From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 06:00:05 -0800, h elmer | espeance wrote:   
      
   > all i see is a refusal to look at the facts from different   
   > perspectives, and causing a rankle   
      
   Then you are not reading what I write.  I have said, over and over, that   
   if I am presented with good evidence that OBE's are objective, I will   
   accept it.   
      
   Will you make the same offer: if you fail to find good evidence for   
   objective OBE's that you will stop believing that they are real?  Somehow   
   I doubt it.   
      
   All I ask is that the evidence be good.   
      
   > David Mitchell wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:32:11 -0800, h elmer | espeance wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > is that from Janice's website? i think there's a faq there   
   >>   
   >> It was posted by the newsgroup creator, and I googled for it.   
   >>   
   >> > anyhow, that quote seems to support my suppositions very clearly, more   
   >> > than your position, can you see that?   
   >>   
   >> Nope, exactly the opposite.  Lets break it down.   
   >> "I am interested in gaining a better understanding of what   
   >> >> such experiences might have to tell us about ourselves, and what kinds   
   >> >> of creatures we are, rather than merely looking at this phenomenon as   
   >> >> something akin to a sport like scuba-diving or hang-gliding.   
   >>   
   >> So, he's hoping to "gain a better understanding", rather than just treat   
   >> the experiences as you would a sport.   
   >>   
   > i'm on with that, and obviously treat the ob phenom as more than as a   
   > sport,   
      
   With you so far.   
      
   > again, i see you referring to that because your constistent   
   > devaluaton of the subject of this forum   
      
   I have no idea what this refers to, are you confusing Gary's post with   
   mine?   
      
   >> How is hoping to do this?  "systematic exploration of the subject",   
   >> including "examination of the world's literature".   
   >>   
   >> Note "systematic exploration".  Feebly waffling on about experiences   
   >> without any attempt at analysis is not "systematic exploration".   
   >> Discouraging discussion is not "systematic exploration".  Just recounting   
   >> dreams is not "systematic exploration".   
   >   
   > an exploration of anecdotes can be systematic, i'm not discouraging   
   > discussion,   
      
   Yes you are.  You are specifically trying to discourage me (and, I   
   suspect, any sceptic) from discussing alternative viewpoints.   
      
   > i'm encouraging you to post on topic,   
      
   I do.   
      
   > create your own experiences,   
      
   That is not something one can just do.   
      
   > and author posts on them and about your explorations and   
   > research,   
      
   If I were actively researching, I might.  Will you?   
   It's not something I remember you as having done in the past - merely   
   recounting dreams is not performing research.   
      
   > instead of doing what you normally do, pounce in, usually,   
   > but not always and try to disuade others of the veracity of the ob   
      
   It's a valid alternative hypothesis.  Excluding it makes no sense if you   
   are _truly_ interested in finding the truth, rather than living in a   
   comforting fantasy.   
      
   >>   
   >> > "experiences",   
   >>   
   >> Nice try, but the full line is "a better understanding of what such   
   >> experiences might have to tell us..."   
   >>   
   >> Note the "understanding".   
   >>   
   >> > world's literature on subject -   
   >>   
   >> Again, nice try, but it's "examination of the world's literature".   
   >>   
   >> > historically documented   
   >> > in the "dreaming" category and through anecdotes, "pehomena", "direct   
   >> > experiential manner" etc., etc. - yes, what i've been pointing to adn   
   >> > saying in other and similar words   
   >>   
   >> No you haven't.  It only sounds like the kinds of things you say because   
   >> you've snipped off all the references to examination and exploration.   
   >   
   > well, i don't see it that way, your point was not my intent, but i see   
   > how you could see it that way   
      
   Well yes, particularly as I've seen very little in-depth examination of   
   the world's literature from you, or anyone else here; nor much attempt at   
   actually understanding the phenomenon rather than discussing it in a   
   general "me-too" sort of way.  Certainly, excluding the most plausible   
   hypothesis from consideration is exactly what you would _not_ do if you   
   were really serious about understanding it.   
      
   >> (I know this is probably a rude question but what's up with your spelling   
   >> and writing?)   
      
   ...and reading ;-)   
      
   >> Anyway, no real scientist would "presuppose a hypthesis of non-existence   
   >> of a phenomenon" like this, and even the more sceptical posters   
   >> here generally don't - they simply insist that we take it at face value,   
   >> and don't make any more assumptions than we have to.   
   >>   
   > well, who said we all have to be real scientists here?  are you?  i'm   
   > not   
      
   Well, you said:   
   "academic doesn't presuppose a hypthesis of non-existence of a   
   phenomenon, the pretext of the group is that the phenomenon exists"   
      
   Although that doesn't make a great deal of sense, I presumed that by   
   "academic doesn't presuppose", you meant that "serious researchers" don't   
   presuppose; which I expressed as "scientists".   
      
   > glad we got that presumption out of the way   
      
   We're not "real scientists" here, all the "real" scientists have left in   
   disgust; but science is a tool, as well as a profession; and the   
   techniques it uses are the most powerful we have ever discovered for   
   finding the truth.   
      
   It therefore makes sense to use the same techniques to find the truth   
   about _this_ phenomenon.   
      
   >> So, we would probably say that that there exists a state in which the   
   >> observer believes itself to be conscious and disembodied.   
   >   
   > yes, and here it's called an "out of body experience"   
      
   Precisely.  And the only thing we can truly say about it, at this moment,   
   is that it is a state in which the observer believes itself to be   
   conscious and disembodied.   
      
   The experience doesn't prove the existence of an astral body, nor the   
   astral plane.  It doesn't mean that consciousness can exist beyond the   
   body; nor that there is life after death.   
      
   All of those things are generalisations from inadequate evidence.  They   
   are speculation; and almost certainly false.   
      
   >> Examination, exploration and discussion are 100% on-topic, indeed the   
   >> goal of the newsgroup, as I've shown.   
   >>   
   >> Are you so afraid to have your mind changed?   
   >> Do you need to believe in literal OBE's _that_ much?   
   >>   
   > no, it ends up being a kind of sensibility and knowing from experience   
   > for me   
      
   Experience, no matter how convincing, is not a good guide to reality; or   
   do you actually believe that someone stole your laptop the other night?   
      
   Of course not, it was a dream.  It may have been convincing; but it wasn't   
   real.  If it had been lucid, it still wouldn't have been real.  If it had   
   been set in your bedroom, and been about walking around without a body,   
   and seeing yourself asleep, it still wouldn't have been "real".   
      
   > dream-art science   
      
   Vague, fluffy, nonsense.   
      
   --   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)