From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   Piccolo Pete wrote:   
   > "David Mitchell"  wrote in message   
   > news:g4a3kl$s47$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...   
   >> Piccolo Pete wrote:   
   >>> "David Mitchell"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:g47ldi$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.   
   >   
   > "String theory strongly suggests that spacetime has eleven dimensions", as   
   > so many people like to quote Wikipedia...   
      
   Yeah, but Quantum Mechanics doesn't imply the presence of other   
   dimensions, and, if you care to look it up, you probably ought to   
   mention 'Brane Theory or M-Theory, when you're touting buzz-words,   
   since, unlike most string theories, it suggests the presence of   
   dimensions larger than our 4-D space time, rather than much, much smaller.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > That's not proof of anything on your side.  What your statement proves is   
   > that you cannot comprehend the reality of dimensions of perception.   
      
   No, what it proves was that you do not really understand the word   
   "dimension" as applied to the physical world.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > It's not my fault you don't have the ability to comprehend.   
      
      
      
   > Skeptics are always talking nonsense.  We talk theories and we attempt to   
   > validate them to ourselves.   
      
   Not in my experience.   
      
   >>> 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 ;-)   
   >   
   > And... that makes sense?   
      
   Yep.  Read it again.   
      
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > I came to that conclusion long ago.   
      
   What you *think* doesn't really matter.  It's interesting, and should   
   shape your research; but it's what you can *prove* that counts.   
      
   > The word "subjectivity" does not equate with the word "false".   
      
   I've never said it did.   
      
   > In the other post I mentioned fairies and demons.  I'm sure that convinced   
   > you I was truly looney - unless you understand archetypes.  All the mythical   
   > creatures of literature are archetypes of the psyche.  They could be an   
   > attempt of the mind to personify a program or neuronal malfunction or   
   > disease, or they could truly be intradimensional beings.  We don't know yet.   
      
   Then try to find out.   
      
   > But at least we are making the effort, according to our own abilities, to   
   > find out.  What are skeptics doing?  Nothing more than sitting back and   
   > demanding that we show proof.   
      
   What else should we do.  You want us to research; but *you* are our   
   equipment in this case. Trying to alter your direction into something a   
   little more objective is literally all we can do.   
      
    > If the skeptics would have left us alone we   
   > might have made more progress over the last several years.  Instead, they   
   > just came in and ripped the place to shreds like a bunch of rabid baboons.   
   > What a major fuckin' loss...   
      
   Yeah. Major.   
      
   >   
   > On the other hand, the ability to control the inner functions of the body   
   > has been proven.  That makes this part of it somewhat objective.   
      
   Uh, no.  Biofeedback, for example, is accepted as an objective phenomenon.   
      
    > Either   
   > shut the hell up or buy some freaking test equipment and study some of us   
   > like lab rats.  Show us you are real scientists and not just a bunch of   
   > bully trolls.  If you don't want to dish out the cash to satisfy your   
   > "scientific research" then shut up and go away.  Leave us alone so that we   
   > might regroup and start again.   
      
   I've explained in another why that's not going to happen, as far as I'm   
   concerned: unless you can show me there's something worth spending time   
   and money on I'm not interested.   
      
   > If you are saying that you've been meditating daily for the past 30 years,   
   > then yes, of course it counts.  But if you only have two OOBs to show for it   
   > then I might suggest a different method of meditation if you want to know   
   > more about this subject.   
      
   My meditation isn't about OBE's.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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?   
   >   
   > Observation - you do not show yourself to be an explorer.  Where is the   
   > evidence?  Where is the proof ;-)   
      
   I've got a pith helmet in the attic*. Does that count?   
      
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > You mean experiments like, "What do I have in my top dresser drawer under my   
   > socks?"  Stuff like that?  Don't you think that is a little too heavy for   
   > undiciplined neophytes without real training?   
      
   Yep.  That's why I always start with something smaller - the card test.   
      
    > Even with my experience I had   
   > difficulty even getting near the pyramids in our first major group   
   > experiment several years ago.  Someone said they saw some guy flying head   
   > first into the main pyramid and showing signs of disorientation, which would   
   > account for my descriptions of slamming into buildings during the trip.  But   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)