quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

I seriously doubt that anybody gives a flying fuck whether or not you accept their experience as factual. But the word "experience" in that sentence highlights a misrepresentation on your part.

No where in the sentence you quote is the word experience. So stop making up dumbass strawmen to attack and deal with what was actually written.

Stop making up dumbass strawmen to attack and deal with what was actually written.

You think that is funny? Why do you think trying stupid crap like that makes you funny?

Wow, wrong again. That's two in a row. I don't think I'm funny, I think you're funny. Get it now?

Glad to help.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I cannot find this study published in any journal ever. Where is it?

I don't offer it as an example of the best. I only mentioned it because it matched your proposal. It's the second of Tart's earliest explorations in the field.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13593162/Six-Studies-of-OBE-Charles-Tart

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

As to the rest how many times does it have to be pointed out to you that anecdotes are not useful evidence. It could be the combination of poor sedation and the input of other senses or it could just be a dream. Until someone can actually do it on demand and reproduce it under rigorous experimental standards its just anecdotes.

Ah, the old "anecdote" ploy. If we were chatting and I mentioned meeting a pretty brunette in the market the other day, you wouldn't dismiss it as anecdotal nonsense. You'd take me at my word. You only pull this "anecdote" business when you hear something that conflicts with your faith. It's really just a substitute for crying "heresy," because the priestly bullshit you're promoting is Scientism.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So when you changed the quoted text in the above post and response it wasn't as a joke? Why then did you do it? Were you trying to convince casual readers that I had not been truthful in my original reply?

You're making shit up. I didn't change anything.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

People like you say I should accept their beliefs as fact without any evidence and then whine and accuse me of being close minded when I refuse.

I suspect your opinion of yourself is somewhat overwrought. I seriously doubt that anybody gives a flying fuck whether or not you accept their experience as factual. But the word "experience" in that sentence highlights a misrepresentation on your part. It's one thing merely to "believe" in Unicorns, without any evidence. It's another matter entirely to have the experience of finding one grazing in your back yard. Someone who has experienced being out of their body has a very good basis for claiming that it's possible. It is your contrary belief that rests solely on faith without evidence.

K.

No where in the sentence you quote is the word experience. So stop making up dumbass strawmen to attack and deal with what was actually written.

As to the claim that because someone has had an experience they describe as an OBE, I will simply ask them if they can do it consistently and then ask them to do it under experimental conditions. All they have to do is report what word is written on a chalk board in another room. Since they can't and the experience described is reproducible by doing certain things to a person it is entirely reasonable to conclude it is a sensory hallucination as has been firmly established by much investigation of the subject.
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/127/2/243.short
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/25/3/550.short

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


So you're objecting to me highlighting your disparaging misrepresentation of people's actual experience as 'beliefs without any evidence'? Well that's just tough. Plan on it happening again. Because your definition of what constitutes evidence exists only in the creed of Scientism, and I'm not a member of your Church.

K.

quote:

People like you say I should accept their beliefs as fact without any evidence and then whine and accuse me of being close minded when I refuse.

quote:

But the word "experience" in that sentence highlights a misrepresentation on your part.

quote:

No where in the sentence you quote is the word experience. So stop making up dumbass strawmen to attack and deal with what was actually written.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Then they merely accepted on FAITH that the universe was expanding yet slowing down, til they were PROVEN WRONG?

NBA . . . A misrepresentation of faith in scientific knowledge. It is not the same as faith in religious dogma. Science works by constructing a model which the consensus accepts until its predictions are falsified. The purpose of research and investigation is to seek out what is wrong in the current model and advance our knowledge or change our understanding. Emergent knowledge through falsifying previous belief is the essence of science. The limitations of current knowledge are implicit in the scientific project.

See my reply to you in post #133 on page #7.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TigressLily
Skepticism aside, this isn't to be played around with. That psychic energy cord (which can be seen while in an OBE state) can be broken. Experimentation in this area can produce a lethal result in the physical death of the corporeal self. Some things in life you just don't mess with. Whether one believes in the validity of OBEs is immaterial.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
There's a unicorn in this jar, prove there isn't.

This is a trick question....the unicorn is invisible!

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Kirata
[..] individual consciousness, although normally coincident with the physical body, can nevertheless function independently and separate from it.

Those of us who have enjoyed an out-of-body experience (OBE, often called 'soaring') can attest to the validity of this claim. For kinksters, an OBE is often achieved as part of BDSM practices. For some, it is a goal of BDSM participation. There are numerous other ways of achieving this state of consciousness.

For those who have experienced an OBE, the experience itself is sufficient verification. External/independent verification is another matter. I'm not sure how it might be done, especially to the satisfaction of a materialist skeptic.

Tweakabelle . . . no role for the euphoria inducing chemicals: endorphins, dopamine, serotonin??

cheers from your friendly materialistic skeptic

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: TigressLily

Skepticism aside, this isn't to be played around with. That psychic energy cord (which can be seen while in an OBE state) can be broken. Experimentation in this area can produce a lethal result in the physical death of the corporeal self. Some things in life you just don't mess with. Whether one believes in the validity of OBEs is immaterial.

Yeah that sure is skepticism aside and even just plain common sense aside. This is obvious bullshit. If anyone was actually able to do astral projection they could easily collect $1 million. Yet the prize goes unclaimed....

Even for those ignorant of the actual explanation this should be enough for you to get that astral projection is bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

line you quoted

quote:

People like you say I should accept their beliefs as fact without any evidence and then whine and accuse me of being close minded when I refuse.

What you wrote about it.

quote:

But the word "experience" in that sentence highlights a misrepresentation on your part.

I don't know who you think you're fooling, but posting trimmed quotes to bolster false accusations doesn't make you look very good. Earlier in the thread I even bolded and set in color where the word "experience" appears in the sentence immediately before the one you're quoting here, and to which this one refers.

I think this is where The First Law of Holes comes into play for you.

K.

quote:

Tim Minchin is a HUGE DEAL in the stomping grounds of Dawkins himself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Science works by constructing a model which the consensus accepts until its predictions are falsified... The limitations of current knowledge are implicit in the scientific project.

Before we arrived at our current state of knowledge, you believed in the previous one with all the fervor of a zealous monk, dismissing with derision anything that contradicted it. Now you believe in the current state of knowledge with all the fervor of a zealous monk, dismissing with derision anything that contradicts it. And tomorrow you'll believe in the new paradigm with all the fervor of a zealous monk, dismissing with derision anything that contradicts it.

This is what you preach as sensible, sound, scientific thinking, that we should always place our faith in the shifting sands of the currently fashionable consensus, no matter how many times the previous ones have been wrong, and no matter how certain it is that the current one will prove to be flawed as well. For this, you assert, has nothing to do with faith, and is a practice that we should learn to respect lest we deserve the derision heaped upon ignorance.

And in other news, you new show premieres Sunday at 10am Eastern.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NoBimbosAllowed

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Then they merely accepted on FAITH that the universe was expanding yet slowing down, til they were PROVEN WRONG?

NBA . . . A misrepresentation of faith in scientific knowledge. It is not the same as faith in religious dogma. Science works by constructing a model which the consensus accepts until its predictions are falsified. The purpose of research and investigation is to seek out what is wrong in the current model and advance our knowledge or change our understanding. Emergent knowledge through falsifying previous belief is the essence of science. The limitations of current knowledge are implicit in the scientific project.

See my reply to you in post #133 on page #7.

I saw that and I responded (did you miss it, which would indicate a less than scientific "due diligence"?).

quote:

An interesting aspect to all of this is that there was more than just one person involved - there is always at least one other person involved, sometimes more. Afterwards, when we discuss the experiences we've had, often others describe feeling the same OBE-type experience that I feel. This similarity of experience is difficult to reconcile with explanations that rely on chemical induction as a causal factor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NoBimbosAllowed

Kirata, hanuman would like to know if you are luring Dommie Wommie into a corner of a painted room, after handing him the paintbrush and the bucket of Dulux.



Regard for self, and valuation of the self by dit of one's position in a group has always been the bailiwick of Theocrats and "The Unholy Holies".

The people who respond the most vehemently and emotionally are always the least 'scientific',

and pretending to avoid a point while bandying words like "strawman argument" are most often seen by people screaming bloody murder at the removal of references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Have you been selling the nice man a bunch of paint and brushes, Kirata?