XPost: alt.dreams.lucid, alt.dreams, alt.magick   
   From: askpermission@comcast.net   
      
   "104"  wrote in message   
   news:qdNKf.705$77.162@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...   
   >   
   > The fluid nature of the OOB/Inner realms means it is affected by the   
   > mind more easily which can cause "reality fluctuations".   
      
   It has not been established that it is "reality" which fluctuates.  Or that   
   there is only one kind of "reality", for that matter.   
      
   >> In my estimation, the best theory for that is   
   >> the theory that OOB's are not actually travel in the physical world, but   
   >> in the world of one's mental model of the physical world.   
   >   
   > The outer physical world is a solid model of the more fluid Inner/Mental   
   > world.   
      
   Ah, how does one tell which is the tail and which is the dog, eh?  One way   
   to tell which is the model and which is the thing being modelled is to   
   compare how easily they each can be manipulated.  The model will be easier   
   to manipulate.  Ease of manipulation is one of the chief reasons we build   
   models in the first place.   
      
   So I ask myself, "Which is easier to manipulate, the astral stuff, which   
   obediently takes whatever form I imagine with but a whim, or the physical   
   world, in which deliberate change requires considerably more energy and is   
   nowhere near as obliging?"   
      
   > Both are interconnected. As above, so below. As within, so without.   
      
   The tail and the dog are also connected, but which wags which?   
      
   >>   I can find no   
   >> substantial evidence whatsoever that contradicts that theory.  Can you   
   >> offer me some?   
   >   
   > I'm not exactly claiming otherwise, although I suspect it is not as simple   
   > as you suggest.   
      
   Perhaps not.  I await the evidence for it. Until then, I'll use the best   
   explanation I can within the bounds of what I have available.  A belief that   
   astral travel is physical travel but without the inconvenience of dragging   
   along a body just doesn't accord with the replicable evidence.   
      
   > You appear to have made your own mind up as to what these experiences are   
   > so I'm not sure whether any further discussions between us on this subject   
   > are going to bear fruit. We can but try I suppose.   
      
   Well, like I say, it's replicable evidence that turns my key.  When you have   
   some, let me know.   
      
      
   >> I don't think Bruce has presented much in the way of replicable evidence   
   >> for this sort of anecdote.  Has he?   
   >   
   > Replicable by whom Tom?   
      
   Replicable by anyone who wants to investigate the claim.   
      
   > Bruce is able to replicate it   
      
   But what is Bruce claiming?  He does not say that OOB's are actual travel to   
   a remote physical location.  His theory simply ignores differences between   
   the accounts of an event viewed by astral vision or OOB travel and the   
   accounts of events by physical eye witnesses to the same event.  At best, he   
   offers uncheckable anecdotes of such events.  That kind of evidence just   
   doesn't weigh as much on my scales.   
      
   Have you read Susan Blackmore's account of her decade-long research into   
   OOBE's and the conclusions she's reached?  I just don;t see how all that   
   research, carefully done, meticulously documented, and, above all,   
   replicable, can be so easily ignored.   
      
   > but you'll just have to take his word for it unless you do some   
   > experimenting yourself first-hand.   
      
   Which I have done.  Do you recall my saying so?  It's a bit late in the   
   discussion to presume I've done no homework at all.   
      
   >  Here is one example of some of the experiments he has done that suggest a   
   > person having an OOBE is having more than just a subjective experience:   
   >   
   > From his book "Practical Psychic Self-Defense" -   
   >   
   > "During a series of daytime experiments involving twelve powerful   
   > wake-induced OBEs, I deliberately entered several awake human beings;   
   > they were strangers picked at random. With a crowd of people to choose   
   > from, I could enter some, but not others; some could be influenced, some   
   > could not. This is a type of overshadowing, a low level of possession,   
   > but it was done with the best of intentions. I did not harm and the   
   > knowledge gained has been invaluable to my work. But I strongly advise   
   > this not be repeated by OBE-ers, as my intuition tells me this could be   
   > dangerous to both parties.   
   >   
   > To my reckoning, approximately ten percent of people are susceptible to   
   > this kind of direct OBE penetration, but generally, strong-minded are   
   > not susceptible. Sensitives, of course, are more susceptible and thus   
   > easier to approach; people who are weak minded also are wide open to   
   > this. There must be an existing inclination before a person can be made   
   > to act on it, weak-minded or otherwise. One could, for example, make a   
   > dieting person buy and eat a candy bar, but one could not make a   
   > non-drinker buy alcohol, or a non-smoker buy cigarettes. Most people   
   > have invisible shields surrounding them of varying depths and strengths;   
   > with some people this is like an invisible brick wall extending a dozen   
   > feet or more in all directions.   
   >   
   > It’s also possible to sift through the memories of susceptible,   
   > weak-minded people. This is difficult to comprehend unless one has   
   > experience with visual clairvoyance. Imagine flipping rapidly through   
   > the pages of a photograph album and being able to enter and experience   
   > any photograph by concentrating and willing yourself inside it. You see   
   > a confusing blur of symbols and metaphorical imagery mixed with   
   > real-life memories."   
      
   This is not even vaguely like a scientific experiment.  There is absolutely   
   no controls, no effort to collect or inspect replicable data, and no way to   
   reject the hypothesis.  It's just a *story*.   
      
   > There are far too many of these types of experience for them all to be   
   > written off to the power of suggestibility.   
      
   As Groucho Marx once asked, "How many Frenchmen can't be wrong?"  How many   
   people agreeing does it take to make something be true?  A hundred, a   
   thousand, a million?   
      
   > Especially when some people are also picking up fluctuations in the local   
   > EM fields with EMF meters at the same time.   
      
   Do the people doing the EMF experiment really know how to use their   
   wequipm,ent?  What controls were in place to prevent stray EM fields from   
   confusing their results?  I remember when my brother was in college and was   
   trying to do experiments on an electron microscope.  He had a very tough   
   time trying to keep random EM events from messing things up.  I frankly   
   doubt that a bunch of occultists with voltmeters could do a competent job.   
   Still, I don't want to prejudge.  Where might I find the record of this   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)