XPost: alt.dreams.lucid   
   From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 07:45:07 -0800, h elmer | espeance wrote:   
      
   > my impression was that the poster was speaking of running an experiment   
   > from the physical, however if he were adept at going ob thenone could   
   > be run over "there" too   
      
   And what would "success" mean in that case; since even the existence of   
   "there" is unproven.   
      
   The only kind of test I can see having any meaning would be one in which   
   different people set-up, and ran the experiment.  This, if successful,   
   would at least prove communication between the teams.   
      
   > reiterating my opinon, and in embracing this forum, i submit that the   
   > favoritism and insistence of the mo of only modern rationlization, is   
   > an outmoded subscription dedicated to shaping or eradicating our larger   
   > perceptual ability and nature   
      
   Science has nothing "larger perceptual ability".   
   It just insists, rightly so IMO, that any claims that this "perception" is   
   perception of something real, be substantiated.   
      
   Or are you saying that you have no interest in the truth of the matter;   
   but are content to just enjoy the experiences in themselves without ever   
   really knowing, or caring, whether they're real or just a diverting   
   fantasy?   
      
   > in many cases, the evidence is in, to expect these other functions   
   > (i.e., obs) to conform to the rational appraoch, is supercilious   
      
   If you're saying that to expect them to provide actual target data, with   
   at least some consistentcy is foolish, then I'd have to disagree.  There   
   may be aspects of the state which a rational approach must take into   
   consideration (for example the apparent difficulty with perceiving long   
   words, and numbers), but the claim is that some people at least can leave   
   their bodies and perceive objective reality whilst in that state.  This   
   _is_ a claim that can be tested; and it should be.   
      
   > fun, taking pot shots is probably easier to set   
   > up and more motivating than running an experiment oneself, or   
   > experiment on oneself!   
      
   Well, I've only had two OBE's, neither of which was objectively real, so   
   I'm not the best candidate for experimenting on myself.   
      
   This is why those of us with a rational interest in the phenomena ask   
   those of you with the ability to perform the tests (with no success yet, I   
   remind you).   
      
   > keep experimenting,   
      
   So now you're saying experiment is a good idea?   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- No, not that one.   
   = Mitchell ---   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)