From: "Louis Ruiz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: etheric projection Lines: 46 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: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> X-Trace: +rvUKlrJ6WUb/8Y53Ff4oHYsw7a6d5KbYZw0rzykWJGZupm5GAaNR3WcP4UEFy5jIFwxngkRWWyF!ZPVplFl3Jg2ssXEs4p9viwGpqVRa989lnr5f5CSKy2fBbUVzAc3XRMVm0RdmKOEDSEiTpHNjbVRQ!54+g 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, 24 Jan 2002 06:00:35 GMT Distribution: world Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 06:00:36 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!131.119.28.146!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76622 excerpts from a website Etheric projection is the most common form of astral projection, aswell as the one which is most confused with it. It is very similar in many repects to an OOBE, the main difference being that an etheric projection is the result of a conscious effort to seperate from the physical body. Basically, our physical body exists in a certain place, at a certain time, at a certain frequency (as does all matter). Other matter can also exist in the same place, at the same time, but at a different frequency. This, for example, is the basis for the X-ray machine. Inside us all we have another body that exists at a higher frequency - the Etheric Body. When we etherically project we are simply allowing the etheric body to seperate from the physical body and maintaining consciouness whilst doing this. We have all etherically projected at some time or another, but usually whilst we are unconscious, ie. whilst we were asleep. (Note: an unconscios porojection is NOT a dream). When we have projected etherically, we stay in the physical plane. That is, the same plane that we usually exist in. When we first project, we usually simply leave the physical. That is, we usually start our journey next to the physical body. In fact, one of the most breath taking aspects of etherically projecting for the first time is to actually see your own physical body lying there in front of you. After, you have overcome this shock, you will realise that you are stood in your own room in your own house. But from here you can go anywhere, be it simply out into the street, to a different city, a different country, or even a different planet. You are operating at a different frequency to your environment, and are therefor not restricted by the same laws that your physical body is. For instance, you can simply pass through walls, doors, etc. In fact you can pass through any material object. You can travel at fantastic speeds. You can fly. You can do much more and have so much fun exploring. Remember one thing though, however much fun etheric projection is, however much a useful tool it is - It is only the beginning. From this point we have the ability to go higher - to the astral plane, and even beyond that to the higher planes of existance - Happy travelling... ###### From: David Mitchell Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 07:54:17 +0000 Organization: Paradise Computer Software Message-ID: <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> Reply-To: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1011859812 nnrp-13:15741 NO-IDENT edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4-4GB i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 20 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!skynet.be!skynet.be!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!edenroad.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76618 Louis Ruiz wrote: > > Basically, our physical body exists in a certain place, at a certain time, > at a certain frequency (as does all matter). Other matter can also exist in > the same place, at the same time, but at a different frequency. This, for > example, is the basis for the X-ray machine. This is nonsense (as well you know). X-Rays are a form of electromagnetic radiation, not matter. Radiation has a characteristic called frequency, matter does not. -- ======================================================================= = David - Visit www.thehungersite.com = Mitchell - Feed someone for nothing ======================================================================= ###### From: Ian H Spedding Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 11:52:51 -0000 Message-ID: References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-225-72-102.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com X-Trace: 24 Jan 2002 11:49:56 GMT, ppp-225-72-102.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com Lines: 48 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.icl.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com!ppp-225-72-102.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76635 In article <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>, louis_ruiz@hotmail.com says... > excerpts from a website > > Etheric projection is the most common form of astral projection, aswell as > the one which is most confused with it. > > It is very similar in many repects to an OOBE, the main difference being > that an etheric projection is the result of a conscious effort to seperate > from the physical body. > > Basically, our physical body exists in a certain place, at a certain time, > at a certain frequency (as does all matter). Other matter can also exist in > the same place, at the same time, but at a different frequency. This, for > example, is the basis for the X-ray machine. > > Inside us all we have another body that exists at a higher frequency - the > Etheric Body. When we etherically project we are simply allowing the etheric > body to seperate from the physical body and maintaining consciouness whilst > doing this. We have all etherically projected at some time or another, but > usually whilst we are unconscious, ie. whilst we were asleep. (Note: an > unconscios porojection is NOT a dream). > > When we have projected etherically, we stay in the physical plane. That is, > the same plane that we usually exist in. Funnily enough, I was watching the DVD of "The Final Fantasy" yesterday and while the CGI was very impressive the rest of it was, as the title says, fantasy - pure speculation. It was full of nonsense about the Gaia theory, "bio-etheric energy" and the "spirit of the planet". This excerpt from the website is typical of this sort of fantasising. Words and concepts are borrowed from science, apparently to make the speculation sound scientific, without any understanding of what the terms mean in science. Unless you can provide some evidence for the existence of "ether" or "etheric bodies" or "astral planes" then this is religion not science. Ian -- Ian H Spedding What did the mystic say to the hot-dog vendor? Make me one with everything. Lawrence Kushman ###### From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:13:33 -0500 Lines: 49 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 NNTP-Posting-Host: nopics.sjc Message-ID: <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!surfnet.nl!news-x2.support.nl!208.184.7.66.MISMATCH!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!telocity-west!DirecTV-DSL!nopics.sjc!directvdsl.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76648 Hi David, I agree with your attempts to help Louis with his terminology. But this note is for you (and anyone else interested). Sorry, if I sound like the Physics Police. The waves that make up x-rays, like all electromagnetic radiation, are actually the probability waves for photons and obviously have a frequency. Matter also has probability waves and associated frequencies but these frequencies are very high. f = E/h = gamma*m*c^2 / h Wm P.S. Maybe Louis' etheric matter is composed of fermions with quantum numbers dissimilar from those in the electrons of our physical bodies. Obviously there's no evidence for this, but at least it doesn't violate any known physical laws. "David Mitchell" wrote in message news:3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk... > Louis Ruiz wrote: > > > > Basically, our physical body exists in a certain place, at a certain time, > > at a certain frequency (as does all matter). Other matter can also exist in > > the same place, at the same time, but at a different frequency. This, for > > example, is the basis for the X-ray machine. > > This is nonsense (as well you know). > X-Rays are a form of electromagnetic radiation, not matter. > > Radiation has a characteristic called frequency, matter does not. > > > -- > ======================================================================= > = David - Visit www.thehungersite.com > = Mitchell - Feed someone for nothing > ======================================================================= > > ###### From: Ian H Spedding Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 19:39:06 -0000 Message-ID: References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-225-74-97.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com X-Trace: 24 Jan 2002 19:36:10 GMT, ppp-225-74-97.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com Lines: 34 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!193.190.198.17.MISMATCH!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!194.42.224.136!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com!ppp-225-74-97.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76639 In article <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc>, CUTwbliss@telocity.com says... > Hi David, > > I agree with your attempts to help Louis with his terminology. > But this note is for you (and anyone else interested). > Sorry, if I sound like the Physics Police. > > The waves that make up x-rays, like all electromagnetic radiation, > are actually the probability waves for photons and obviously have > a frequency. Matter also has probability waves and associated > frequencies but these frequencies are very high. > > f = E/h = gamma*m*c^2 / h > > Wm > > P.S. > Maybe Louis' etheric matter is composed of fermions with > quantum numbers dissimilar from those in the electrons of > our physical bodies. Obviously there's no evidence for this, > but at least it doesn't violate any known physical laws. But it would also be true to to say that raising the frequency of energy radiated by a body has not been observed to transfer it to another plane? Ian -- Ian H Spedding What did the mystic say to the hot-dog vendor? Make me one with everything. Lawrence Kushman ###### From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:34:47 -0500 Lines: 81 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 NNTP-Posting-Host: nopics.sjc Message-ID: <3c508c37$1_1@nopics.sjc> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!telocity-west!DirecTV-DSL!nopics.sjc!directvdsl.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76654 Hi Louis, "Louis Ruiz" wrote in message news:7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net... > excerpts from a website > > Etheric projection is the most common form of astral projection, aswell as > the one which is most confused with it. > > It is very similar in many repects to an OOBE, the main difference being > that an etheric projection is the result of a conscious effort to seperate > from the physical body. Sorry, Louis. I've never experienced this or heard any actual projector state this. The subtile body that we sometimes project with (astral-body, psychosoma, etheric-body,,, which ever we wish to call it) can vary its properties (shape, color, transparency, illumination, etc) but it seems to be the same no matter how we project. Maybe I'm missing something?? > Basically, our physical body exists in a certain place, at a certain time, > at a certain frequency (as does all matter). Other matter can also exist in > the same place, at the same time, but at a different frequency. This, for > example, is the basis for the X-ray machine. Let's stay away from the physics aspects else it becomes a rather deep topic. I recommend we speak of the physical world as existing at one range of "frequencies" and the other "higher-dimensional-worlds" each existing with their own range of "frequencies". This idea is easy to talk about and also is more easily supportable mathematically. > Inside us all we have another body that exists at a higher frequency - the > Etheric Body. When we etherically project we are simply allowing the etheric > body to seperate from the physical body and maintaining consciouness whilst > doing this. We have all etherically projected at some time or another, but > usually whilst we are unconscious, ie. whilst we were asleep. (Note: an > unconscios porojection is NOT a dream). > > When we have projected etherically, we stay in the physical plane. That is, > the same plane that we usually exist in. Many people do remain in the physical relm (range) but lots of projectors have reported taking their astral-bodies with them to higher relms. > When we first project, we usually simply leave the physical. That is, we > usually start our journey next to the physical body. In fact, one of the > most breath taking aspects of etherically projecting for the first time is > to actually see your own physical body lying there in front of you. > > After, you have overcome this shock, you will realise that you are stood in > your own room in your own house. But from here you can go anywhere, be it > simply out into the street, to a different city, a different country, or > even a different planet. You are operating at a different frequency to your > environment, and are therefor not restricted by the same laws that your > physical body is. For instance, you can simply pass through walls, doors, > etc. In fact you can pass through any material object. You can travel at > fantastic speeds. You can fly. You can do much more and have so much fun > exploring. > > Remember one thing though, however much fun etheric projection is, however > much a useful tool it is - It is only the beginning. From this point we have > the ability to go higher - to the astral plane, and even beyond that to the > higher planes of existance - Happy travelling... Again! I don't mind the use of the word "planes" but I'll argue against any grouping of them into distinct catagories. There is lots of evidence for a continuum of worlds but none that I've seen that indicates seven or any other number of distinct levels. Wm ###### From: David Mitchell Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:32:08 +0000 Organization: Paradise Computer Software Message-ID: <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> Reply-To: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1011977042 nnrp-02:27523 NO-IDENT edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4-4GB i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!edenroad.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76662 William Bliss wrote: > > Hi David, > > I agree with your attempts to help Louis with his terminology. > But this note is for you (and anyone else interested). > Sorry, if I sound like the Physics Police. Nope, always glad to learn more... > > The waves that make up x-rays, like all electromagnetic radiation, > are actually the probability waves for photons and obviously have > a frequency. Matter also has probability waves and associated > frequencies but these frequencies are very high. > > f = E/h = gamma*m*c^2 / h So would it possible, in theory, for there to be "harmonics" of these frequencies? Or would they represent different particles completely (ones which don't exist ?). > > Wm > > P.S. > Maybe Louis' etheric matter is composed of fermions with > quantum numbers dissimilar from those in the electrons of > our physical bodies. Obviously there's no evidence for this, > but at least it doesn't violate any known physical laws. I'm prepared to believe you when you say it's possible; but I'm pretty sure you'd agree with me that the attributes given to this matter are so improbable as to make it completely implausible as an explanation for any of the phenomena which Louis (and, to be fair, pretty much everyone else who's ever used the term) attribute to it. What I mean is, these other realms have waaaay too many things in common with our own to be plausible (they often have counterparts of material objects etc.). Unless the material world is influencing these other realms (which we'd be able to detect) there's no way that, for example, they would have evolved in an identical fashion at an identical rate. -- ======================================================================= = David - Visit www.thehungersite.com = Mitchell - Feed someone for nothing ======================================================================= ###### From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 02:15:04 -0500 Lines: 116 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 NNTP-Posting-Host: nopics.sjc Message-ID: <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!30535!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!telocity-west!DirecTV-DSL!nopics.sjc!directvdsl.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77553 Hi David, "David Mitchell" wrote in message news:3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk... [...] > > The waves that make up x-rays, like all electromagnetic radiation, > > are actually the probability waves for photons and obviously have > > a frequency. Matter also has probability waves and associated > > frequencies but these frequencies are very high. > > > > f = E/h = gamma*m*c^2 / h > > So would it possible, in theory, for there to be "harmonics" of these > frequencies? Or would they represent different particles completely > (ones which don't exist ?). I'm not sure I fully understand your question here. No two electrons can have the exact same four quantum values (one of which is frequency) while existing in the same energetically bound region of space. For example: the valence electrons in a body of metal will form an energetic band composed of harmonics whose fundamental is the longest wave that can fit across the widest dimension of the body. In fact, if this metal body is very small it can posses more valence electrons than there are allowed harmonics that fit in this potential well formed by the "escape" energy at the metal's surface (work function). In this case the remaining electrons assume wave functions that surround this now positively charged metal body almost as if it were a nucleus. These electrons are kind of out-of-body but they don't actually walk through walls or anything cool like that. :) [...] > > Maybe Louis' etheric matter is composed of fermions with > > quantum numbers dissimilar from those in the electrons of > > our physical bodies. Obviously there's no evidence for this, > > but at least it doesn't violate any known physical laws. > > I'm prepared to believe you when you say it's possible; but I'm pretty > sure you'd agree with me that the attributes given to this matter are so > improbable as to make it completely implausible as an explanation for > any of the phenomena which Louis (and, to be fair, pretty much everyone > else who's ever used the term) attribute to it. I totally understand where you're coming from when you say "implausible" and I'll admit to frequently entertaining this feeling of incredulity. As my defense for overcoming this incredulity, I must make two comments that are targeted towards someone who has not yet had their own fully lucid veridical OBE. 1) As you know, the details of science are accomplished via the analysis of mathematical models, but the actual foundational methodology is much less logical. Most scientists use their intuitive judgements when deciding such things as what avenues to study and how to investigate them. These decisions are based on "feelings" for which ideas seem plausible to them based on their years of knowledge and practice. Ultimately science becomes an art form-- the art of (hopefully) picking a path toward discovery (and more grants). 2) Now, imagine you have a close friend or brother whose judgement and opinons you absolutely trust. Imagine him confiding in you that he has been having OBEs most of his life including quite a few where he returned with undeniable veridical confirmations. Of course you'll go through all the machinations with him, making sure he isn't kidding you... but he isn't. How does this effect your beliefs? What if you then met a dozen other absolutely mature and psychologically reliable people, just like your friend who, for no motive of personal gain, are admitting to the exact same experiences? How implausible is it that these friends of yours should be 100% psychotic liars or else 100% mistaken in some inexplicable way? The point is, any non-mathematical determination of implausibility is simply a learned feeling and not a logically defensible conclusion. You are now faced with contradicting improbabilities and as a researcher you must use your artistic judgement and pick an avenue of research. So, would you be capable of reevaluating your previous sense of "implausibility"? I know from personal experience that if all you've done is read books about the OBE it is very easy to dismiss all of it simply because it seems so improbable. Once you start going to OBE conferences and you begin to meet more and more experienced projectors your previous feelings of certainty will become strained. OOB stories seem like BS but these people you will meet don't seem to be the type, nor do they have any reason, to be BS'ers. There is amazing consistancy in the experiences of lucid projectors but (IMO) absolutely no way to prove it except to ourselfs. This is a horrible dillemma to be in, and I have great compassion for those people who have enough open-mindedness to go this far in their search for the truth without having their own experiences. > What I mean is, these other realms have waaaay too many things in common > with our own to be plausible (they often have counterparts of material > objects etc.). Unless the material world is influencing these other > realms (which we'd be able to detect) there's no way that, for example, > they would have evolved in an identical fashion at an identical rate. I've had similar qualms. If you or I were asked to imagine an alien from outer space we would probably say something like "a mountain sized smelly brown gelatinous blob of electrically active silicon based polymers". We certainly wouldn't predict a four foot high bilaterally symmetric air breathing being with two legs, two arms, two eyes and one mouth, etc. This just doesn't seem cosmically probable. OTOH, if we actually saw one step off its ship we probably wouldn't delay in realizing that we were wrong and the Universe really does contain creepy coincidences. If for no other reason, I consider discussions in a.oob to be good mental exercise for skeptical atheistic scientists. I think everyone should stop occasionally and consider the possibility that their view of the Universe is largely wrong and then ponder what they would do about it. Wm ###### From: David Mitchell Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:19:55 +0000 Organization: Paradise Computer Software Message-ID: <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> Reply-To: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1012034000 nnrp-07:25918 NO-IDENT edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4-4GB i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 131 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!212.74.64.35!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!edenroad.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76921 William Bliss wrote: > > Hi David, > > "David Mitchell" wrote in message > news:3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk... > [...] > > > The waves that make up x-rays, like all electromagnetic radiation, > > > are actually the probability waves for photons and obviously have > > > a frequency. Matter also has probability waves and associated > > > frequencies but these frequencies are very high. > > > > > > f = E/h = gamma*m*c^2 / h > > > > So would it possible, in theory, for there to be "harmonics" of these > > frequencies? Or would they represent different particles completely > > (ones which don't exist ?). > > I'm not sure I fully understand your question here. No two electrons > can have the exact same four quantum values (one of which is > frequency) while existing in the same energetically bound region of > space. For example: the valence electrons in a body of metal will > form an energetic band composed of harmonics whose fundamental > is the longest wave that can fit across the widest dimension of the > body. In fact, if this metal body is very small it can posses more > valence electrons than there are allowed harmonics that fit in this > potential well formed by the "escape" energy at the metal's surface > (work function). In this case the remaining electrons assume wave > functions that surround this now positively charged metal body > almost as if it were a nucleus. These electrons are kind of out-of-body > but they don't actually walk through walls or anything cool like that. :) > Fascinating. I think you've answered my question. I was asking whether the "traditional" explanation for "higher planes" (that they're successively higher "octaves", if you like, of matter) made any sense. From your explanation, I think not. > [...] > > > Maybe Louis' etheric matter is composed of fermions with > > > quantum numbers dissimilar from those in the electrons of > > > our physical bodies. Obviously there's no evidence for this, > > > but at least it doesn't violate any known physical laws. > > > > I'm prepared to believe you when you say it's possible; but I'm pretty > > sure you'd agree with me that the attributes given to this matter are so > > improbable as to make it completely implausible as an explanation for > > any of the phenomena which Louis (and, to be fair, pretty much everyone > > else who's ever used the term) attribute to it. > > I totally understand where you're coming from when you say "implausible" > and I'll admit to frequently entertaining this feeling of incredulity. > As my defense for overcoming this incredulity, I must make two > comments that are targeted towards someone who has not yet had > their own fully lucid veridical OBE. > 1) As you know, the details of science are accomplished via the > analysis of mathematical models, but the actual foundational > methodology is much less logical. Most scientists use their intuitive > judgements when deciding such things as what avenues to study > and how to investigate them. These decisions are based on "feelings" > for which ideas seem plausible to them based on their years of > knowledge and practice. Ultimately science becomes an art form-- > the art of (hopefully) picking a path toward discovery (and more grants). > 2) Now, imagine you have a close friend or brother whose judgement > and opinons you absolutely trust. Imagine him confiding in you that he > has been having OBEs most of his life including quite a few where he > returned with undeniable veridical confirmations. Of course you'll go > through all the machinations with him, making sure he isn't kidding you... > but he isn't. How does this effect your beliefs? What if you then met a > dozen other absolutely mature and psychologically reliable people, just > like your friend who, for no motive of personal gain, are admitting to the > exact same experiences? How implausible is it that these friends of > yours should be 100% psychotic liars or else 100% mistaken in some > inexplicable way? > > The point is, any non-mathematical determination of implausibility is > simply a learned feeling and not a logically defensible conclusion. > You are now faced with contradicting improbabilities and as a researcher > you must use your artistic judgement and pick an avenue of research. > So, would you be capable of reevaluating your previous sense of > "implausibility"? I believe so. > > I know from personal experience that if all you've done is read > books about the OBE it is very easy to dismiss all of it simply > because it seems so improbable. Once you start going to OBE > conferences and you begin to meet more and more experienced > projectors your previous feelings of certainty will become strained. > OOB stories seem like BS but these people you will meet don't > seem to be the type, nor do they have any reason, to be BS'ers. > There is amazing consistancy in the experiences of lucid projectors > but (IMO) absolutely no way to prove it except to ourselfs. > > This is a horrible dillemma to be in, and I have great compassion > for those people who have enough open-mindedness to go this far > in their search for the truth without having their own experiences. I have no problem with believing that people experience what they do (for all the reasons you give above). What I have a problem with is the laughable explanations people concoct for them, and _their_ closed-mindedness! > > > What I mean is, these other realms have waaaay too many things in common > > with our own to be plausible (they often have counterparts of material > > objects etc.). Unless the material world is influencing these other > > realms (which we'd be able to detect) there's no way that, for example, > > they would have evolved in an identical fashion at an identical rate. > > I've had similar qualms. If you or I were asked to imagine an alien > from outer space we would probably say something like "a mountain > sized smelly brown gelatinous blob of electrically active silicon based > polymers". We certainly wouldn't predict a four foot high bilaterally > symmetric air breathing being with two legs, two arms, two eyes and > one mouth, etc. This just doesn't seem cosmically probable. > OTOH, if we actually saw one step off its ship we probably wouldn't > delay in realizing that we were wrong and the Universe really does > contain creepy coincidences. -- ======================================================================= = David - Visit www.thehungersite.com = Mitchell - Feed someone for nothing ======================================================================= ###### From: "Jaza" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 18:41:49 +1000 Organization: University of Queensland Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> NNTP-Posting-Host: d-237-55.stlucia.uq.net.au X-Trace: bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au 1012034421 15235 203.101.237.55 (26 Jan 2002 08:40:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@uq.edu.au NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Jan 2002 08:40:21 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!2954063!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76830 > > > f = E/h = gamma*m*c^2 / h > > > > So would it possible, in theory, for there to be "harmonics" of these > > frequencies? Or would they represent different particles completely > > (ones which don't exist ?). > > I'm not sure I fully understand your question here. No two electrons > can have the exact same four quantum values (one of which is > frequency) while existing in the same energetically bound region of The four quantum numbers are represented by n, l, m(l) and m(s). n representing the electron shell the electron belongs to, l representing the angular momentum (the type of subshell which the electron belongs to), m(l) representing the magnetic quantum number (the specific orbital within a subshell), and m(s) which is the magnetic spin number, or the subspace which the electron belongs to. Now, what is interesting here, and we need to consider energy levels, atomic spectra and ionisation, is that electrons may absorb energy, and either continue absorbing it, and "pop" off, and effectively ionise the atom, or the energy source is taken away, and the 'excited' electrons give off that energy, and sink back down the orbitals until they are at their base energy level. This is energy is dispersed and given up as electromagnetic radiation, and can be seen as visible light, and split through a prism to generate a line spectra. These excited atoms are obviously capable of becoming more energised, but so is an object suspended in space by something. A specific spectra for a specific atom is generated when the electrons in that atom are excited, and allowed to resume their base orbitals. What all this is suggesting, is that electrons in atoms are arranged in specific energy orbitals, that electrons can become excited, and that electrons can pop off from the atom, and become ionised. If anything has enough force, say for example, if I threw a ball hard enough up, it would break through the atmosphere, and escape into outer space. I would not consider this ball 'out of body', I would simply consider the ball to contain enough energy to be able to escape the clutches of a weaker force. > space. For example: the valence electrons in a body of metal will > form an energetic band composed of harmonics whose fundamental > is the longest wave that can fit across the widest dimension of the > body. In fact, if this metal body is very small it can posses more > valence electrons than there are allowed harmonics that fit in this > potential well formed by the "escape" energy at the metal's surface And these electrons effectively 'jump' off - the photoelectric effect of Einstein. Electrons can also be 'directed' by using a magnetic field, and shot at a screen, and stopped by a physical object, hence, the basis of the CRT. These electrons, when stopped, give us energy in the form of radiation, which quickly dissipates. Radiation basically bounces around, dissipates, etc, if it has nothing 'directing' it - in other words, if we (when out of body) were simply made up of the underlying energy of electrons, we would quickly dissipate, or absorb into matter. Energy becomes more chaotic when outside of a 'system'. It is almost impossible to assume that the energy underlying matter is the essence of the 'soul', because, effectively, the energy which would compose a 'soul' would be outside a 'system', and its energy would be chaotic, ie, everywhere. Conclusion - of course matter may also be considered to contain wave properties, but that doesn't allow it to simply fit into the 'OBE' model. ###### From: none@spam.is.not.nice.org (ao) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 102 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 14:35:10 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.92.65.137 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1012055691 65.92.65.137 (Sat, 26 Jan 2002 09:34:51 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 09:34:51 EST Organization: Bell Sympatico Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!16295336!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!torn!webster!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76996 On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:19:55 +0000, David Mitchell wrote: >I have no problem with believing that people experience what they do >(for all the reasons you give above). What I have a problem with is the >laughable explanations people concoct for them, and _their_ >closed-mindedness! Hi David, Such may be laughable to you because you may not fully understand where a person is coming from, so to speak, or such explanations may just simply not fit in well with your world view. Our natural first response is to reject any information coming to us that is inconsistent with our world view. OTOH, such explanations may well be total nonsense, but there may turn out to be some degree of truth to them as well if someone takes the time to try to truly understand what a person is attempting to say. As I have outlined in another thread, I think this tendency to quickly dismiss such information is often a result of our natural belief protection 'mechanisms' kicking in at a subconscious or unconscious level to help maintain the stability of our world view. Likewise it is *equally important* to note that people will tend to interpret and explain their experiences in a way that makes the most 'sense' to them and which best fits into their world view. I believe that the same belief protection mechanisms mentioned above also go into play when we are processing and interpreting our own experiences, as I think that experience is really just a source of input of 'information' and must be filtered through our belief protection mechanisms like any other information input. This implies that we will tend to automatically 'reformat' and/or filter any information input to us to make it best fit into our world views. This implies that our interpretation of our experiences is to some degree a self-created version of what happened. Why do I keep bringing up this point? I do so because I think it is essential to understand this natural filtering/reformatting/rejection process and its impact on our openess towards new or controversial information, and, equally important, on our interpretation of our own experiences, if we are ever going to move forward with our understanding of these type of experiences. I think the most important considerations are: 1) When evaluating information presented by others: We need to understand our natural tendency to dismiss, ignore, reformat, or otherwise rationalize away information that is in direct conflict with our world view, as well as our natural tendency to belittle and dismiss, or even attack in more extreme cases, those who are presenting such 'offending' information. When we understand that this is a natural process that occurs at an unconscious or subconscious level, (we usually don't consciously decide we are going to ignore or dsimiss and rationalize away information we are presented with, and we are usually not consciously aware that we are doing this), we can attempt to take measures to try to control this natural reaction and hopefully allow ourselves to take a more open, detached, and neutral stance. (I am not suggesting that we should ever blindly believe any or all such information presented to us, just that we take steps to control our natural tendency to dismiss and reject such information without fair and neutral appraisal.) Also we need to understand that when a person is describing an unusal experience they may have had, they can only use the words and concepts that are available to them to describe this experience. If a person has only a poor or limited understanding of scientific or technical concepts and terms, for example, they may use these terms and apply these concepts incorrectly in their attempt to describe their experiences as best they can. However, such words may be the best that the person can come up with to describe their unusual experience, since there may not even be words available to help adequately describe the experience. 2) When we are interpreting our own experiences: We need to understand that we have a strong natural tendency to interpret our experiences in a way that is most palatable and understandable to us. This in effect means we are attempting to fit the experience in with our world view, although I think this mostly occurs at an unconscious level. I think the same filtering, reformatting and rationalizing processes occur when interpreting our personal experiences as occurs in interpreting other external information as described above. To summarize, if we are genuinely interested in trying to come to a better understanding of subjects such as OBE's that are of a controversial nature, i.e. subjects in which information may be presented or encountered that is in direct conflict with peoples' core beliefs, then I think it is essential for us to at least take into consideration the above mentioned points if we are to have any hope of ever achieving a degree of true detachedness and neutrality in such an endeavor. I think we need to take into consideration our own beliefs and corresponding views and level of understanding in the interpretation of our own experiences, as well as in our ability to apply neutral and fair appraisal to information provided by others. I think this is in no way an easy task and does require a large degree of self-honesty and intrspection, but I do think that such is at least partially attainable with proper understanding and determination. Ok, I'll climb off my soap box now. :-) /ao May all your thoughts be good ones... ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Organization: Happy Noodle Boy! References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC) Reply-To: myers@mac.invalid X-Face: "w/5:'{b21!-UbG8:}Tk?P%!\!n(cgznyt]sJL5N2_2bsRhGTRJ%UX!Wx%GgGA.Ri]*PQJB>y%sHxmrIRlVPU/3\@JI8H}KHLQbbzA)1j,*4mxqqt\}[L"XpE1\C7xg2mJH]NelCKASP;xvO'}"W(8y+kf,EyaeHk"h.DUlJ-L%p+jk|E1i0V>_$(5nnx,'GnM^%Sd0V Message-ID: Lines: 110 Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 14:52:19 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.146.112.17 X-Complaints-To: abuse@onvoy.com X-Trace: news7.onvoy.net 1012056739 206.146.112.17 (Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:52:19 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:52:19 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!65112!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:76913 In article , none@spam.is.not.nice.org (ao) wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:19:55 +0000, David Mitchell > wrote: > > >I have no problem with believing that people experience what they do > >(for all the reasons you give above). What I have a problem with is the > >laughable explanations people concoct for them, and _their_ > >closed-mindedness! > > Hi David, > Such may be laughable to you because you may not fully understand > where a person is coming from, so to speak, or such explanations may > just simply not fit in well with your world view. Our natural first > response is to reject any information coming to us that is > inconsistent with our world view. OTOH, such explanations may well be > total nonsense, but there may turn out to be some degree of truth to > them as well if someone takes the time to try to truly understand what > a person is attempting to say. As I have outlined in another thread, I > think this tendency to quickly dismiss such information is often a > result of our natural belief protection 'mechanisms' kicking in at a > subconscious or unconscious level to help maintain the stability of > our world view. > > Likewise it is *equally important* to note that people will tend to > interpret and explain their experiences in a way that makes the most > 'sense' to them and which best fits into their world view. I believe > that the same belief protection mechanisms mentioned above also go > into play when we are processing and interpreting our own experiences, > as I think that experience is really just a source of input of > 'information' and must be filtered through our belief protection > mechanisms like any other information input. This implies that we will > tend to automatically 'reformat' and/or filter any information input > to us to make it best fit into our world views. This implies that our > interpretation of our experiences is to some degree a self-created > version of what happened. > > Why do I keep bringing up this point? I do so because I think it is > essential to understand this natural filtering/reformatting/rejection > process and its impact on our openess towards new or controversial > information, and, equally important, on our interpretation of our own > experiences, if we are ever going to move forward with our > understanding of these type of experiences. > > I think the most important considerations are: > > 1) When evaluating information presented by others: > We need to understand our natural tendency to dismiss, ignore, > reformat, or otherwise rationalize away information that is in direct > conflict with our world view, as well as our natural tendency to > belittle and dismiss, or even attack in more extreme cases, those who > are presenting such 'offending' information. When we understand that > this is a natural process that occurs at an unconscious or > subconscious level, (we usually don't consciously decide we are going > to ignore or dsimiss and rationalize away information we are presented > with, and we are usually not consciously aware that we are doing > this), we can attempt to take measures to try to control this natural > reaction and hopefully allow ourselves to take a more open, detached, > and neutral stance. (I am not suggesting that we should ever blindly > believe any or all such information presented to us, just that we take > steps to control our natural tendency to dismiss and reject such > information without fair and neutral appraisal.) > > Also we need to understand that when a person is describing an unusal > experience they may have had, they can only use the words and concepts > that are available to them to describe this experience. If a person > has only a poor or limited understanding of scientific or technical > concepts and terms, for example, they may use these terms and apply > these concepts incorrectly in their attempt to describe their > experiences as best they can. However, such words may be the best that > the person can come up with to describe their unusual experience, > since there may not even be words available to help adequately > describe the experience. > > > 2) When we are interpreting our own experiences: > We need to understand that we have a strong natural tendency to > interpret our experiences in a way that is most palatable and > understandable to us. This in effect means we are attempting to fit > the experience in with our world view, although I think this mostly > occurs at an unconscious level. I think the same filtering, > reformatting and rationalizing processes occur when interpreting our > personal experiences as occurs in interpreting other external > information as described above. > > To summarize, if we are genuinely interested in trying to come to a > better understanding of subjects such as OBE's that are of a > controversial nature, i.e. subjects in which information may be > presented or encountered that is in direct conflict with peoples' core > beliefs, then I think it is essential for us to at least take into > consideration the above mentioned points if we are to have any hope of > ever achieving a degree of true detachedness and neutrality in such an > endeavor. I think we need to take into consideration our own beliefs > and corresponding views and level of understanding in the > interpretation of our own experiences, as well as in our ability to > apply neutral and fair appraisal to information provided by others. I > think this is in no way an easy task and does require a large degree > of self-honesty and intrspection, but I do think that such is at least > partially attainable with proper understanding and determination. > > Ok, I'll climb off my soap box now. :-) You've forgotten something essential. Yo've phrased everything as being a consideration of differing "worldviews", as if the determinant of what is accurate or true is simply our opinion. I kinda think correspondence with physical reality is a bit more important. -- pz ###### From: none@spam.is.not.nice.org (ao) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 40 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:27:48 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.92.65.137 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1012058846 65.92.65.137 (Sat, 26 Jan 2002 10:27:26 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 10:27:26 EST Organization: Bell Sympatico Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!9652429!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!torn!webster!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77033 On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 14:52:19 GMT, pz wrote: >In article , > none@spam.is.not.nice.org (ao) wrote: >> To summarize, if we are genuinely interested in trying to come to a >> better understanding of subjects such as OBE's that are of a >> controversial nature, i.e. subjects in which information may be >> presented or encountered that is in direct conflict with peoples' core >> beliefs, then I think it is essential for us to at least take into >> consideration the above mentioned points if we are to have any hope of >> ever achieving a degree of true detachedness and neutrality in such an >> endeavor. I think we need to take into consideration our own beliefs >> and corresponding views and level of understanding in the >> interpretation of our own experiences, as well as in our ability to >> apply neutral and fair appraisal to information provided by others. I >> think this is in no way an easy task and does require a large degree >> of self-honesty and intrspection, but I do think that such is at least >> partially attainable with proper understanding and determination. >> >> Ok, I'll climb off my soap box now. :-) > >You've forgotten something essential. Yo've phrased everything as being >a consideration of differing "worldviews", as if the determinant of what >is accurate or true is simply our opinion. I kinda think correspondence >with physical reality is a bit more important. Hi pz, I did not mean to say or imply this at all. I just meant to say that these "world views" that we hold can greatly affect our openess to, and interpretation of, new information. Whether such information has any correlation to 'reality' will need to be determined. Fair evaluation of such information is important of course, but we may never even get to that point if we are automatically rejecting or reformatting the information right off the bat. I do think this is inevitable to a large extent, but I think it can be at least somewhat controlled by understanding the process and by perhaps then implementing certain procedures to help minimize the effects of these processes. /ao May all your thoughts be good ones... ###### From: pz Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Organization: Happy Noodle Boy! References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC) Reply-To: myers@mac.invalid X-Face: "w/5:'{b21!-UbG8:}Tk?P%!\!n(cgznyt]sJL5N2_2bsRhGTRJ%UX!Wx%GgGA.Ri]*PQJB>y%sHxmrIRlVPU/3\@JI8H}KHLQbbzA)1j,*4mxqqt\}[L"XpE1\C7xg2mJH]NelCKASP;xvO'}"W(8y+kf,EyaeHk"h.DUlJ-L%p+jk|E1i0V>_$(5nnx,'GnM^%Sd0V Message-ID: Lines: 56 Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:46:39 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.146.112.17 X-Complaints-To: abuse@onvoy.com X-Trace: news7.onvoy.net 1012059999 206.146.112.17 (Sat, 26 Jan 2002 09:46:39 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 09:46:39 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!53787!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:76898 In article , none@spam.is.not.nice.org (ao) wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 14:52:19 GMT, pz wrote: > > >In article , > > none@spam.is.not.nice.org (ao) wrote: > >> To summarize, if we are genuinely interested in trying to come to a > >> better understanding of subjects such as OBE's that are of a > >> controversial nature, i.e. subjects in which information may be > >> presented or encountered that is in direct conflict with peoples' core > >> beliefs, then I think it is essential for us to at least take into > >> consideration the above mentioned points if we are to have any hope of > >> ever achieving a degree of true detachedness and neutrality in such an > >> endeavor. I think we need to take into consideration our own beliefs > >> and corresponding views and level of understanding in the > >> interpretation of our own experiences, as well as in our ability to > >> apply neutral and fair appraisal to information provided by others. I > >> think this is in no way an easy task and does require a large degree > >> of self-honesty and intrspection, but I do think that such is at least > >> partially attainable with proper understanding and determination. > >> > >> Ok, I'll climb off my soap box now. :-) > > > >You've forgotten something essential. Yo've phrased everything as being > >a consideration of differing "worldviews", as if the determinant of what > >is accurate or true is simply our opinion. I kinda think correspondence > >with physical reality is a bit more important. > > Hi pz, I did not mean to say or imply this at all. I just meant to say > that these "world views" that we hold can greatly affect our openess > to, and interpretation of, new information. Whether such information > has any correlation to 'reality' will need to be determined. Fair > evaluation of such information is important of course, but we may > never even get to that point if we are automatically rejecting or > reformatting the information right off the bat. I do think this is > inevitable to a large extent, but I think it can be at least somewhat > controlled by understanding the process and by perhaps then > implementing certain procedures to help minimize the effects of these > processes. My point is that the first filter we apply to new information has to be an objective measure of its compatibily with the real world. All too often, what happens is that people confuse that with personal bias, or "world views". For instance, if I said that I could flap my arms vigorously and fly, it would not be close-minded to reply with ridicule or demands for substantive evidence -- my claim *is* ridiculous and violates what we know about reality. Yet people on this group make even more ridiculous claims (that they literally flew to Mars, or that they heal people with their thoughts), and react to people who find that absurd with the accusation that they are "close minded". -- pz ###### From: none@spam.is.not.nice.org (ao) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 52 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 16:39:02 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.92.65.137 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1012063122 65.92.65.137 (Sat, 26 Jan 2002 11:38:42 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 11:38:42 EST Organization: Bell Sympatico Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!opentransit.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!torn!webster!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76991 On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:46:39 GMT, pz wrote: >My point is that the first filter we apply to new information has to be >an objective measure of its compatibily with the real world. All too >often, what happens is that people confuse that with personal bias, or >"world views". Unfortunately not everyone agrees on what the limits of reality are, especially in this newsgroup. This is partially what is at issue here. If all we want to do is see if OBE's can provide information about the physical world in a way that can't be explained by normal means, then this is relatively clear cut and could conceivably be put to scientific test. However, if we allow that some of these experiences might be valid, but do not necessarily relate to what we think of as physical reality as some people claim, then it is not so straight forward any more. It may not even be possible to evaluate such experiences except on a strictly personal level, yet many people are subjected to ridicule or attack for describing such experiences and their interpretations of them in this newsgroup. >For instance, if I said that I could flap my arms vigorously and fly, it >would not be close-minded to reply with ridicule or demands for >substantive evidence -- my claim *is* ridiculous and violates what we >know about reality. Yet people on this group make even more ridiculous >claims (that they literally flew to Mars, or that they heal people with >their thoughts), and react to people who find that absurd with the >accusation that they are "close minded". OTOH, there may well be something to what they are saying. Clearly the example of you flapping your arms is easy to quickly evaluate since we already have a good understanding about the laws of gravity and motion within our physical world. However, since we do not have a good and thorough understanding about what OBE's are and what might be possible in that state, we need to be careful about making assumptions and drawing hasty conclusions about such reports. Your above examples of viewing Mars or healing others might conceivably be put to scientific test since they are purporting to interact with physical reality, but it would be a mistake to automatically assume that such is nonsense and immediately dismiss such a claim just because we don't believe such is possible. A person might also report that they have interacted with a dead relative or friend in an OBE in some seemingly non-physical 'dimension' or place, and that they felt that such an experience was a valid experience. There imay be no way for a person to prove that such an experience was real, but I also think that there is no way to justify ridicule or attacks being directed at such a person for just describing such an experience and giving their personal interpretation of it. /ao May all your thoughts be good ones... ###### From: David Mitchell Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 18:01:23 +0000 Organization: Paradise Computer Software Message-ID: <3C52EEF3.C9A244BD@edenroad.demon.co.uk> References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1012068586 nnrp-08:8773 NO-IDENT edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4-4GB i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 85 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!edenroad.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76919 ao wrote: > > On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:19:55 +0000, David Mitchell > wrote: > > >I have no problem with believing that people experience what they do > >(for all the reasons you give above). What I have a problem with is the > >laughable explanations people concoct for them, and _their_ > >closed-mindedness! > > Hi David, > Such may be laughable to you because you may not fully understand > where a person is coming from, so to speak, or such explanations may > just simply not fit in well with your world view. Our natural first > response is to reject any information coming to us that is > inconsistent with our world view. OTOH, such explanations may well be > total nonsense, but there may turn out to be some degree of truth to > them as well if someone takes the time to try to truly understand what > a person is attempting to say. As I have outlined in another thread, I > think this tendency to quickly dismiss such information is often a > result of our natural belief protection 'mechanisms' kicking in at a > subconscious or unconscious level to help maintain the stability of > our world view. I appreciate all that; but I am still happy to make the value judgement that most of the "traditional" explanations given for both OBE and NDE experiences are completely wrong. I know that make me seem "closed-minded"; but when faced with two explanations, one of which, (a) is entirely consistent with known physics, (and has even sometimes been demonstrated experimentally) and one which (b) is wildly fantastical, I'm afraid I'll pretty much always plump for option (a). I appreciate that this leaves me with the possibility of being wrong; but so long as I'm aware of that, and open to anything which supports (b) over (a), I can live with it, and, more to the point, any research I do in the meantime is likely to be on the right path. > > Likewise it is *equally important* to note that people will tend to > interpret and explain their experiences in a way that makes the most > 'sense' to them and which best fits into their world view. I believe > that the same belief protection mechanisms mentioned above also go > into play when we are processing and interpreting our own experiences, > as I think that experience is really just a source of input of > 'information' and must be filtered through our belief protection > mechanisms like any other information input. This implies that we will > tend to automatically 'reformat' and/or filter any information input > to us to make it best fit into our world views. This implies that our > interpretation of our experiences is to some degree a self-created > version of what happened. Only to a very small extent. While I'm happ=y to accept that we don't remember things which contradict our world view as well as those things which support it (because it's been shown experimentally) I don't think that we actively hallucinate to make the world conform to our beliefs. > > Why do I keep bringing up this point? I do so because I think it is > essential to understand this natural filtering/reformatting/rejection > process and its impact on our openess towards new or controversial > information, and, equally important, on our interpretation of our own > experiences, if we are ever going to move forward with our > understanding of these type of experiences. > > I think the most important considerations are: As I've said before, I'm perfectly happy to accept anyone's experience as genuine until proven otherwise (although I reserve the right to suspect its veracity if it's contradictory or wildly atypical) - it's the explanations I have trouble with. I also think that your guidelines (snipped above) should be applied by the woo-woos even more than the sceptics - we at least will change our minds when presented with incontrovertible evidence. -- ======================================================================= = David - Visit www.thehungersite.com = Mitchell - Feed someone for nothing ======================================================================= ###### From: David Mitchell Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 18:23:40 +0000 Organization: Paradise Computer Software Message-ID: <3C52F42C.A3E16920@edenroad.demon.co.uk> References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1012069681 nnrp-08:9166 NO-IDENT edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4-4GB i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 70 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!opentransit.net!newsfeed.icl.net!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!edenroad.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76871 ao wrote: > > On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:46:39 GMT, pz wrote: > > >My point is that the first filter we apply to new information has to be > >an objective measure of its compatibily with the real world. All too > >often, what happens is that people confuse that with personal bias, or > >"world views". > > Unfortunately not everyone agrees on what the limits of reality are, > especially in this newsgroup. This is partially what is at issue here. > If all we want to do is see if OBE's can provide information about the > physical world in a way that can't be explained by normal means, then > this is relatively clear cut and could conceivably be put to > scientific test. However, if we allow that some of these experiences > might be valid, but do not necessarily relate to what we think of as > physical reality as some people claim, then it is not so straight > forward any more. It may not even be possible to evaluate such > experiences except on a strictly personal level, yet many people are > subjected to ridicule or attack for describing such experiences and > their interpretations of them in this newsgroup. > > >For instance, if I said that I could flap my arms vigorously and fly, it > >would not be close-minded to reply with ridicule or demands for > >substantive evidence -- my claim *is* ridiculous and violates what we > >know about reality. Yet people on this group make even more ridiculous > >claims (that they literally flew to Mars, or that they heal people with > >their thoughts), and react to people who find that absurd with the > >accusation that they are "close minded". > > OTOH, there may well be something to what they are saying. Clearly the > example of you flapping your arms is easy to quickly evaluate since we > already have a good understanding about the laws of gravity and motion > within our physical world. However, since we do not have a good and > thorough understanding about what OBE's are and what might be > possible in that state, we need to be careful about making assumptions > and drawing hasty conclusions about such reports. Your above examples > of viewing Mars or healing others might conceivably be put to > scientific test since they are purporting to interact with physical > reality, but it would be a mistake to automatically assume that such > is nonsense and immediately dismiss such a claim just because we don't > believe such is possible. > > A person might also report that they have interacted with a dead > relative or friend in an OBE in some seemingly non-physical > 'dimension' or place, and that they felt that such an experience was a > valid experience. There imay be no way for a person to prove that such > an experience was real, but I also think that there is no way to > justify ridicule or attacks being directed at such a person for just > describing such an experience and giving their personal interpretation > of it. Actually, I tend to find that the sceptics are generally more polite and debate-focussed than the woo-woos (apart from pz; but then he's..... different ;-). Just recently we've had Louis and his sidekick couscous telling us to sod off out of this newsgroup, Corey telling us "Your all to lazy and weak" (original spelling left in for your amusement), Spazzmodicus telling me that I was "a once great man of science whose mind had become corrupted" or somesuch nonsense (although I did enjoy the "once great bit" ;-). Not that we care, mind you ;-) -- ======================================================================= = David - Visit www.thehungersite.com = Mitchell - Feed someone for nothing ======================================================================= ###### From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 14:25:04 -0500 Lines: 69 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 NNTP-Posting-Host: nopics.sjc Message-ID: <3c5302c2_1@nopics.sjc> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!41088!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!telocity-west!DirecTV-DSL!nopics.sjc!directvdsl.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77424 Hi Jaza, Thanks for the clarifications. "Jaza" wrote in message news:a2tq1l$es3$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au... [...] > The four quantum numbers are represented by n, l, m(l) and m(s). n > representing the electron shell the electron belongs to, I was attempting to generalize. Of course, n is the "energy quantum" and can be translated to frequency if one knows the particle's mass and the shape of the bounding field. [...] > If anything has enough force, > say for example, if I threw a ball hard enough up, it would break through > the atmosphere, and escape into outer space. I would not consider this ball > 'out of body', I would simply consider the ball to contain enough energy to > be able to escape the clutches of a weaker force. I wouldn't either. [...] > Radiation basically bounces around, > dissipates, etc, if it has nothing 'directing' it - in other words, if we > (when out of body) were simply made up of the underlying energy of > electrons, we would quickly dissipate, or absorb into matter. Energy > becomes more chaotic when outside of a 'system'. We need to be careful here. The wave functions of photons and electrons will slowly spread out in free space until they collapse during their next permanent energy exchange with other free wave functions. This if still a far cry from chaos. Dispite this spreading effect these quanta retain their original identities of energy, momentum and spin. My point is not that I think souls are made out of photons or electrons (quite the contrary), instead I am trying to show the openness of current physical theories to the possibility of explaining a wide range of phenomena. > It is almost impossible to > assume that the energy underlying matter is the essence of the 'soul', This part I agree with, but only because this underlying energy follows E = hf rule which puts severe mass and energy limits on anything that is constructed out of higher frequencies. > because, effectively, the energy which would compose a 'soul' would be > outside a 'system', and its energy would be chaotic, ie, everywhere. > Conclusion - of course matter may also be considered to contain wave > properties, but that doesn't allow it to simply fit into the 'OBE' model. What I'm hearing you say is that only atoms, their subcomponents and photons exist in this Universe. IMO, physics doesn't imply this. I don't know any OBE theorists who are searching for standard "material" explanations for the reported phenomena. OTOH, I do know of physicists who are searching for other (as yet undetected) forms of matter (beyond muonium and positronium). They would certainly be insulted if someone tried to imply that the current laws of physics somehow proved that additional stable self-bound wave states were impossible. Wm ###### From: none@spam.is.not.nice.org (ao) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3C52EEF3.C9A244BD@edenroad.demon.co.uk> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 99 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 20:42:14 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.92.71.94 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1012077718 65.92.71.94 (Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:41:58 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:41:58 EST Organization: Bell Sympatico Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!torn!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77000 On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 18:01:23 +0000, David Mitchell wrote: >ao wrote: >> >> On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 08:19:55 +0000, David Mitchell >> wrote: >> >> >I have no problem with believing that people experience what they do >> >(for all the reasons you give above). What I have a problem with is the >> >laughable explanations people concoct for them, and _their_ >> >closed-mindedness! >> >> Hi David, >> Such may be laughable to you because you may not fully understand >> where a person is coming from, so to speak, or such explanations may >> just simply not fit in well with your world view. Our natural first >> response is to reject any information coming to us that is >> inconsistent with our world view. OTOH, such explanations may well be >> total nonsense, but there may turn out to be some degree of truth to >> them as well if someone takes the time to try to truly understand what >> a person is attempting to say. As I have outlined in another thread, I >> think this tendency to quickly dismiss such information is often a >> result of our natural belief protection 'mechanisms' kicking in at a >> subconscious or unconscious level to help maintain the stability of >> our world view. > >I appreciate all that; but I am still happy to make the value judgement >that most of the "traditional" explanations given for both OBE and NDE >experiences are completely wrong. I don't have a problem with that. >>I know that make me seem "closed-minded"; but when faced with two >explanations, one of which, (a) is entirely consistent with known >physics, (and has even sometimes been demonstrated experimentally) and >one which (b) is wildly fantastical, I'm afraid I'll pretty much always >plump for option (a). Naw, not close minded necessarily, just expressing your point of view. But is (a) entirely consistent with the reported experiences? Sure such are only anecdotal evidence, but such evidence does make me at least hesitate to jump to conclusions. >I appreciate that this leaves me with the possibility of being wrong; >but so long as I'm aware of that, and open to anything which supports >(b) over (a), I can live with it, and, more to the point, any research I >do in the meantime is likely to be on the right path. > >> >> Likewise it is *equally important* to note that people will tend to >> interpret and explain their experiences in a way that makes the most >> 'sense' to them and which best fits into their world view. I believe >> that the same belief protection mechanisms mentioned above also go >> into play when we are processing and interpreting our own experiences, >> as I think that experience is really just a source of input of >> 'information' and must be filtered through our belief protection >> mechanisms like any other information input. This implies that we will >> tend to automatically 'reformat' and/or filter any information input >> to us to make it best fit into our world views. This implies that our >> interpretation of our experiences is to some degree a self-created >> version of what happened. > >Only to a very small extent. While I'm happ=y to accept that we don't >remember things which contradict our world view as well as those things >which support it (because it's been shown experimentally) I don't think >that we actively hallucinate to make the world conform to our beliefs. Well, I didn't mean to suggest that this makes us hallucinate anything, just that our interpretation of events is a version of what happened, a version that can be more than a little colored by our beliefs, in my opinion. >As I've said before, I'm perfectly happy to accept anyone's experience >as genuine until proven otherwise (although I reserve the right to >suspect its veracity if it's contradictory or wildly atypical) - it's >the explanations I have trouble with. I was merely pointing out that it may be a mistake to immediately dismiss someone's description of an experience based on their interpretation, since from my point of view it goes without saying that their interpretation of the experience will be colored by their beliefs. In other words a Christian might describe an unusual exerience in Christian terms and concepts, a skeptic in terms of functions or malfunctions of the brain, an occultist in terms ofetc. However, to give the experience a fair evaluation, we need to be patient enough to take the time to try to separate the details of the experience from the interpretation. >I also think that your guidelines (snipped above) should be applied by >the woo-woos even more than the sceptics - we at least will change our >minds when presented with incontrovertible evidence. I think I will refrain from comment on that one. :-) /ao May all your thoughts be good ones... ###### From: "Jaza" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 07:37:07 +1000 Organization: University of Queensland Lines: 82 Message-ID: References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3c5302c2_1@nopics.sjc> NNTP-Posting-Host: d-232-68.stlucia.uq.net.au X-Trace: bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au 1012080941 26510 203.101.232.68 (26 Jan 2002 21:35:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@uq.edu.au NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Jan 2002 21:35:41 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!torn!enews.sgi.com!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76847 > > The four quantum numbers are represented by n, l, m(l) and m(s). n > > representing the electron shell the electron belongs to, > > I was attempting to generalize. Of course, n is the "energy quantum" and > can be translated to frequency if one knows the particle's mass and the > shape of the bounding field. In a general and roundabout way, but then I would find it pretty unlikely to find a specific 'signature' for 2 completely distinct atoms of the same atomic number, and same energy state - ie, I couldn't be given 2 atoms of the same atomic number, in a serial order, and deduce that the 2 are different. I would doubt that the energy state of atoms in the body is altered during a so-called 'out of body experience' - we would visibly change as a result - our colour. > [...] > > Radiation basically bounces around, > > dissipates, etc, if it has nothing 'directing' it - in other words, if we > > (when out of body) were simply made up of the underlying energy of > > electrons, we would quickly dissipate, or absorb into matter. Energy > > becomes more chaotic when outside of a 'system'. > > We need to be careful here. The wave functions of photons and electrons > will slowly spread out in free space until they collapse during their next > permanent energy exchange with other free wave functions. This if still > a far cry from chaos. Dispite this spreading effect these quanta retain > their original identities of energy, momentum and spin. My point is not What's difficult about 'waves' and 'frequencies' in this problem, is just that - the energy becomes exchanged with systems too readily - it is too easily absorbed into other systems, or even atoms. Take an electron from one atom, and put it into another atom which is of a different atomic number, and the electron will assume a completely different quantum number, momentum, etc. > that I think souls are made out of photons or electrons (quite the > contrary), > instead I am trying to show the openness of current physical theories to > the possibility of explaining a wide range of phenomena. Yes, of course - but I think we need to look deeper to understand this kind of phenomenon. > > because, effectively, the energy which would compose a 'soul' would be > > outside a 'system', and its energy would be chaotic, ie, everywhere. > > Conclusion - of course matter may also be considered to contain wave > > properties, but that doesn't allow it to simply fit into the 'OBE' model. > > What I'm hearing you say is that only atoms, their subcomponents > and photons exist in this Universe. IMO, physics doesn't imply this. No, it's not what I'm saying - I'm suggesting we need to look deeper than atomic 'frequencies' and waves, if we would want to try and understand the so-called 'soul' - simply because we have a supporting, 'closed system', and the decay of the body would certainly open this 'closed system', and allow the atoms and energy to be recycled into the earth, dissipate into the air, etc. Einstein once said that at death, we become pure energy - which in essence we really do - but is that energy stable enough to retain its identity? > I don't know any OBE theorists who are searching for standard > "material" explanations for the reported phenomena. OTOH, I do > know of physicists who are searching for other (as yet undetected) > forms of matter (beyond muonium and positronium). They would > certainly be insulted if someone tried to imply that the current laws > of physics somehow proved that additional stable self-bound > wave states were impossible. Self-bound wave states are still a problem all of their own - would these wave states be unalterable by other systems, and by other waves of their own kind? Or would they be uncorruptable, and able to continue to keep their identity and structure? It is difficult to understand anything as 'permanent'. ###### From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 20:53:10 -0500 Lines: 31 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 NNTP-Posting-Host: nopics.sjc Message-ID: <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!6198856!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!telocity-west!DirecTV-DSL!nopics.sjc!directvdsl.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77612 "David Mitchell" wrote in message news:3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk... [...] > I was asking whether the "traditional" explanation for "higher planes" > (that they're successively higher "octaves", if you like, of matter) > made any sense. From your explanation, I think not. Certainly not electrons and hf "flavored" photons, but when we learn to think in terms of interacting wave functions instead of particles then the concept of orthogonal or independant systems becomes much easier to comprehend and mathematically model. [...] > I have no problem with believing that people experience what they do > (for all the reasons you give above). What I have a problem with is the > laughable explanations people concoct for them, and _their_ > closed-mindedness! I often wish there were more projectors who could understand the potential value of a pure phenomenological analysis of all the reported OOB anecdotes. IOW, throw away all interpretations and simply study the statistics of these subjective reports. The problem, IMO, is that the human mind has evolved to create and record internal models not record pure data. IOW, we all tend to jump to conclusions, its in our nature. :) Wm ###### From: Janice Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 00:24:50 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-907.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!85882!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews2 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77255 In article <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc>, CUTwbliss@telocity.com says... > I often wish there were more projectors who could understand the > potential value of a pure phenomenological analysis of all the > reported OOB anecdotes. IOW, throw away all interpretations and > simply study the statistics of these subjective reports. The problem, > IMO, is that the human mind has evolved to create and record internal > models not record pure data. IOW, we all tend to jump to conclusions, > its in our nature. :) Have you finally been reading my book? ;-) -- It's lonely at the top. But it's comforting to look down upon everyone at the bottom.--Despair, Inc. My homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/ced.html The alt.out-of-body newsgroup homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html The alt.dreams.lucid newsgroup homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/home.html ###### From: David Mitchell Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 08:14:36 +0000 Organization: Paradise Computer Software Message-ID: <3C53B6EC.6B8A5001@edenroad.demon.co.uk> References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3C52EEF3.C9A244BD@edenroad.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1012121834 nnrp-01:18297 NO-IDENT edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4-4GB i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 55 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!46142!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!edenroad.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76881 ao wrote: > > On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 18:01:23 +0000, David Mitchell > wrote: > > >>I know that make me seem "closed-minded"; but when faced with two > >explanations, one of which, (a) is entirely consistent with known > >physics, (and has even sometimes been demonstrated experimentally) and > >one which (b) is wildly fantastical, I'm afraid I'll pretty much always > >plump for option (a). > > Naw, not close minded necessarily, just expressing your point of view. > But is (a) entirely consistent with the reported experiences? Sure > such are only anecdotal evidence, but such evidence does make me at > least hesitate to jump to conclusions. Agreed, that's why I said what I did below. > > >I appreciate that this leaves me with the possibility of being wrong; > >but so long as I'm aware of that, and open to anything which supports > >(b) over (a), I can live with it, and, more to the point, any research I > >do in the meantime is likely to be on the right path. > > > >> to us to make it best fit into our world views. This implies that our > >> interpretation of our experiences is to some degree a self-created > >> version of what happened. > > > >Only to a very small extent. While I'm happ=y to accept that we don't > >remember things which contradict our world view as well as those things > >which support it (because it's been shown experimentally) I don't think > >that we actively hallucinate to make the world conform to our beliefs. > > Well, I didn't mean to suggest that this makes us hallucinate > anything, just that our interpretation of events is a version of what > happened, a version that can be more than a little colored by our > beliefs, in my opinion. Agreed, sorry for misunderstanding you. -- ======================================================================= = David - Visit www.thehungersite.com = Mitchell - Feed someone for nothing ======================================================================= ###### From: David Mitchell Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 08:52:02 +0000 Organization: Paradise Computer Software Message-ID: <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk> References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> Reply-To: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1012121839 nnrp-01:18297 NO-IDENT edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4-4GB i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 86 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!80792531!news.imp.ch!psinet-eu-nl!news.ebone.net!news1.ebone.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!edenroad.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76880 Janice wrote: > > In article <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc>, CUTwbliss@telocity.com says... > > > I often wish there were more projectors who could understand the > > potential value of a pure phenomenological analysis of all the > > reported OOB anecdotes. IOW, throw away all interpretations and > > simply study the statistics of these subjective reports. The problem, > > IMO, is that the human mind has evolved to create and record internal > > models not record pure data. IOW, we all tend to jump to conclusions, > > its in our nature. :) > > Have you finally been reading my book? ;-) I have an idea... (actually it's something I always wanted to produce for "abductees", but it'd be useful here too, I think). What if it were possible, between us, to produce a "checklist" a set of guidelines for those OBE capable to use when "out" which would gather information about what it is they are perceiving. There could be sections to describe the enviroment, animate and inanimate objects, procedures used etc (basically all of the things that I want to observe when and if I get "out") For example, (just off the top of my head) ============================================================================ The Environment --------------- Is it illuminated, if so by what? Is there apparent atmosphere? Does it have limited spatial extent, if so, what bounds it, if not, how far can you "see"? Are any other senses working? (smell, touch, hearing) Is it stable when observed? Does it remain stable when not observed (for example, if you rotate or obscure your viewpoint do the things you were originally perceiving remain the same) Inanimate Objects ----------------- If there is illumination, are there shadows? Is the object stable when observed/not observed? When you get "closer" does it reveal more detail? If it can be moved, do all sides of it appear real (and do any shadows move consistently) Animate objects --------------- a) Sub-human level intelligence ------------------------------- Do these show any tropisms (moving towards or away from any phenomena you can generate, such as movement or noise, or external phenomena, such as light). Do they react to you in any way, if so, is it consistent? Can you change their behaviour in any way (by acting passively, or aggressively, for example). b) Human or above level intelligence ------------------------------------ Do they pass a Turing test? (ie. do their responses make sense in context, do they appear to remember either earlier parts of conversation or earlier conversations). Do they display any knowledge of real-world events? Do they appear to have a sense of self? Do they have a personal history, and does it make sense? Can they tell you anything verifiable which you do not already know? ============================================================================ So, what do you think? Is this worth doing? How should it be changed to make it more useful? -- ======================================================================= = David - Visit www.thehungersite.com = Mitchell - Feed someone for nothing ======================================================================= ###### From: Ian H Spedding Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 13:43:49 -0000 Message-ID: References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk> X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-225-26-127.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com X-Trace: 27 Jan 2002 13:40:45 GMT, ppp-225-26-127.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com Lines: 84 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com!ppp-225-26-127.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77099 In article <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk>, david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says... [...] > I have an idea... (actually it's something I always wanted to produce > for "abductees", but it'd be useful here too, I think). > > What if it were possible, between us, to produce a "checklist" a set of > guidelines for those OBE capable to use when "out" which would gather > information about what it is they are perceiving. > > There could be sections to describe the enviroment, animate and > inanimate objects, procedures used etc (basically all of the things that > I want to observe when and if I get "out") > > For example, (just off the top of my head) > > ============================================================================ > > The Environment > --------------- > > Is it illuminated, if so by what? > Is there apparent atmosphere? > Does it have limited spatial extent, if so, what bounds it, if not, how > far can you "see"? > Are any other senses working? (smell, touch, hearing) > Is it stable when observed? > Does it remain stable when not observed (for example, if you rotate or > obscure your viewpoint do the things you were originally perceiving > remain the same) > > Inanimate Objects > ----------------- > > If there is illumination, are there shadows? > Is the object stable when observed/not observed? > When you get "closer" does it reveal more detail? > If it can be moved, do all sides of it appear real (and do any shadows > move consistently) > > Animate objects > --------------- > > a) Sub-human level intelligence > ------------------------------- > > Do these show any tropisms (moving towards or away from any phenomena > you can generate, such as movement or noise, or external phenomena, such > as light). > Do they react to you in any way, if so, is it consistent? Can you > change their behaviour in any way (by acting passively, or aggressively, > for example). > > b) Human or above level intelligence > ------------------------------------ > > Do they pass a Turing test? (ie. do their responses make sense in > context, do they appear to remember either earlier parts of conversation > or earlier conversations). > Do they display any knowledge of real-world events? > Do they appear to have a sense of self? > Do they have a personal history, and does it make sense? > Can they tell you anything verifiable which you do not already know? > > ============================================================================ > > So, what do you think? Is this worth doing? How should it be changed > to make it more useful? This is more like it! It's an excellent idea. The first stage in any research programme is to compile a database of observations. Further than that, a large enough set of formatted accounts could be useful to any researchers in this field. Ian - Ian H Spedding What did the mystic say to the hot-dog vendor? Make me one with everything. Lawrence Kushman ###### From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 09:29:11 -0500 Lines: 16 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 NNTP-Posting-Host: nopics.sjc Message-ID: <3c540eeb_1@nopics.sjc> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!44215!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!telocity-west!DirecTV-DSL!nopics.sjc!directvdsl.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77482 Hi Queeny "Janice" wrote in message [...] > Have you finally been reading my book? ;-) I have skimmed it enough to know I like it and to recommend it but I'm embarrassed to admit I haven't had the time to read it at a careful depth from whence I can state my counter arguments. Don't feel bad, I haven't finished Robert Bruce either. Wm ###### From: Janice Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 10:12:05 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3c540eeb_1@nopics.sjc> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-822.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!64.245.249.35.MISMATCH!lax2-feed1.news.digex.net!atl1-feed1.news.digex.net!dca6-feed2.news.digex.net!intermedia!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!cyclone.swbell.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews2 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77405 In article <3c540eeb_1@nopics.sjc>, CUTwbliss@telocity.com says... > Hi Queeny > > "Janice" wrote in message > [...] > > Have you finally been reading my book? ;-) > > I have skimmed it enough to know I like it and to recommend it > but I'm embarrassed to admit I haven't had the time to read it at > a careful depth from whence I can state my counter arguments. > > Don't feel bad, I haven't finished Robert Bruce either. Am I still under that guy? ;-) -- It's lonely at the top. But it's comforting to look down upon everyone at the bottom.--Despair, Inc. My homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/ced.html The alt.out-of-body newsgroup homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html The alt.dreams.lucid newsgroup homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/home.html ###### From: Janice Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:59:07 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-353.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!1526705!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.cwix.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews1 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77416 In article <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk>, david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says... > I have an idea... (actually it's something I always wanted to produce > for "abductees", but it'd be useful here too, I think). You're lucky I saw this. My newsreader didn't pull it in using my regular server. I just happened to spot it while reading over Jay's shoulder. He's using the same server, news reader, and Internet account on his computer, so I have no idea why he got it and I didn't, unless perhaps I've got a corrupt database and need to rebuild it. But, anyway, I have access to a second server so here I am. > What if it were possible, between us, to produce a "checklist" a set of > guidelines for those OBE capable to use when "out" which would gather > information about what it is they are perceiving. This is all good stuff. There is a problem, though: memory limitations. It would be difficult to remember to look into all these things during an OBE, and to remember all the results after waking up. > So, what do you think? I think you should get along better with Jay. ;) This is well in line with the experimental approach that he enjoyed taking towards his lucid dreams. > Is this worth doing? How should it be changed > to make it more useful? Because of the memory issue, I think it would be better to concentrate on one group of questions at a time, to investigate the environment in one series of OBEs, dream characters in another, and so on. -- It's lonely at the top. But it's comforting to look down upon everyone at the bottom.--Despair, Inc. My homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/ced.html The alt.out-of-body newsgroup homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html The alt.dreams.lucid newsgroup homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/home.html ###### From: David Mitchell Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 06:55:13 +0000 Organization: Paradise Computer Software Message-ID: <3C54F5D1.82FC7BD9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1012202117 nnrp-08:9870 NO-IDENT edenroad.demon.co.uk:194.222.39.57 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.4-4GB i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 31 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!edenroad.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:76912 Janice wrote: > > > > What if it were possible, between us, to produce a "checklist" a set of > > guidelines for those OBE capable to use when "out" which would gather > > information about what it is they are perceiving. > > This is all good stuff. There is a problem, though: memory limitations. > It would be difficult to remember to look into all these things during an > OBE, and to remember all the results after waking up. Does memory work differently during OBE? > > > Is this worth doing? How should it be changed > > to make it more useful? > > Because of the memory issue, I think it would be better to concentrate on > one group of questions at a time, to investigate the environment in one > series of OBEs, dream characters in another, and so on. Good Idea. -- ======================================================================= = David - Visit www.thehungersite.com = Mitchell - Feed someone for nothing ======================================================================= ###### From: Janice Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:10:52 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-096.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!feeder.qis.net!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77160 In article , not-me@not- here.net says... > In article <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk>, > david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says... > > > I have an idea... (actually it's something I always wanted to produce > > for "abductees", but it'd be useful here too, I think). > > You're lucky I saw this. My newsreader didn't pull it in using my > regular server. I just happened to spot it while reading over Jay's > shoulder. He's using the same server, news reader, and Internet account > on his computer, so I have no idea why he got it and I didn't, unless > perhaps I've got a corrupt database and need to rebuild it. I guess that's what it was. I unsubbed from all groups on this server, removed the server itself, then added everything back, and now I've gotten several posts that I didn't get using this server earlier today. Now I just have to figure out why my crosspost filters are suddenly no longer working when using my other server. :) -- It's lonely at the top. But it's comforting to look down upon everyone at the bottom.--Despair, Inc. My homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/ced.html The alt.out-of-body newsgroup homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html The alt.dreams.lucid newsgroup homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/home.html ###### From: Janice Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 05:17:24 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3C54F5D1.82FC7BD9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-916.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews1 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77317 In article <3C54F5D1.82FC7BD9@edenroad.demon.co.uk>, david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says... > Janice wrote: > > This is all good stuff. There is a problem, though: memory limitations. > > It would be difficult to remember to look into all these things during an > > OBE, and to remember all the results after waking up. > > Does memory work differently during OBE? Some people claim to have crystal-clear memories and thought processes during OBEs and LDs, but I tyically do not. I can forget experiment intentions, have a terrible time trying to remember recent waking events, and quickly forget details of the incident after waking. I'm lucky if I can remember so much as a line of a song or speech, in particular. -- It's lonely at the top. But it's comforting to look down upon everyone at the bottom.--Despair, Inc. My homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/ced.html The alt.out-of-body newsgroup homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html The alt.dreams.lucid newsgroup homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/home.html ###### From: Ian H Spedding Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:46:13 -0000 Message-ID: References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk> X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-225-29-173.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com X-Trace: 28 Jan 2002 16:43:06 GMT, ppp-225-29-173.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com Lines: 42 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.icl.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com!ppp-225-29-173.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77186 In article , not-me@not- here.net says... > In article , not-me@not- > here.net says... > > In article <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk>, > > david@edenroad.demon.co.uk says... > > > > > I have an idea... (actually it's something I always wanted to produce > > > for "abductees", but it'd be useful here too, I think). > > > > You're lucky I saw this. My newsreader didn't pull it in using my > > regular server. I just happened to spot it while reading over Jay's > > shoulder. He's using the same server, news reader, and Internet account > > on his computer, so I have no idea why he got it and I didn't, unless > > perhaps I've got a corrupt database and need to rebuild it. > > I guess that's what it was. I unsubbed from all groups on this server, > removed the server itself, then added everything back, and now I've > gotten several posts that I didn't get using this server earlier today. > Now I just have to figure out why my crosspost filters are suddenly no > longer working when using my other server. :) My ISP virtually ground to a halt over the weekend. Web, email and Usenet down to a trickle, that's when I could get on at all. When I finally managed to get on to their site the Service Status board said their network operations centre was under a Denial of Service attack which they were trying to sort out. The odd thing was that I have a PAYG account with another provider as a backup but that was stalled as well. Anyway, they must have cleared the problem because I was deluged with 110 posts this morning. Ian - Ian H Spedding What did the mystic say to the hot-dog vendor? Make me one with everything. Lawrence Kushman ###### From: "Louis Ruiz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3C54F5D1.82FC7BD9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: etheric projection Lines: 39 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: X-Trace: /b/VKXRImBNW+rjR4D2D3WTdBK/w8xgirHq9HDXGHu9ND9i1a/AMXbukZXzysMQwXsI+35Nj3cgq!SjKIPgH0DmxNxm6dU8zVNyEmXsnn210RpNsyNsZzQBGzZRCxmfYamr8n5z5z73oOqnTbjHKSDSb+!dhFuTwXRlQ== 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, 28 Jan 2002 19:13:29 GMT Distribution: world Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:13:29 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!37971!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:77270 "David Mitchell" wrote in message news:3C54F5D1.82FC7BD9@edenroad.demon.co.uk... > Janice wrote: > > > > > > > > What if it were possible, between us, to produce a "checklist" a set of > > > guidelines for those OBE capable to use when "out" which would gather > > > information about what it is they are perceiving. > > > > This is all good stuff. There is a problem, though: memory limitations. > > It would be difficult to remember to look into all these things during an > > OBE, and to remember all the results after waking up. > > Does memory work differently during OBE? > > > > > > Is this worth doing? How should it be changed > > > to make it more useful? > > > > Because of the memory issue, I think it would be better to concentrate on > > one group of questions at a time, to investigate the environment in one > > series of OBEs, dream characters in another, and so on. > > Good Idea. > ****There is no memory problems in obes or atleast in my obe's .I do seem to have memory problems in dreams though. Heck while obe I've recited my social security # , street address, and a whole host of info. Analytical capabilities are still there during my obes as a matter of fact, mentally I feel as if though I am still physical except that I can't normally touch physical objects.Try to imagine if all of the sudden you could fly physically with no degredation of consciousness. This is what it feels like. ###### From: Janice Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:30:05 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-823.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!31919!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77390 In article , ian_spamding@lineone.net says... > My ISP virtually ground to a halt over the weekend. Web, email and > Usenet down to a trickle, that's when I could get on at all. > > When I finally managed to get on to their site the Service Status > board said their network operations centre was under a Denial of > Service attack which they were trying to sort out. The odd thing was > that I have a PAYG account with another provider as a backup but that > was stalled as well. > > Anyway, they must have cleared the problem because I was deluged with > 110 posts this morning. LOL, yes, it's been a bit ... active here of late. -- Until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore, you will not know the terror of being forever lost at sea.--Despair, Inc. My homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/ced.html The alt.out-of-body newsgroup homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html The alt.dreams.lucid newsgroup homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/home.html ###### From: Janice Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:40:18 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3C54F5D1.82FC7BD9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-194.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!8636502!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.cwix.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!cyclone.swbell.net!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77171 In article , louis_ruiz@hotmail.com says... > ****There is no memory problems in obes or atleast in my obe's .I do seem to > have memory problems in dreams though. Heck while obe I've recited my social > security # , street address, and a whole host of info. That kind of material I don't have a problem with. It's memories of the previous day's events that are most elusive. > Analytical > capabilities are still there during my obes as a matter of fact, mentally I > feel as if though I am still physical except that I can't normally touch > physical objects.Try to imagine if all of the sudden you could fly > physically with no degredation of consciousness. This is what it feels like. Yeah, it feels like that even in regular lucid dreams, but I can wake from those and realize that during the dream I misremembered important details of a familiar scene, thinking they were accurate when they weren't. We've talked about this on the NG in the past. There's human variation on this score. For instance one person had no detectable memory or critical thinking issues in her OBEs, but her regular lucid dreams were markedly semilucid. I'm not quite as sharp in my OBEs as she is, but much sharper than she is in my best LDs. -- Until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore, you will not know the terror of being forever lost at sea.--Despair, Inc. My homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/ced.html The alt.out-of-body newsgroup homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html The alt.dreams.lucid newsgroup homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/home.html ###### From: Ian H Spedding Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 01:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk> X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-5-158.5800-5.access.uk.worldonline.com X-Trace: 29 Jan 2002 01:37:55 GMT, ppp-5-158.5800-5.access.uk.worldonline.com Lines: 30 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!nerim.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com!ppp-5-158.5800-5.access.uk.worldonline.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77060 In article , not-me@not- here.net says... > In article , > ian_spamding@lineone.net says... > > > My ISP virtually ground to a halt over the weekend. Web, email and > > Usenet down to a trickle, that's when I could get on at all. > > > > When I finally managed to get on to their site the Service Status > > board said their network operations centre was under a Denial of > > Service attack which they were trying to sort out. The odd thing was > > that I have a PAYG account with another provider as a backup but that > > was stalled as well. > > > > Anyway, they must have cleared the problem because I was deluged with > > 110 posts this morning. > > LOL, yes, it's been a bit ... active here of late. Second download 95, third download 47. Total 252. In one day! What is the _matter_ with you people!? :) Ian -- Ian H Spedding What did the mystic say to the hot-dog vendor? Make me one with everything. Lawrence Kushman ###### From: Jay Vogelsong Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 19:44:01 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3C54F5D1.82FC7BD9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-219.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator-maxim!feed.newsfeeds.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:77251 Louis wrote: > ****There is no memory problems in obes or atleast in my obe's .I do seem to > have memory problems in dreams though. Heck while obe I've recited my social > security # , street address, and a whole host of info. Analytical > capabilities are still there during my obes as a matter of fact, mentally I > feel as if though I am still physical except that I can't normally touch > physical objects. Janice, Ruth and I did memory experiments in our lucid dreams and found we could remember such things as our names, ages, professions, addresses and so on. We also recited poems from memory. This of course is in contrast to regular dreams where we may forget much basic information. (We also found it difficult to remember what happened to us the day before in real life, a very interesting specific lapse in memory.) So in dreaming there is a range of memories possible, assumably depending on variations in brain chemistry. ###### From: "Louis Ruiz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3C54F5D1.82FC7BD9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: etheric projection Lines: 28 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: X-Trace: /KHlxO2WrAlh2LHs//kZ/lwTwbupDNf83ksO5DAms8ZZ8vSDZPRVmBN6yzPZ8LIrHJTxmJ/7Lrhj!4kpyMv00hzrqlhuoxxkd8vMK79gaA2473w/EuJ5MLSnVlYg3Xi9WtWxl2ytUZAE+0pejNrOMDxRV!1Nx9IOT+GA== 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, 30 Jan 2002 16:36:07 GMT Distribution: world Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:36:08 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator-maxim!feed.newsfeeds.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!131.119.28.146!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:78115 "Jay Vogelsong" wrote in message news:MPG.16c10bd9236f2c099896fa@cnews.newsguy.com... > Louis wrote: > > ****There is no memory problems in obes or atleast in my obe's .I do seem to > > have memory problems in dreams though. Heck while obe I've recited my social > > security # , street address, and a whole host of info. Analytical > > capabilities are still there during my obes as a matter of fact, mentally I > > feel as if though I am still physical except that I can't normally touch > > physical objects. > > Janice, Ruth and I did memory experiments in our lucid dreams and found > we could remember such things as our names, ages, professions, addresses > and so on. We also recited poems from memory. This of course is in > contrast to regular dreams where we may forget much basic information. > (We also found it difficult to remember what happened to us the day > before in real life, a very interesting specific lapse in memory.) So in > dreaming there is a range of memories possible, assumably depending on > variations in brain chemistry. ****that's pretty interesting, thank you -Louis ###### From: Janice Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: etheric projection Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:29:48 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 35 Message-ID: References: <7qN38.20$WJ.35451@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> <3C4FBDA9.F968F859@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5040ee$1_2@nopics.sjc> <3C518888.605A80A9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c5257aa$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C5266AB.86FBBD6E@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3c535dba$1_1@nopics.sjc> <3C53BFB2.773014BB@edenroad.demon.co.uk> <3C54F5D1.82FC7BD9@edenroad.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-462.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!transit.news.xs4all.nl!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:78344 In article , louis_ruiz@hotmail.com says... > > "Jay Vogelsong" wrote in message > news:MPG.16c10bd9236f2c099896fa@cnews.newsguy.com... > > Janice, Ruth and I did memory experiments in our lucid dreams and found > > we could remember such things as our names, ages, professions, addresses > > and so on. We also recited poems from memory. This of course is in > > contrast to regular dreams where we may forget much basic information. > > (We also found it difficult to remember what happened to us the day > > before in real life, a very interesting specific lapse in memory.) So in > > dreaming there is a range of memories possible, assumably depending on > > variations in brain chemistry. > > > ****that's pretty interesting, thank you > -Louis Another thing I had trouble with was reciting the 4X multiplication table in a lucid dream. -- Until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore, you will not know the terror of being forever lost at sea.--Despair, Inc. My homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/ced.html The alt.out-of-body newsgroup homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html The alt.dreams.lucid newsgroup homepage: http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/home.html