that's MY >arm so close to my throat!) and so it strikes me very much that some oobe's >have something to do with sleep or reduced consciousness states while other's >don't at all. I thought some kind of category for oobe related to the vague >category of "bedtime" really is needed as a class as it is a variety of >experience where we have some reason to suppose the person experiencing it is >not as attentive as usual, even if it is a lucid dream. I happen to think of >warm, soft cushy things when I think of sleep. > >Half serious, half joking. Gotcha. : ) But just like in waking life, there are different variants of awareness that we flow in and out of ... most of the time not even realizing it. I've had some very strong OBEs with my awareness level at it's peak ... others have been softer. My OBEs generally tend to be long ... averaging about a hour each one ... and I can sense a drop off towards lucid dreaming towards the end at times. So different categories can be interestesting when trying to decipher OBE particulars ... but in general, awareness level seems to be the key. ###### Lines: 63 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Date: 04 Dec 2000 08:33:04 GMT References: <3a284ac6.6628185@news.lineone.net> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Message-ID: <20001204033304.28780.00003208@ng-cl1.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:59026 >From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) >On 01 Dec 2000 09:07:31 GMT, markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: >>In my own case I haven't even tried to have any oobe in over 2 decades, but >the >>fiducial data in the original one was so strong that I don't need another >>instance to solve the problem of inductive proof for me. I don't know if I >can >>or can't repeat the original event, but it would be like insisting on flying >to >>Hawaii a second time to establish that there really is such a place as >Diamond >>Head after seeing it and walking on it the once. . . . >The example of your visit to Diamond Head makes a good point, although >perhaps not the one you had in mind. I've no doubt that the one visit >was sufficient to convince *you* that the place exists, but if you >wanted to *prove* to me, or any other people who've never been there, >that it exists we will need more than just your word. The problem >isn't so much one of induction as one of replication. But that's the same problem as proving something like the Big Bang. Inherently irreproducible as an event. One has to settle for circumstantial evidence and the kind of guesses about that evidence that remind one that physicists are people who will treat a horse as a cylinder because it makes the math doable and teach the next generation to do the same as "this is how we get the answer". All that class of people who have been indoctrinated into accepting the guesses, convenient assumptions and so forth of one generation of scientists tend to make up the trusted reporting base for "proven" results. So going back to the Diamond Head example, a multiplicity of reporters, each not really any more trustworthy than a single reporter, might seem to "prove" the existence of Diamond Head. If we follow the most prevalent scientific model of this day the class of trusted reporters will already be indoctrinated into an array of "facts" about Diamond Head (which they will not be eager to contradict as proof-by-tone-of- voice was used in indoctrinating them - as is the current practice in much current scientific education) before they even set out to examine it and report back multiply. It's similar to inferring what is going on with asteroids falling to earth. You can never replicate any particular asteroid event and have to make guesses relating the whole class of seemingly solid things falling to earth (mostly observed by reporters who may not have much cin the way of credentials or ability to articulate convincingly) to a single instance is beyond proof. A famous example is where the French academy dismissed meteorites because peasants were reporting rocks falling out of the sky, a not very reproducible event, whereas any sane scientist knows this makes no sense (until one day they believe it does based on circumstantial evidence). The circumstantial evidence in oobe is the presence of fiducial data in the report, that which can't be guessed at well enough to be reliabily reported except by some perception of the data thus marking it trustworthy as evidence of perception outside normal physiological channels, which at least some oobe reports include. No matter how many times oobe experiments are done one can always choose to suspect the reporter of some connivance. Being iherently personal, the experiences themselves are not reproducible in any laboratory science sense. It comes down to enough good reports that one believes not all the reporters can be lying - exactly the case with any other reported laboratory science information actually. ###### From: "Lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> <3A25C517.7398@not-here.net> <3wtV5.5371$Iw.33905@news4.atl> <3a26bcbf.6504184@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 34 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:36:14 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.241.137 X-Trace: news2.atl 975958445 216.78.241.137 (Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:34:05 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:34:05 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news2.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58969 Ian H Spedding wrote in message news:3a26bcbf.6504184@news.lineone.net... : On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:24:56 -0500, "lorz" wrote: : : > : >Janice wrote in message <3A25C517.7398@not-here.net>... : >:lorz wrote: : >:> : >:> Ha. Well, What I wanted to know is how that effected the OOBE if at all : >in : >:> the moving car. But Janice isn't elaborating at all for me. What startled : >:> you Janice? : >: : >:Suddenly seeming to see the car ceiling right in front of my "eyes"! : >: : >:There's nothing to elaborate. The whole rudimentary OBE lasted only a : >:few seconds. : > : >Well try it again one day. I'd be curious to know if you can leave the car : >while it is moving. Try again after writing that novel but before writing : >the OOBE dictionary, k? : : OT but for how long have people in the States been abbreviating OK : just to K. Probably for as long as we've been saying it that way. I tend to say "K?" instead of "OK?" too. Us lazy Americans, eh? ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 00:16:17 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a2c3367.15622878@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> <3A25C517.7398@not-here.net> <3wtV5.5371$Iw.33905@news4.atl> <3a26bcbf.6504184@news.lineone.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 18 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!psinet-eu-nl!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:59013 On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:36:14 -0500, "Lorz" wrote: >: OT but for how long have people in the States been abbreviating OK >: just to K. > >Probably for as long as we've been saying it that way. I tend to say "K?" >instead of "OK?" too. Us lazy Americans, eh? No, just the natural evolution of the language. It's interesting seeing it happen, though. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 01:43:05 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a2c33f8.15767773@news.lineone.net> References: <3a284ac6.6628185@news.lineone.net> <20001204033304.28780.00003208@ng-cl1.aol.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 82 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:59020 On 04 Dec 2000 08:33:04 GMT, markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: >>From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) > >>On 01 Dec 2000 09:07:31 GMT, markenadms@aol.com (MarkenAdms) wrote: > >>>In my own case I haven't even tried to have any oobe in over 2 decades, but >>the >>>fiducial data in the original one was so strong that I don't need another >>>instance to solve the problem of inductive proof for me. I don't know if I >>can >>>or can't repeat the original event, but it would be like insisting on flying >>to >>>Hawaii a second time to establish that there really is such a place as >>Diamond >>>Head after seeing it and walking on it the once. > >. . . > >>The example of your visit to Diamond Head makes a good point, although >>perhaps not the one you had in mind. I've no doubt that the one visit >>was sufficient to convince *you* that the place exists, but if you >>wanted to *prove* to me, or any other people who've never been there, >>that it exists we will need more than just your word. The problem >>isn't so much one of induction as one of replication. > >But that's the same problem as proving something like the Big Bang. Inherently >irreproducible as an event. Not exactly. The Big Bang was a unique *event* which is impossible to reproduce. Your visit to Diamond Head was also a unique event, but Diamond Head itself is a *place* which exists now. It shouldn't be too difficult to find evidence for it which isn't just anecdotal or hypothetical. > One has to settle for circumstantial evidence and >the kind of guesses about that evidence that remind one that physicists are >people who will treat a horse as a cylinder because it makes the math doable >and teach the next generation to do the same as "this is how we get the >answer". All that class of people who have been indoctrinated into accepting >the guesses, convenient assumptions and so forth of one generation of >scientists tend to make up the trusted reporting base for "proven" results. So >going back to the Diamond Head example, a multiplicity of reporters, each not >really any more trustworthy than a single reporter, might seem to "prove" the >existence of Diamond Head. If we follow the most prevalent scientific model of >this day the class of trusted reporters will already be indoctrinated into an >array of "facts" about Diamond Head (which they will not be eager to contradict >as proof-by-tone-of- voice was used in indoctrinating them - as is the current >practice in much current scientific education) before they even set out to >examine it and report back multiply. Except that science isn't just based on the reports of scientists. Published research describes experiments which can, in theory, be replicated by any one who is so inclined. A beautiful theory is no more than a well-constructed argument without an empirical base. [...] >The circumstantial evidence in oobe is the presence of fiducial data in the >report, that which can't be guessed at well enough to be reliabily reported >except by some perception of the data thus marking it trustworthy as evidence >of perception outside normal physiological channels, which at least some oobe >reports include. >No matter how many times oobe experiments are done one can always choose to >suspect the reporter of some connivance. Being iherently personal, the >experiences themselves are not reproducible in any laboratory science sense. > >It comes down to enough good reports that one believes not all the reporters >can be lying - exactly the case with any other reported laboratory science >information actually. That depends on what explanation of OBEs you are trying to test. It's true that the best evidence for a DOBE would be the acquisition of information which could not have been obtained by any other means, but POBEs would require a different approach, although by Occam's Razor they are the default explanation. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> <3A25C517.7398@not-here.net> <3wtV5.5371$Iw.33905@news4.atl> <3a26bcbf.6504184@news.lineone.net> <3a2c3367.15622878@news.lineone.net> <3A2C3DCF.1B3A3B5F@Home.com> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 23 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: <%07X5.2808$xj5.44329@news3.atl> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:29:32 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.240.174 X-Trace: news3.atl 976026811 216.78.240.174 (Tue, 05 Dec 2000 09:33:31 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 09:33:31 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news3.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:58965 Tien Yen wrote in message <3A2C3DCF.1B3A3B5F@Home.com>... :Ian H Spedding wrote: :> :> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:36:14 -0500, "Lorz" wrote: :> :> >: OT but for how long have people in the States been abbreviating OK :> >: just to K. :> > :> >Probably for as long as we've been saying it that way. I tend to say "K?" :> >instead of "OK?" too. Us lazy Americans, eh? :> :> No, just the natural evolution of the language. It's interesting :> seeing it happen, though. : :Then there's "mmK" (a la South Park's Mr. Garrison). " mmmk" makes me think of that little guy in "Will and Grace" or David Spade for some reason. ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 20:24:12 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a2d7b44.14047716@news.lineone.net> References: <3a207d7e.25038733@news.lineone.net> <20001128030529.21462.00002054@ng-fd1.aol.com> <3a23d63c@news-out.newsnerds.com> <3a244d43.18264457@news.lineone.net> <3A247BD9.3AE3@not-here.net> <3A253470.13DB@not-here.net> <1JaV5.13628$yP6.47714@news2.atl> <3A253A32.354A@not-here.net> <3A25C517.7398@not-here.net> <3wtV5.5371$Iw.33905@news4.atl> <3a26bcbf.6504184@news.lineone.net> <3a2c3367.15622878@news.lineone.net> <3A2C3DCF.1B3A3B5F@Home.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 24 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!news.algonet.se!algonet!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:59209 On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 00:58:08 GMT, Tien Yen wrote: >Ian H Spedding wrote: >> >> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:36:14 -0500, "Lorz" wrote: >> >> >: OT but for how long have people in the States been abbreviating OK >> >: just to K. >> > >> >Probably for as long as we've been saying it that way. I tend to say "K?" >> >instead of "OK?" too. Us lazy Americans, eh? >> >> No, just the natural evolution of the language. It's interesting >> seeing it happen, though. > >Then there's "mmK" (a la South Park's Mr. Garrison). Interesting. That's a new one on me. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 20:24:13 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a2d6b01.9884477@news.lineone.net> References: <3a284ac6.6628185@news.lineone.net> <20001204033304.28780.00003208@ng-cl1.aol.com> <3a2c33f8.15767773@news.lineone.net> <3A2C5130.41399F8D@Home.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 34 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!colt.net!diablo.theplanet.net!195.224.25.10.MISMATCH!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:59206 On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:20:49 GMT, Tien Yen wrote: [...] >OK, Ian. I am at a bit of a loss here; I've major computer problems >over the last two weeks & missed some posts. May I request that you >re-post the relevant acronyms (with their explanations)? I promise to >save the file locally, and to refer to it everafter. Sorry to hear about the computer problems. So far - touch wood - I've only had a couple of occasions when Windows has crashed completely, which were cured by re-installing it. Anyway, all we did was to augment the abbreviation OBE to cover the four different types of explanation for the experience as follows: AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous cognition such as remote viewing COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local consciousness DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave the physical body POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological phenomenon. HTH Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 14:56:36 -0600 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <3a284ac6.6628185@news.lineone.net> <20001204033304.28780.00003208@ng-cl1.aol.com> <3a2c33f8.15767773@news.lineone.net> <3A2C5130.41399F8D@Home.com> <3a2d6b01.9884477@news.lineone.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-839.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!pzm Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:59218 In article <3a2d6b01.9884477@news.lineone.net>, ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) wrote: > On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:20:49 GMT, Tien Yen > wrote: > > [...] > > >OK, Ian. I am at a bit of a loss here; I've major computer > >problems over the last two weeks & missed some posts. May I > >request that you re-post the relevant acronyms (with their > >explanations)? I promise to save the file locally, and to > >refer to it everafter. > > Sorry to hear about the computer problems. So far - touch > wood - I've only had a couple of occasions when Windows has > crashed completely, which were cured by re-installing it. > > Anyway, all we did was to augment the abbreviation OBE to > cover the four different types of explanation for the > experience as follows: > > AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous > cognition such as remote viewing > > COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local > consciousness > > DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave > the > physical body > > POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological > phenomenon. Let's be really complete, and also include LOBE - where the proponent is simply Lying. KOBE - in which our True Believer is simply a self-deluded Kook. Not that anyone on this group could possibly be experiencing either of these forms, but we do want to cover all possible bases (although I suppose one could argue that KOBE is a superset of AOBE, COBE, and DOBE...). -- pz ###### From: "Lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a284ac6.6628185@news.lineone.net> <20001204033304.28780.00003208@ng-cl1.aol.com> <3a2c33f8.15767773@news.lineone.net> <3A2C5130.41399F8D@Home.com> <3a2d6b01.9884477@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 54 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 20:24:54 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.241.37 X-Trace: news2.atl 976152167 216.78.241.37 (Wed, 06 Dec 2000 20:22:47 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 20:22:47 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!psinet-eu-nl!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news2.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:59183 pz wrote in message news:pzm-3C5753.14563606122000@news.newsguy.com... : In article <3a2d6b01.9884477@news.lineone.net>, : ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) wrote: : : > On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:20:49 GMT, Tien Yen : > wrote: : > : > [...] : > : > >OK, Ian. I am at a bit of a loss here; I've major computer : > >problems over the last two weeks & missed some posts. May I : > >request that you re-post the relevant acronyms (with their : > >explanations)? I promise to save the file locally, and to : > >refer to it everafter. : > : > Sorry to hear about the computer problems. So far - touch : > wood - I've only had a couple of occasions when Windows has : > crashed completely, which were cured by re-installing it. : > : > Anyway, all we did was to augment the abbreviation OBE to : > cover the four different types of explanation for the : > experience as follows: : > : > AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous : > cognition such as remote viewing : > : > COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local : > consciousness : > : > DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave : > the : > physical body : > : > POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological : > phenomenon. : : Let's be really complete, and also include : : LOBE - where the proponent is simply Lying. : : KOBE - in which our True Believer is simply a self-deluded Kook. : : Not that anyone on this group could possibly be experiencing : either of these forms, but we do want to cover all possible : bases (although I suppose one could argue that KOBE is a : superset of AOBE, COBE, and DOBE...). : -- : pz Eh, you're just a WOBE. (wannabe OBE'r) :Þ ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <3a284ac6.6628185@news.lineone.net> <20001204033304.28780.00003208@ng-cl1.aol.com> <3a2c33f8.15767773@news.lineone.net> <3A2C5130.41399F8D@Home.com> <3a2d6b01.9884477@news.lineone.net> Subject: Re: OOBE physics (was Re: Good work, Janice!) Lines: 59 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: +4vTA3qvJgvn2AeFEljC3DXfqDGT9j4DBdBp9vdjCgJ9wQV2UW88nLKhVNn8jM0lenCQJXxR6Uay!Oej/t4FNRWfemsGOpQWLyG+Z+qmWGdwp+GUZrysak/9vuuDWAb6gsjTLX6V/LXDTPe+wKk5auMa9!9uKIq68+ X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:48:57 GMT Distribution: world Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:48:57 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.nextra.ch!news1.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:59227 Lorz wrote in message ... >pz wrote in message >news:pzm-3C5753.14563606122000@news.newsguy.com... >: In article <3a2d6b01.9884477@news.lineone.net>, >: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) wrote: >: >: > On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 02:20:49 GMT, Tien Yen >: > wrote: >: > >: > [...] >: > >: > >OK, Ian. I am at a bit of a loss here; I've major computer >: > >problems over the last two weeks & missed some posts. May I >: > >request that you re-post the relevant acronyms (with their >: > >explanations)? I promise to save the file locally, and to >: > >refer to it everafter. >: > >: > Sorry to hear about the computer problems. So far - touch >: > wood - I've only had a couple of occasions when Windows has >: > crashed completely, which were cured by re-installing it. >: > >: > Anyway, all we did was to augment the abbreviation OBE to >: > cover the four different types of explanation for the >: > experience as follows: >: > >: > AOBE - OBEs which are explained as some form of anomalous >: > cognition such as remote viewing >: > >: > COBE - where the OBE is explained as a phenomenon of non-local >: > consciousness >: > >: > DOBE - disembodied OBEs in which the mind is assumed to leave >: > the >: > physical body >: > >: > POBE - which holds that the OBE is a purely psychological >: > phenomenon. >: >: Let's be really complete, and also include >: >: LOBE - where the proponent is simply Lying. >: >: KOBE - in which our True Believer is simply a self-deluded Kook. >: >: Not that anyone on this group could possibly be experiencing >: either of these forms, but we do want to cover all possible >: bases (although I suppose one could argue that KOBE is a >: superset of AOBE, COBE, and DOBE...). >: -- >: pz > >Eh, you're just a WOBE. (wannabe OBE'r) :Þ HAha! : ) Add WOBE to the list.