Re: On out of the body experiences.
- There are several ways in which consciousness might, arguably, be
involved in the ganzfeld, but there appears to be no direct evidence
that it is. For example, even in a very successful experiment the
hits are mixed with many misses and the subjects themselves cannot
say which is which (if they could the successful trials could be
separated out and even better results obtained). In other words, the
subject is unaware of the ESP even when it is occurring.
The effects of consciousness on physical systems" (In that sense
Radin's book of 1989 that i mentioned is already outdated) I
think there is no justification for this title. In these experiments
a subject typically sits in front of a computer screen and tries to
influence the output of some kind of random number generator (RNG),
whose output is reflected in the display. Alternatively they might
listen to randomly generated tones with the intention of making more
of the tones high, or low, as requested, or they might try to affect
the fall of randomly scattered balls or various other systems. The
direction of aim is usually randomised and appropriate control trials
are often run. It is claimed that, in extremely large numbers of
trials, subjects are able to influence the output of the RNG. Is this
an effect of consciousness on a physical system?
--- In theos-talk@y..., "bri_mue" <bri_mue@y...> wrote:
> Reg."I know what a Ganzfeld is, but what does it have to do
> with the OOBE?"
> Bri.: What I mean with that is, some meditators and spiritual
> practitioners have been saying for millennia; that our ordinary
> of ourselves, as conscious, active agents experiencing a real
> external world, is wrong. In other words we live in the illusion
> we are a separate self. In mystical experiences this separate self
> dissolves and the world is experienced as one - actions happen but
> there is no separate actor who acts. Long practice at meditation or
> mindfulness can also dispel the illusion. Now science seems to be
> coming to the same conclusion - that the idea of a separate
> self is false.
> Some Parapsychologists however are still going the other way, and
> still are trying to prove that consciousness really does have power
> that our minds can reach out and "do" things. In this sense it is
> deeply dualist, and as I called, materialistic, even while making
> reference to interconnectedness.
> --- In theos-talk@y..., Steve Stubbs <stevestubbs@y...> wrote:
> > Brigitte: "Bilocations is a myth, but out?of?body
> > experiences or OBE's are "real" and there not the
> > slightest reason why a person who rejects the theory
> > of the astral body should deny their
> > reality.
> > Very true. It must also be said that if the
> > experience is terrestrial the experimenter can bring
> > back some item of information which can be verified
> > later and which could not have been acquired were the
> > experience not real. I have done this myself as have
> > many others who have experimented with this.
> > Without this verification the experience is
> > meaningless, which is why I am skeptical about people
> > who visualize Tarot cards and imagine that they are
> > "pathworking." There is no way to know for sure if
> > what they are doing is real or not.
> > The OOBE is a paradox, which indicates that the way we
> > perceive the world is not the way the world actually
> > is. It is less well known than other paradoxes, and
> > at the same time more interesting.
> > Brigitte: "if Daniel understood something about the
> > Ganzfeld theorie in spite that he name drops that
> > term, he would understand the above, but obviously he
> > doesn't.
> > I know what a Ganzfeld is, but what does it have to do
> > with the OOBE?
> > Brigitte: "One is not talking here about ordinary
> > force but about a special form of it that is not
> > recognized by physicists, a spiritual "force."
> > Not a problem. Force and matter are only meaningful
> > in relation to consciousness anyway.
> > Brigitte: "If the expression, "force" here really
> > referred to energy of some kind, it would have to be
> > quantifiable.
> > Yes, indeed. You probably know Edison experimented
> > with "weighing the soul."
> > Brigitte: "Let us ignore this objection and grant for
> > the sake of discussion that "force" her refers to
> > something that is real but not physical.
> > "Real" means potentially an object of consciousness,
> > and "not physical" means real but not in the class of
> > objects of consciohsness subsumed under the category
> > "physical." "Physical" objects I assume have
> > solidity. Magnetism is real and not physical.
> > Brigitte: "The conservation principle has been shown
> > by physicists to hold only for physical energy. If
> > there is a nonphysical energy, we have no right
> > whatever to say that the conservation principle
> > applies to it.
> > Come again? That is a new one on me.
> > Brigitte: "Incidentally, if we allow the concept of
> > this "force," there would be no reason to disallow a
> > concept of "spiritual entropy"; and just as usable
> > physical energy is constantly lost, so the same might
> > well be true of spiritual energy.
> > Entropy just means the disorder in the universe
> > increases over time. My office is a sterling example
> > of entropy.
> > Brigitte: "The conservation of physical energy does
> > not guarantee the continued, much less the eternal,
> > existence of particular entities.
> > The second law of themodynamics does not say that
> > energy is destroyed, merely that it is dispersed.
> > Brigitte: "What evidence is there that if our minds
> > were indeed composed of spiritual energy, and if this
> > energy were indestructible, that our individual minds
> > exist for ever?
> > Properly understood, our minds do not persist from
> > moment to moment. Only karma persists.
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
> > http://mail.yahoo.com/