Near Death and Out of Body Experiences

File attachment.

File did not attach to last post.
 

Attachments

  • UICDData.jpg
    UICDData.jpg
    96.7 KB · Views: 42
annnnoid said:
Are you folks really that incapable of supporting your own claims????

Is there, or is there not, some variety of science that has the capacity to directly adjudicate / quantify the phenomenon we experience as ‘love’.

My claim is very simple: no.
Click to expand...

And you are wrong.

Define "love", and we can necessarily study it scientifically. That you do not have a sufficiently rigorous definition is not a blow against science, as you pretend it to be. As it is, we still determine that love exists through observation, though the definitions and conclusions are necessarily vague. We can observe someone's behavior and ascertain that they are in love within certain bounds of confidence that suffice in day-to-day activity.

But we've already established that you don't recognize differences in degrees of formality within the scientific process. You also see the vagueness of the word "love" as proof that it is impossible to ever know anything about it objectively, which is complete nonsense.

And it's the same thing with your claims of ESP. No definition. No claim. By necessity, no refutation - but you then turn around and argue that, because we cannot refute an undefined claim, then it must be taken as true.

Which is, again, complete nonsense.

annnnoid said:
…but the mechanism is not defined. Not anywhere, anyhow, by anyone.
Click to expand...

Many people have attempted to define it.

These definitions either run up against the laws of physics (the vast majority of cases) or are the equivalent of running your finger over your lips and making "blr-blr-blr" noises.

That you do not attempt to define it does not change this.

And it is in no way a reason to believe that it exists.

annnnoid said:
…interesting isn’t it. This ‘weak’ quote has got everybody running for the bunkers.
Click to expand...

You are deluded.
 
tsig said:
OK, your board has more devices on it but it's still a Ouija board.
Click to expand...

In relation to this process, the more symbols one has the better the communication will be.

Why is the unconscious more knowledgeable than the conscious.
Click to expand...

I find the description 'unconsicous' to be at odds with intelligent conscious communication.

Something which can communicated intelligently is not unconscious.

If you can agree with that then we can perhaps find a place where this can be discussed, examined and likely answers provided.
 
Pixel42 said:
Some schizophrenics say the same thing about the voices in their head. Are they communing with their 'true self'? What about the ones whose voices are cruel and abusive?
Click to expand...

I have not experienced such have you?

I would have to posit that the cruelty would likely be associated with the ego self.

No wait! I do recall as a young child distinctly hearing a nasty male voice in my ear which said 'I hate you'. However that might have been a memory of a real event sometime before it superimposed itself into that particular moment.
I don't know.
My experience re ideomotor and communication is not about hearing voices. No nasty expression has ever been transmitted to me through that process.

Why are you always so vague and evasive? Just explain what you mean. Unless, as I strongly suspect, you don't have the faintest idea what you mean.
Click to expand...
 
Donn said:
Last post before sleep. I have all along been trying to communicate humility to you in your use of the definite things you say.

So, you need not say "false", you can still speak of your experiences, but do two things:
1. When others correct your terms, try to start using the more standard terms. Maverick nouns are painful.
2. When you want to say "What I say is true," say instead, "What I say is true as far as I can see it."

That's it. Too trd for else.
Click to expand...

Good. What I say is true as far as I have experienced it.

Sleep well.
 
Navigator said:
I have not experienced such have you?
Click to expand...
No, but like you I once heard a voice when I was a child. It just said my name.

My experience re ideomotor and communication is not about hearing voices. No nasty expression has ever been transmitted to me through that process.
Click to expand...
The mechanism for communication may be different but the essense of the phenomenon - separating an aspect of your own mind and then seeming to communicate with it - is the same.

Incidentally what you described does not constitute a blindfold test; for that you would need to be unaware of where any of the symbols were as you selected them whether you had consciously memorized them or not.
 
Navigator said:
...
How the symbols translate into intelligent communication is in their collective meanings. Some individual symbols may mean just one word (translated into English) others mean whole paragraphs (also translated into English.)
...
Once the end of the session was reached I could then begin the process of translating the symbol strings into English and from that, determine the content of the communication.
...
Click to expand...

Could you give a couple examples of such translation?
Are the meanings of these symbols always the same or are they dependent on context?
 
annnoid:

You have ignored (or evaded) two questions,to which I would truly appreciate an answer:

1. Where did your friend the graduate student originally publish or post the entire message from which you took the quote that includes the phrase:
I can't think of any evidence or theory that can decisively rule out these two possibilities for the mediums of OBEs...
Click to expand...

I had hopes of hearing from you, that I might read the entirety of the statement, in context.

2. What kind of theoretical physics is your friend the graduate student studying?

Ta ever so...
 
Belz... said:
That's one of the stupidest things you've posted in a while. So what you are saying is that if you ask a question, and I give an answer, you take it as a claim, don't check it or verify it, and assume that it's false. Way to stay ignorant.
Click to expand...


So I am stupid and ignorant…all in one sentence.

Belz... said:
It isn't claimed. It's demonstrated. Science _HAS_ explained a LOT of the physical activity of the brain that generates consciousness. It just hasn't explained it ALL. _YOU_ want to hide in that gap and make it magic. It's your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...


The standard skeptic tactic: claim to have produced evidence on some mythical thread somewhere in the last hundred years.

Here’s one of my pieces of evidence…for those who complain I don’t produce any. From the book Human Brain Function. Written by eight practicing neuroscientists:

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers...

Over to you Belz. What evidence to you have to back up your crap?

….here…why don’t we make it really simple for you.

So far nobody has come up with an answer, but you're sounding real optimistic with your ‘Science _HAS_ explained a LOT of the physical activity of the brain that generates consciousness.’

Does, or does not, science have the explanatory capacity to conclusively and explicitly describe the neural activity that generates the cognitive condition known as the number...

....1.

There, couldn't get much more simple than that. I didn't hit you with complex manifolds, algebraic varieties, sheaves, vector bundles, Kahler manifolds, vanishing theorems, the Kodaira embedding theorem, the Riemann-Roch theorem, or even deformation theory.

Just...the number...1.

….surely….surely…since SCIENCE has explained so much…it must have achieved the ability to map the generation of such a simple cognitive condition.

…surely!

Knock yourself out Belz. If you can’t even manage that…I’m sure not gonna believe science can do all that other crap that you keep screaming about.

Belz... said:
That is a lie. Myself and others have done so but you ignore the answers because they don't fit with what you already believe.
Click to expand...


Wow…so now I’m not only stupid and ignorant, but I’m also a liar. Dontcha think you oughta calm down a bit there Belz.

…amazing really. How often I get this ‘but we’ve already presented the evidence’ crap. But no evidence ever appears…ever.

Belz... said:
Love is chemical. Get over it.
Click to expand...


…but Belz. Have you forgotten so soon???? In a previous thread you and Pixy explicitly agreed that feelings were things in and of themselves.

…so how can it be measured? So far no one has provided an answer. Surely your genius must be up to such a simple task.

tsig said:
Why do you keep dragging out this strawman to pummel?
Click to expand...


Claims are made. Evidence is never produced. Perhaps you can provide some?

Nonpareil said:
And you are wrong.

Define "love", and we can necessarily study it scientifically. That you do not have a sufficiently rigorous definition is not a blow against science, as you pretend it to be. As it is, we still determine that love exists through observation, though the definitions and conclusions are necessarily vague. We can observe someone's behavior and ascertain that they are in love within certain bounds of confidence that suffice in day-to-day activity.
Click to expand...


Love is that which I experience when I experience love. The exact same as it is for everyone else who experiences it.

Precisely what other definition is there for a thing other than the thing itself?

Love….is….love.

Explain how it can be scientifically measured – with actual evidence (FOR ONCE!) – or admit your claims are, as usual, a steaming load of pig droppings.

Nonpareil said:
But we've already established that you don't recognize differences in degrees of formality within the scientific process. You also see the vagueness of the word "love" as proof that it is impossible to ever know anything about it objectively, which is complete nonsense.
Click to expand...


…yet another ‘how can I make it look like I know what I’m talking about when I actually have no idea what I’m talking about’.

Here’s a suggestion Nonpareil:

PRODUCE SOME EVIDENCE!

Nonpareil said:
And it's the same thing with your claims of ESP. No definition. No claim. By necessity, no refutation - but you then turn around and argue that, because we cannot refute an undefined claim, then it must be taken as true.

Which is, again, complete nonsense.
Click to expand...


Illiterate garbage.

Nonpareil said:
Many people have attempted to define it.

These definitions either run up against the laws of physics (the vast majority of cases) or are the equivalent of running your finger over your lips and making "blr-blr-blr" noises.
Click to expand...


I wonder how many times you can avoid a simple question.

There are folks who insist that OBE’s violate the laws of physics. They don’t give a damn whether or not anybody has defined OBE’s beyond what the letters stand for: ‘out of body experience’. They don’t give a damn whether anyone has presented any kind of mechanism. That is all the definition they need to conclude that OBE’s violate the laws of physics. Sean Carroll would be one of those.

Sean Carroll doesn’t care whether they’re defined by three letters or three hundred million letters. He doesn’t care what mechanism anyone comes up with…or doesn’t. Sean Carroll says they violate the laws of physics. Full stop.

Do you agree with Sean Carroll?

Yes…or….no?

Slowvehicle said:
annnoid:

You have ignored (or evaded) two questions,to which I would truly appreciate an answer:

1. Where did your friend the graduate student originally publish or post the entire message from which you took the quote that includes the phrase:

I had hopes of hearing from you, that I might read the entirety of the statement, in context.

2. What kind of theoretical physics is your friend the graduate student studying?

Ta ever so...
Click to expand...


Published in the inbox of my email.

Currently studying stochastic quantization theories and semiclassical gravity.
 
annnnoid said:
...
Love is that which I experience when I experience love. The exact same as it is for everyone else who experiences it.
...
Click to expand...

Are you referring to love for another person (your husband for instance)?
 
Last edited:
annnnoid said:
So I am stupid and ignorant…all in one sentence.
Click to expand...

Nope.

The standard skeptic tactic: claim to have produced evidence on some mythical thread somewhere in the last hundred years.
Click to expand...

The standard denier tactic: ignore answers and claim that no one has provided them.

The very fact that you say no one has answered shows that you are not debating honestly.

Wow…so now I’m not only stupid and ignorant, but I’m also a liar.
Click to expand...

If it bothers you so much, stop doing it.

…but Belz. Have you forgotten so soon???? In a previous thread you and Pixy explicitly agreed that feelings were things in and of themselves.
Click to expand...

Chemical reactions aren't "things" ?

It seems to me that your principal problem is that you can't follow the arguments. I suppose that's why you ignore them and pretend they don't exist: you can't even tell what they mean.
 
Navigator said:
On the contrary. It may compel the one asking to think specifically about what it is exactly they are wanting and whether they are being realistic or simply using the catch phrase as a way of not having to think about that.




If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is no evidence that the process is intelligent and accept that it is just a random thing which happens because of processes which are not evidently intelligent.

In other words it is a favored point of view which you have adopted as true.

So my question, "what kind of evidence would you accept", is valid enough. What would YOU accept as evidence of intelligence (and therefore consciousness) being involved in the process?

If you can give me an indication, , I will be able to ascertain how realistic you are being in your request.




That is contradictory. If you are asking for evidence, you would of course be ignorant of there being any (thus you are asking.) Otherwise you know there is evidence but are not saying so, which is dishonest and slippery.


So in order for me to offer any form of evidence I have to know what kind of evidence you would accept, otherwise whatever I give as evidence can be rejected by you as not being legitimate ie, not fitting nicely into your particular subjective world view.

I have mentioned a couple of examples where I can identify intelligence involved with the process and thus I see as evidence of intelligence and you have rejected those, saying that such things can happen without intelligence. Your ( and anyone's) rejection of that does not mean that I am incorrect or should refrain from seeing intelligence in the process of biological evolution.
Click to expand...

Huh. All those words, and still no evidence offered, just more insistence that someone else tell you what the evidence should be; imagine that. Pixel42 has said everything I would have said, the main point being her "parsimony" post- but then, that's a point that woos can never really seem to grasp. I would add only that one good example of your "theory" that evolution is directed by an intelligence or consciousness would be something like a crocoduck- something that the long, slow, undirected crawl of evolution, as understood, would never result in.

But, as I've said before, instead of all this wordy palavering over what evidence would be acceptable, why not just man up and say what you have? From what I've seen so far, all you have or have offered is inference; prove me wrong. Or don't- it's your investment, not mine.
 
Navigator said:
Do you believe there is any need to remember anything else about them or is this sufficient enough to know you had an experience?
Click to expand...
They were dreams. I feel no more need to remember anything else about them than I do what I was wearing the next day. Sufficiency isn't relevant; I simply have memories of a few particularly striking lucid dreams.

Why do you ask? what makes you feel I might 'need' to remember more?

Therefore in as much as you remember salient points and associated emotions, what is remembered is only a small portion of what was actually experienced.
Click to expand...
Probably.

my experiences were not the same as lucid dreams. The experiences were lucid, but I was not in a dream.
Click to expand...
We all have lucid experiences that occur while we're not dreaming - it's called being awake. What were the circumstances - were you asleep? were you in bed?
 
Daylightstar said:
Are you referring to love for another person (your husband for instance)?
Click to expand...


Love…. Period.

Belz... said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
That's one of the stupidest things you've posted in a while. So what you are saying is that if you ask a question, and I give an answer, you take it as a claim, don't check it or verify it, and assume that it's false. Way to stay ignorant.
Click to expand...


…so this is referring to someone else?

Belz... said:
The standard denier tactic: ignore answers and claim that no one has provided them.

The very fact that you say no one has answered shows that you are not debating honestly.
Click to expand...


…but I didn’t say that now did I Belz. Here…I’ll use your words to describe it:
Belz... said:
That's one of the stupidest ….ignorant.
Click to expand...
Belz... said:
lie (s)
Click to expand...

.. I’m afraid you’ve made the, I’m sure, unintentional mistake of posting here.

If you look back at what I’ve said…over and over and over and over and over and over…I said that certain individuals (typically you and Nonpareil) post answers with no…

…EVIDENCE.

Be sure an let me know when you want to produce some evidence…instead of excuses, complaints, bare assertions, hand-waving, special pleading…y’know…general garbage.

Belz... said:
Chemical reactions aren't "things" ?
Click to expand...


Oh no! I’m sure hoping we’re not going to have to open this can of worms again. On a previous thread both you and Nonpareil and Pixy and others agreed that feelings exist as things in and of themselves.

Have you now changed your mind????

When you experience the phenomenon known as ‘love’ (assuming you do of course), do you experience ‘love’…or do you experience exphalodimetaimpoduotriquantadypllloxxiphetamdooploploplopploplop (or whatever it is)?

Belz... said:
It seems to me that your principal problem is that you can't follow the arguments. I suppose that's why you ignore them and pretend they don't exist: you can't even tell what they mean.
Click to expand...


Oh no…more insults and ridicule.

I suppose it would, as usual, be too much to ask that you provide some EVIDENCE to support these claims.

…which arguments can’t I follow? Which arguments do I ignore? Which arguments do I not comprehend?

Unless you can provide evidence the invisible moderator in the sky is going to have assume you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

BTW Belz….I noticed you didn’t provide an answer to the ‘number 1’ thingy. What’s up with that? Has science not yet arrived at an explanation for something as immeasurably, incomprehensibly, indisputably, indescribably, simple, straightforward, elementary, and basic…

…as

…..the

…….number

………1…!

(BTW…’yes’ does not qualify as an answer)

Come on now...did you or did you not say the following:

Belz... said:
Science _HAS_ explained a LOT of the physical activity of the brain that generates consciousness.
Click to expand...


(...that's called an academic question...quite obviously you said it)

Since, as you insist, science is so far along in it's understanding of how the brain generates consciousness....it must have arrived at an explanation for something as utterly rudimentary as the 'number 1' eons ago.

So lay it on us Sherlock. What's the answer (WITH EVIDENCE)?
 
annnnoid said:
…interesting isn’t it. This ‘weak’ quote has got everybody running for the bunkers. Why don’t you scroll back a few pages and take a moment to count the number of ad homimen’s that have been thrown his way.
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in other poster's ad-homs. If they trouble you, talk to them, not me.

Not too mention…not a single participant has made a single challenge to a single point he made.

If the argument is so ‘weak’…why doesn’t someone here challenge it instead of taking the truly impressive approach of endlessly complaining / implying that the author is not qualified to make the argument.
Click to expand...
There's not really much to challenge. He makes a couple of barely coherent speculations about hard to detect effects ("E&M vacuum energy ... correlations in the vacuum field modes or whatever. ...If (say) the medium for OBEs ... was mediated by dark matter and/or dark energy") and says he, "can't think of any evidence or theory that can decisively rule out these two possibilities...".

In my opinion, quantum field theory does, by excluding these influences from relevant interactions at human scales. OBEs and similar human experiences, if not imaginary, must involve some consistent and coherent interaction with the brain. Dark matter is too weakly interacting; dark energy is effectively a uniform effect at human scales, much like gravity; 'vacuum energy field mode correlations or whatever' sounds like sciency word salad to me, but assuming he's talking about quantum fluctuations, not only are they random, but way too short range to be relevant - as Ken Wilson showed in the early 1980s.

For a more complete explanation of the reasons behind my view, see Sean Carroll's video below (if you don't want to watch the whole thing, the specifically relevant part starts at 34 minutes):
 
dlorde said:
In my opinion, quantum field theory does, by excluding these influences from relevant interactions at human scales. OBEs and similar human experiences, if not imaginary, must involve some consistent and coherent interaction with the brain. Dark matter is too weakly interacting; dark energy is effectively a uniform effect at human scales, much like gravity; 'vacuum energy field mode correlations or whatever' sounds like sciency word salad to me, but assuming he's talking about quantum fluctuations, not only are they random, but way too short range to be relevant - as Ken Wilson showed in the early 1980s.
Click to expand...

I am not a science boffin, but that's my basic standpoint too.

I can't go as far as nixing any possible channel for a signal/interaction because I just don't have the expertise. I accept that a) there's no evidence for such interaction, b) should something interesting happen in the field, I'll hear about it and I can begin to enquire.

Until then, brain does mind.
 
Pixel42 said:
The mechanism for communication may be different but the essense of the phenomenon - separating an aspect of your own mind and then seeming to communicate with it - is the same.
Click to expand...

Suit yourself.

Apparently the separation is not something which is purposefully done by the individual, who is unconscious of the separation process.
The separation is real enough. Ego self is indeed separated from the knowledge of real self.
There is no 'seeming to communicate' involved. It is actual communication which is verifiable.






Incidentally what you described does not constitute a blindfold test; for that you would need to be unaware of where any of the symbols were as you selected them whether you had consciously memorized them or not.
Click to expand...

Here nor there really. Obviously if you are unaware of the meaning of the symbols, this acts as a blinder.
 
Daylightstar said:
Could you give a couple examples of such translation?
Click to expand...

No. I could, but prefer not to. It is not here nor there what the content of the communication is. The focus is that it works.



Are the meanings of these symbols always the same or are they dependent on context?
Click to expand...

Essentially the meanings remain the same. Sometime the meanings change. this has more to do with my understanding changing.
 
Nonpareil said:
Define "love", and we can necessarily study it scientifically.
Click to expand...

Love is inclusive in terms of self identification. In other words, we see things that we love as being with us or part of us.

Love is on the whole, positive in terms of experience. In other words, we feel good about things we love more often than we feel bad.

Love is voluntarily associative. On our own, we will choose to be with or near or to experience things we love.

Love is protective. We would try within our ability to preserve and keep from harm things that we love.

Love is constructive. We would try within our ability to nurture, maintain, and improve things that we love.
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
Suit yourself.

Apparently the separation is not something which is purposefully done by the individual, who is unconscious of the separation process.
The separation is real enough. Ego self is indeed separated from the knowledge of real self.
There is no 'seeming to communicate' involved. It is actual communication which is verifiable.
Click to expand...
How is it verifiable?

Just in case it's not clear, I'm genuinely interested in your experiences as I've been fascinated by the ideomotor effect ever since I first encountered it. Just because I'm not (yet?) convinced by your interpretation of your experiences, that doesn't mean I'm not keen to learn more about them.

Here nor there really. Obviously if you are unaware of the meaning of the symbols, this acts as a blinder.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between never being aware of the meaning of the symbols and not having them memorised. My impression was that you meant the latter, in which case it's not the equivalent of a blindfold test. Everything you've ever seen or heard is available to your subconscious, even if you can't consciously recall it.
 
dlorde said:
In my opinion, quantum field theory does, by excluding these influences from relevant interactions at human scales. OBEs and similar human experiences, if not imaginary, must involve some consistent and coherent interaction with the brain. Dark matter is too weakly interacting; dark energy is effectively a uniform effect at human scales, much like gravity; 'vacuum energy field mode correlations or whatever' sounds like sciency word salad to me, but assuming he's talking about quantum fluctuations, not only are they random, but way too short range to be relevant - as Ken Wilson showed in the early 1980s.

For a more complete explanation of the reasons behind my view, see Sean Carroll's video below (if you don't want to watch the whole thing, the specifically relevant part starts at 34 minutes):
Click to expand...

I listened to the last 34 minutes, what we are talking about is not the present reality. You can't explain OBE/NDE using protons and electrons, etc.... other than how it might apply to brain physiology.

As for seeing the future, it does happen on ocassion to me, not so much now that I'm older, and it's always the most mundane or irrelevant seeming stuff. One example that was not so mundane was my dream in 1992 of riding on a train. I saw a boy that looked like Harry Potter, actually talked to this boy, and woke up with a brilliant idea to write a book about a wizard school. Needless to say I could kick myself for not doing it.

Did I connect with JK Rowling and see what she had in her imagination or did a muse put the idea in several people's head hoping someone would latch on, I don't know, but it did happen.
 
Navigator said:
Daylightstar said:
Could you give a couple examples of such translation?
Click to expand...
No. I could, but prefer not to. It is not here nor there what the content of the communication is. The focus is that it works. ...
Click to expand...
I wasn't asking for what you call the 'content' of this 'communication', I was asking you examples of the translation.
Please provide some translation examples of what you call your 'data'.

Navigator said:
...
Essentially the meanings remain the same. Sometime the meanings change. this has more to do with my understanding changing.
Click to expand...
This is not very reassuring with regard to your claimed 'data' validity:
Navigator said:
... The data has been valid.
...
more valid than any direct interaction I have! Just because?
...
Click to expand...



Navigator said:
... The focus is that it works. ...
Click to expand...
There appears to be no evidence of that whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
...
As for seeing the future, it does happen on ocassion to me, not so much now that I'm older, and it's always the most mundane or irrelevant seeming stuff. One example that was not so mundane was my dream in 1992 of riding on a train. I saw a boy that looked like Harry Potter, actually talked to this boy, and woke up with a brilliant idea to write a book about a wizard school. Needless to say I could kick myself for not doing it.

Did I connect with JK Rowling and see what she had in her imagination or did a muse put the idea in several people's head hoping someone would latch on, I don't know, but it did happen.
Click to expand...

Malleable memories and confirmation bias.
 
Daylightstar said:
Love can be:
  • Love between people
  • Love for animals
  • Love for doing a particular activity
  • Love for potato chips
  • Love for certain works of art

Which one?
Click to expand...

He won't answer, and it doesn't really matter if he does. The vagueness of the definition is his only defense, as it is with ESP; so long as he fails to define what it is he's asking, he can continue claiming that no one has answered. And, of course, he follows this up by pretending that the question isn't incoherent at all, and obviously everyone else is simply wrong.

He will refuse to accept any explanation for how we are able to know that it exists, run about screaming "where's the evidence?" despite it being very simply explained to him at multiple points in other threads, and generally just ignore any arguments that refute his nonsense.

Literally everything he has posted in this thread - bar the speculation from Derakshani, which is worthless - has been gone over countless times before.

Feelings exist, we can prove feelings exist through simple observation, we know that they are the result of various chemical states in the brain, and so on. All of this has been pointed out, but he keeps bringing up "you can't prove love" as if it's anything new or as if it carries any weight at all.

Scientists like Christof Koch are currently in the process of studying how consciousness arises from computation, and the sources are readily available to anyone who wants to look for them. He has been linked to them before, along with a dozen different things about varying parts of neuroscience (such as how we know that emotions are chemical states in the brain) - but he keeps on saying "we don't know anything about it".

And so on. Belz is entirely correct when he states that annnnoid either cannot follow or does not actually care about any sort of argument presented. All he does is dig up the same nonsense over and over again and hope that people fall for it because various other posters have stopped caring enough to dig up the same links in response again and again.
 
Last edited:
Nonpareil said:
He won't answer, and it doesn't really matter if he does. The vagueness of the definition is his only defense, ...
Click to expand...

I am thinking he is a she ;)
If she's not answering in a meaningful way, I'll slap that on her another time. Although none of that may indeed make no difference whatsoever.
 
Jodie said:
As for seeing the future, it does happen .. I saw a boy that looked like Harry Potter, .. woke up with a brilliant idea to write a book about a wizard school.
Click to expand...

Do you remember that dream you had about the pony who wanted to be a robot ballet-dancer?

No? Gee. I suppose that book-film has yet to be made. After that, you'd remember it.
 
Jodie said:
I listened to the last 34 minutes, what we are talking about is not the present reality.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, is is exactly what we are talking about now.


Jodie said:
You can't explain OBE/NDE using protons and electrons, etc.
Click to expand...

Precisely. The only thing that explains them is a special particle called a Pleadee. The spin on a pleadee must be intense, generated by a spamkowitz-trollheim field of 22.7 gee-gee-plops proportional to 00W-1. Once spin has been accomplished, the pleadee particles gain the ability to flow from special ports along the brain called Excuses. The more excuses, the more special pleadees can flow and the more O of B the E becomes.

Remember, spin over woo to excuse special pleadees can explain anything.

You're welcome.
 
Donn said:
Well, yes, is is exactly what we are talking about now.




Precisely. The only thing that explains them is a special particle called a Pleadee. The spin on a pleadee must be intense, generated by a spamkowitz-trollheim field of 22.7 gee-gee-plops proportional to 00W-1. Once spin has been accomplished, the pleadee particles gain the ability to flow from special ports along the brain called Excuses. The more excuses, the more special pleadees can flow and the more O of B the E becomes.

Remember, spin over woo to excuse special pleadees can explain anything.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

Pleadees are woo!-sons, right?

You should be hearing from Stockholm any day now...
 
Last edited:
Jodie said:
I listened to the last 34 minutes, what we are talking about is not the present reality.
Click to expand...
If what you are talking about isn't part of reality, then I'm not really interested. Fiction and fantasy are entertaining, but I want to hear claims about reality.

You can't explain OBE/NDE using protons and electrons, etc.... other than how it might apply to brain physiology.
Click to expand...
That's precisely the point. Brains are made of cells made of chemicals made of protons, neutrons & electrons. Anything that has an effect on a brain must interact with them in some way. When someone reports an experience of something external, it must come from something that's influenced their body or brain - or they wouldn't be able to report it. Internally generated experiences (imagination, hallucination, dreams, etc.) that are not of real external events are not directly dependent on external interaction.

As for seeing the future, it does happen on ocassion to me, not so much now that I'm older, and it's always the most mundane or irrelevant seeming stuff. One example that was not so mundane was my dream in 1992 of riding on a train. I saw a boy that looked like Harry Potter, actually talked to this boy, and woke up with a brilliant idea to write a book about a wizard school. Needless to say I could kick myself for not doing it.
Click to expand...
I think it's much more likely that your recollection of this dream and your subsequent thoughts about have been modified by repeated matching with the Harry Potter story over time, until it seems you pretty much dreamt about Harry Potter. Every time an experience is recalled, new associations are made, and earlier ones fade. This kind of thing has been shown to be very common, particularly with widely publicised media reporting, and especially where images are used. A classic example is how people's recall of their personal experiences at the time of 9/11 changed over time to match news video and reports. See Remarkable False Memories, How Accurate are Memories of 9/11, and in general, How Memories are Distorted & Invented, How Recalling Memories Alters Them, and False Autobiographical Memories.

Did I connect with JK Rowling and see what she had in her imagination or did a muse put the idea in several people's head hoping someone would latch on
Click to expand...
No.
 
Slowvehicle said:
Pleadees are woo!-sons, right?
Click to expand...

I should have seen it! I congratulate you sir; I have been wrong these many seconds.

The wooson is spontaneously generated when self-confidence and hubris collude. The Large Howrong Colluder generates pleadees from trillions of excuses per IP (Internet Post, a unit of time in trollheim space) which are attracted to a single wooson. Some woosons are heavier than others. (The Chopra is the largest known at this time.)

You know, or something. I'm close, I feel it.

So it be ideodowsed, so it be so!

:)

You should be hearing from Stockholm any day now...
Click to expand...
I want a chocolate medallion in gold foil.
 
Donn said:
I should have seen it! I congratulate you sir; I have been wrong these many seconds.

The wooson is spontaneously generated when self-confidence and hubris collude. The Large Howrong Colluder generates pleadees from trillions of excuses per IP (Internet Post, a unit of time in trollheim space) which are attracted to a single wooson. Some woosons are heavier than others. (The Chopra is the largest known at this time.)

You know, or something. I'm close, I feel it.

So it be ideodowsed, so it be so!

:)


I want a chocolate medallion in gold foil.
Click to expand...

:bigclap
 
dlorde said:
They were dreams. I feel no more need to remember anything else about them than I do what I was wearing the next day. Sufficiency isn't relevant; I simply have memories of a few particularly striking lucid dreams.
Click to expand...

I like the devil in the details. My preference is to focus on the details - I don't even need to force myself to do this. I am far too curious.
Part of that has to do with not wanting to be in a presumptive position to the point where I (ego self) might purposefully block out some parts which for one reason or another I might find too difficult to handle.
Of course, I would perhaps never be able to know for sure that I haven't done exactly that anyway. But I do know what I am left with - what I haven't blocked out, and I also know that I haven't elaborated or otherwise enhanced on the memories I do retain about those experiences. They remain the same in the telling now as they did in the moments immediately after.

But of course, while I have shared the details with some individuals since that time, I have not and do not intend (at this time at least) to share those details here.

Why do you ask? what makes you feel I might 'need' to remember more?
Click to expand...

I did not ask because I think you might need to remember more. I just wondered if you thought it possible that not only can memories be distorted after the fact of the experience, but also whether they can be hidden from the conscious recall of the ego self.


Probably.
Click to expand...

I would say most likely. :)


We all have lucid experiences that occur while we're not dreaming - it's called being awake.
Click to expand...

You or someone else made the point that while having a lucid dream you are aware of the fact that you are in your dream (dreaming) and even able to affect things whilst in that state - things which would not be possible to affect if the experience were physical reality.
Physical reality is called 'being awake'. Lucid dreaming is something else.

I am sure you can agree with that.

What were the circumstances - were you asleep? were you in bed?
Click to expand...

In the normal definition of 'being asleep' I would have to say 'no', and nor was it strictly a lucid dream I was experiencing.

I think when you/I/we (the Ego self) is 'asleep' we are barely consciously aware of much, if anything at all.
That is why there are different definitions regarding experience involved with the general understanding of 'sleeping'.

I think I have already noted in this thread the circumstances regarding the experiences I had with the entity.
From memory, when I had each experience I was under the impression I was fully awake, reclined in bed, and the only reason I was aware that my body at least must have been asleep was that when the experiences ended I was aware of opening my eyes. It is a little hard to explain the feeling of being aware, seeing everything in your room, and then suddenly knowing you have opened your eyes and nothing about the room or the lighting has changed from when you were aware of it when the eyes were closed. You are not aware of your eyes having been closed until you become aware of the sensation of opening them.

You might have experienced this yourself?
 
annnnoid said:
So answer the question then Nonpareil:

Do the known laws of physics preclude the possibility of OBE’s, NDE’s, psi, etc. etc.

Yes
…or no.

If you are going to answer yes we will expect evidence to support the claim. What laws are violated? How?

[...].
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is yours.
 
You have a thing with ellipses, don't you ?

annnnoid said:
Love…. Period.
Click to expand...

Love isn't one thing. It's the combination of a very complex series of processes.

…so this is referring to someone else?
Click to expand...

Nope. You're stuck between two misunderstandings, here. I suggest you re-read my post more carefully.

…EVIDENCE.
Click to expand...

Do you promise to actually have a look at it and try to understand it this time, or are you going to ignore and hand-wave it again ? I ask because I don't like spending energy on tasks that are both useless and unentertaining.

Oh no! I’m sure hoping we’re not going to have to open this can of worms again. On a previous thread both you and Nonpareil and Pixy and others agreed that feelings exist as things in and of themselves.
Click to expand...

Again, they are things as in they are processes. Perhaps you'd care quoting us and we can see if you misunderstood something again.

Have you now changed your mind????
Click to expand...

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

When you experience the phenomenon known as ‘love’ (assuming you do of course), do you experience ‘love’…or do you experience exphalodimetaimpoduotriquantadypllloxxiphetamdooploploplopploplop (or whatever it is)?
Click to expand...

Before asking this question you should attempt to establish that there's a difference.

See, here the problem is that you assume that your sensations are more than the sum of their physical parts, hence why you are so incredulous when others suggest that they are not.

Oh no…more insults and ridicule.
Click to expand...

I suppose you can see it that way, but that was an assessment of your behaviour. I have never seen you make a substantive post.

BTW Belz….I noticed you didn’t provide an answer to the ‘number 1’ thingy.
Click to expand...

The what now ?

Since, as you insist, science is so far along in it's understanding of how the brain generates consciousness....it must have arrived at an explanation for something as utterly rudimentary as the 'number 1' eons ago.

So lay it on us Sherlock. What's the answer (WITH EVIDENCE)?
Click to expand...

I don't even understand what the **** it is you're asking. Calm down and write more intelligibly, please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom