XPost: alt.dreams.lucid   
   From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 06:20:32 -0800, h elmer | espeance wrote:   
      
   > David Mitchell wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > depends on the experiment (and here IS proven?)   
      
   You may choose to go the whole existentialist route; but there are few   
   who would seriously agree with you.   
      
   It really does seem that there is a form of objective reality (or, at   
   least, something functionally identical to it).   
      
   >> Science has nothing [against] "larger perceptual ability".   
   >> It just insists, rightly so IMO, that any claims that this "perception" is   
   >> perception of something real, be substantiated.   
   >   
   > so now you are implying that perception may be unreal?   
      
   In this case, I am saying that they may, or may not, be real; but until   
   you find out, they're just a diverting fantasy.   
      
   From all the evidence I've seen, OB perceptions do not reflect an   
   objective reality; and since there is ample evidence that the brain is   
   capable and willing to form realistic fantasies under certain conditions,   
   at least some are usually met by the OB practitioner; and that these   
   experiences would have certain characteristics, which tend to be reflected   
   in OBE's; it is highly likely, IMO, that the OBE is little more than a   
   certain, unusual, form of hallucination.   
      
   >> 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?   
   >   
   > no, but then we get into the whole idea of truth, which i'm sure we   
   > won't agree on,   
      
   I suspect not.   
      
   > what i'm saying that through personal experience we can   
   > determine if obs are "real" for us,   
      
   But "real for us" is such a cop-out.  Dreams are "real for us",   
   hallucinations are "real for us".   
      
   If you want to prove, show, or even believe with good reason, that   
   they're more than anomalous subjective events, you need to show they're   
   "real for everyone".   
      
   > and i would argue that there is   
   > just as much diverting fantasy in science, which isn't bad, but for the   
   > fact that it isn't acknowledged   
      
   I'd need a cite on that; as I think you're totally wrong.   
      
   >> > 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.   
   >   
   > for those that desire to test it in a rational approach   
      
   Name another approach which works as well, and I'd be happy to try it.   
      
   >   
   >> > 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.   
   >   
   > why do you say your experiences are no objective?   
      
   Because, real-seeming though they were, they did not reflect what was   
   actually at the location I was "present" at.   
      
   >> 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?   
   >   
   > yes, by all means, with emphasis on existential SELF-experimentation,   
      
   What does "existential SELF-experimentation" actually mean?   
      
   > i'm not against experimentation, i just say that the results are   
   > influenced by the beliefs of mass reality and the subjects involved,   
   > blinding or not   
      
   Do you have _any_ evidence at all for your belief that  mass-belief   
   affects reality?   
      
   Somehow I doubt it.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- No, not that one.   
   = Mitchell ---   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)