From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   Piccolo Pete wrote:   
   > "David Mitchell"  wrote in message   
   > news:g47ldi$fs3$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...   
   >> Piccolo Pete wrote:   
   >>> "David Mitchell"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:g1rmit$paj$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...   
   >   
   >>> 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   
   >   
   > "Buzz-words"?  Thirty years ago those were "buzz words" that could damage a   
   > physicist's career.  Now they are valid fields of research.  Why the hell   
   > should I be carefull with such comments?   
      
   Because you don't know what you're talking about.   
      
    > The common man on the street would   
   > say that there are only 3 dimensions.  Incorrect - time is a dimension.   
   > Does that mean there are only 4?  No... what about density?  What about   
   > potential?  What about awareness?  Love?   
      
   And there's the proof.   
      
    > Does it stop there?  I don't think   
   > so - that is why I'm in this newsgroup.  Why are you here if you refuse to   
   > listen to what the hell we are talking about?   
      
   I'm listening; but you're not making sense.   
      
    > Why the hell do you think we have such a problem with skeptics?   
      
   Because they catch you out when you're talking nonsense.   
      
      
    > It is because they don't listen to the   
   > answers we provide to their questions.  They are unecessarily rude, abusive,   
   > disruptive, and quite often just plain ignorant.   
      
   At least I know when to use the right buzz-words ;-)   
      
   >   
   > All throughout history, skeptics have been proven wrong.  Do I need to list   
   > 5000 examples?  I don't think so - I'm sure you already know the track   
   > record of your ancestry...   
      
   Skepticism is at the heart of the scientific method; which is by far and   
   away the most powerful method mankind has ever invented for discovering   
   the truth about the way the universe works.   
      
   > Will we prove you wrong here?  I think it is a strong probability but it   
   > will take one of the myriad of dimensions - time.   
      
   Speaking of time; you've been having these experiences for something   
   like thirty years, and you still haven't even discovered to even a legal   
   level of proof whether it's subjectively or objectively real.   
      
   > Did I really decry the need for research?  Every person in this NG who   
   > practices some form of OOBE is doing personal research in an attempt to   
   > prove it to their self.  We don't have the desire, time, resources, or   
   > energy to attempt to convince skeptics of our personal truths.  You seem to   
   > make it clear that you have no desire to study yourself as we do.   
      
   So the daily meditation for the past thirty years doesn't count then?   
      
    > Not our   
   > fault, but yours.  Not our loss, but yours.  You certainly don't show   
   > yourself to be an explorer   
      
   Why is it that you think you know anything about me, on the basis of a   
   few exchanges on usenet?   
      
    > and if you don't have some kind of lab with an   
   > eeg machine, I can't even suggest you are doing serious research.  You   
   > simply reveal yourself as a troll.   
      
   I've only had two OBE's so I can't experiment directly on myself; but I   
   can suggest experiments to others who do have the experiences - which is   
   what I do.   
      
   Oddly enough, none of them seem to be interested in following up.   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Incorrect.  It was the altered state of consciousness that brought science   
   > and the scientific method forward through the dark ages.   
      
   Rubbish.   
      
   > Madam Blavatski produced a paper from an altered state which described the   
   > nature of charged particles long before someone else received the nobel   
   > prize for reaching the same conclusion.   
      
   Without a means of proving her ideas were correct, they were useless.   
   That's the point of science.   
      
    > The nature of benzene was shown in a dream.   
      
   And then verified experimentally.   
      
    > Numerous literary masterpieces also came from dreams.   
      
   So what?   
      
    > Patton,   
   > Napoleon, and I think even Hitler believed they were reincarnated warriors   
   > of the past.   
      
   Again, so what?   
      
    > George Washington had a vision of the future with vast   
   > highways and vehicles unknown to him travelling on them.   
    > The number of   
   > discoveries and the amount of incredible creative genius that comes from the   
   > altered state of consciousness fills our libraries.   
      
   Irrelevant.  It doesn't matter where ideas come from, because unless you   
   can prove their veracity they have no scientific value.  Obviously that   
   doesn't apply to creative works; but we're not talking about those   
   here,or, at least, I'm not.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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".   
   >   
   > You want answers?  You wanna do some serious research?   
      
   Yep.  You up for it?   
      
    > I flat out told you   
   > that quite often people who are going through severe emotional and/or   
   > physical trauma quite often live in an altered state of concsiousness.  That   
   > is a fact you can research.  Anyone who has lost a loved one will tell you   
   > they live in a sort of dream state or liquid reality.  Isn't that a solid   
   > base on which to continue your research?  Go to the alt.support groups and   
   > harrass them for some of their unusual experiences.   
      
   It seems entirely reasonable that people in extremes of grief and loss   
   would find themselves in altered states of mind.  I imagine there's   
   already been rather extensive work on the neurochemistry behind it.   
      
   But that still doesn't mean that their supernormal experiences are   
   objectively real - in fact, it makes it less likely.   
      
    > Then call them liars   
   > unless they provide you with proof.  That shouldn't be so difficult for you   
   > since that is exactly what you are doing here.   
      
   Have I ever called you a liar?   
   Do you call questioning your methods harassment?   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = 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)