From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   Piccolo Pete wrote:   
   > "David Mitchell"  wrote in message   
   > news:g1rmit$paj$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...   
   >> Bernie Kovack wrote:   
   >>> Is an "out of body" experience nothing more than a lucid dream, or does   
   >>> it involve "soul travel"?   
   >> Nobody knows for sure, although the evidence suggests that it's little   
   >> more than a lucid dream, or a Temporal Lobe hallucination.   
   >>   
   >>> If it's the latter, would it be possible for two people who are propertly   
   >>> trained to "meet up" and communicate?   
   >> If it's the latter, then it seems likely. However, as far as I know, none   
   >> of the various simple tests of the reality of the experience; that myself   
   >> and others of a sceptical nature have proposed, in this forum, to those   
   >> who believe  themselves capable of out of body experiences have ever been   
   >> undertaken satisfactorily.   
   >>   
   >> You may draw whatever conclusion you wish from this; but, for myself, I   
   >> draw the simplest - that the experience is purely subjective, and,   
   >> therefore, less interesting that I would have hoped.   
   >   
   > Tests done with Robert Monroe and some others indicate that it may be   
   > something other than a lucid dream due to the lack of REM and the difference   
   > in EEG patterns.   
      
   You are right, more research needs to be done.   
      
   > A Temporal Lobe "Hallucination" is a reasonable suggestion, but not   
   > reasonable enough to close the book on the subject.   
      
   You are right, more research needs to be done.   
      
   > Quantum Physics and String Theory indicate there are a number of dimensions   
   > beyond what we normally perceive.   
      
   You want to be careful with those buzz-words   
      
    > The OOBE may very well be a tool that can be used to study these   
   dimensions directly.   
    > If not that, then at least it   
   > can be used to study the nervous system and learn to control certain   
   > autonomous functions.   
      
   You are right, more research needs to be done.   
      
   > There are hundreds of thousands of professional and amateur astronomers, yet   
   > only a relative handfull of them are able to peer into the depths of the   
   > universe.  All of life is subjective perception of only a fraction of a huge   
   > reality we cannot (yet?) comprehend.  It wasn't until 1925 that it became   
   > common knowledge that other galaxies exist beyond the Milky Way.  Should we   
   > stop our search for answers simply because they aren't handed to us on a   
   > silver platter?  I think not.   
      
   How can you talk about the "search for answers" in one post, and then   
   decry the need for research and evidence in others?   
      
   In 200 years the scientific method, in various forms, has taken us from   
   banging the rocks together to splitting the atom.  2000 years of astral   
   navel-gazing has led us precisely nowhere nearer to understanding OBE.   
      
   > Just because a bunch of undisciplined amateurs in a newsgroup cannot provide   
   > satisfaction to a skeptic (which, by the way, is not their responsibility),   
      
   So much for the "search for answers".   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)