# Astral Projection **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2004, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542 "2004-04-28T19:10:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/321 "2004-05-19T09:49:44Z")
And here I thought I was being quite cordial! > [@Aeschines](#): > > Garbage. The frustrating thing about these SMDB debates is that the skeptical side starts out disingenuously denying that any good or compelling experiment has ever been done. You make this complaint probably because you haven’t offered “good and compelling” experiments in the first place (that I have seen) and thus assume that the sceptical reaction you note must necessarily be dastardly. You choose to attack the motives and characters of those who would doubt or criticize your assertions and your cites. Behold: > [@](#): > > The fact is that very good experiments have produced statistically huge results. That’s where we are in the debate, so let’s start there. There have been hundreds, if not thousands of experiments performed to verify psi in the lab. Here’s a cite: > > [http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy1.html](http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy1.html) You offer probably THE longest-lasting modern paper in favour of Ganzfeld existence. However you neglect mention that this paper (from 1994) was already invalidated last century, in 1999 to be exact, by Milton and Wiseman (“Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous Process at Information Transfer,” Psychological Bulletin 125(4): 387-391). Still, five years is a good run for a paper making paranormal claims. Now, before you attack the honesty or competence of the researchers just cited, keep in mind that this analysis sticks to the same guidelines used previously by Honorton, and also that Milton and Wiseman wrote the book on guidelines for paranormal research (I’m not kidding – see Milton, J. & Wiseman, R. _Guidelines for research into Extra-sensory perception_. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. 1997.) Now, here is the summary of the work involved: > [@](#): > > _from [http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/Text/Gz\_Results.html](http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/Text/Gz_Results.html)_ > \*\*Milton, J. and Wiseman, R. (1999). Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer, Psychological Bulletin, 125(4): 387-391 \*\* > D. J. Bem and C. Honorton (1994) recently presented in this journal a set of ganzfeld extrasensory perception (ESP) experiments conducted by C. Honorton that appeared to support the existence of a communication anomaly. In this article, the authors present a meta analysis of 30 ganzfeld ESP studies from 7 independent laboratories adhering to the same stringent methodological guidelines that C. Honorton followed. The studies failed to confirm his main effect of participants scoring above change on the ESP task, Souffer z = 0.70, p = .24, one-tailed; M effect size (z/N-super(1/2)) = 0.013, SD = 0.23. The new studies included replication attempts of 3 out of 5 internal effects reported as statistically significant by D. J. Bem and C. Honorton. Only 1 was confirmed, and the authors found the D. J. Bem and C. Honorton were mistaken in describing the original effect as being statistically significant. The authors conclude that the ganzfeld technique does not at present offer a replicable method for producing ESP in the laboratory. Plenty more interesting stuff on that page on Ganzfeld back and forth. Now, > [@Aeschines](#): > > There are also a ton of resources at [www.borderinstitute.org](http://www.borderinstitute.org). Now, you can cry “bullshit” on any link, for any cite. In fact, most of the time what happens is that someone posts some cites in favor of the paranormal here, and in 5 minutes or so some bright light has debunked the article, nay, the entire cite with a few chunky phrases of jargon. You’re free to do so, anyone is, but at that point we’re not even debating. Hm, this level of pre-emptive denial just doesn’t seem very healthy, and is effectively indistinguishable from the automatic gainsaying you so readily accuse sceptics of employing. How about raising the quality of your cites and accounting for criticism? [BorderInstitute.org](http://BorderInstitute.org) doesn’t load, and doesn’t sound terribly impressive. Still, if it eventually loads I hope you don’t expect me to go through cite by tedious cite and debunk each? If such an incredible body of scientific knowledge as you claim really exists, then your only remaining argument here is that this is all a conspiracy by sceptical scientists to cover up the truth, since such an impressive collection of high-quality peer reviewed and replicable studies adding significantly to our understanding of physics would hardly need a champion… if it existed. Is this conspiracy your argument? > [@](#): > > If you don’t know what I mean by “Ganzfeld experiments,” then you really don’t know enough to be debating this. I was asking you for specific details and claims _regarding_ Ganzfeld experiments rather than accept hand-waving about “good experiments” and similar out of sight items. Instead you hastily took the opportunity to dismiss me. > [@](#): > > Yeah, OK, sure. And when paranormal researchers do metaanalysis, it’s bullshit all the way, right? Thus far, although not **all** such instances are “bullshit all the way”, they are nonetheless flawed to varying degrees. Not least for their mysterious lack of replicability. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _originally posted by Abe_ > > And psi is by no means like psychology, not even the softer side of psychology; it seems you assume that trying to isolate and define elusive and highly varied patterns of human behaviour and response is the same thing as recording a “supernatural” phenomenon? There is a world of difference! > > Meaningless. One-word dismissal (with zero semantic content and reasoning) of rather lengthier and heavier arguments. Let me see if I can make this clearer, even though I explained this point in more detail a couple paragraphs just after the excerpt you quoted: you complain that psychology is a sloppy field of inquiry that employs sloppy methods. You rant about how methods in paranormal investigation are superior and more scientific than the methods used in psychology. I pointed out items in your personal and monolithic view of psychology that are flagrantly incorrect, and spent a bit of time sketching out experimental psychology and its subdivisions as they exist today, and their much stricter approach to the scientific method than old school pychology. I also appealed to your good sense by pointing out that observing a simple effect that is supposedly demonstrable (Ganzfeld effects) is a FAR more straightforward task than much (if not all) of what psychology is investigating at the moment. It’s the difference between detecting an effect that is allegedly there, and delving into the complexities of sentience (e.g., to observe and explain, as mentioned before, such things as memory and how it is affected by emotional states) with all the difficulties that entails. Additionally, you are forced to use different tools for different tasks. Don’t expect the same exact procedures and methods to be used regardless when trying to observe a mysterious effect vs. an established effect, or determining mechanisms and hierarchies of cognition vs. the value of g on Earth’s surface. > [@](#): > > No shit, Sherlock. And I’m not defending any of these things, simply the proven fact that such results have been got in the lab–many, many times. Really, **Aeschines** , I’m being Nice Abe but the savage variant could come out at any minute if you subject me to more of this arrogant and over-hasty disregard for others’ arguments. Your results obtained in the lab: in addition to peer review, how many of them have been replicated by serious and respected researchers? For added consideration, include real scientists please, a degree in parapsychology (thus far still a hypothetical field) is not exactly impressive material. > [@](#): > > I’ve debunked the “extraordinary claims” thingie more than once on these boards. “Extraordinary” is an emotional term–it has no use in science. Sufficient proof is sufficient, and that’s that. Copernican theory might have been “extraordinary” to the bishops, but a few observations and calculations were sufficient to prove it. The “extraordinary” phrase was someone’s (Carl Sagan?) pleasantly axiomatic way of saying that evidence must be commensurate to the claim advanced. You haven’t debunked anything, you have simply restated the axiom. The axiom is useful because it reminds us that that 0.0001 variation from “ordinary” results is usually not enough to rattle our current understanding of science (as the existence of Ganzfeld would, if it really were detectable), rather it suggests experimental or analytical error and calls for close examination or dismissal of unacceptable experimental/observational errors. For the record, “extraordinary” is not an emotional term, it is a very clear term that means “unusual or remarkable; out of the usual course”. A statement such as “the value of g on the surface of the Earth is 7.33 m/s[sup]2[/sup]” is **clearly** extraordinary. The extraordinary evidence required to support such an extraordinary statement would need to be extensive in order to invalidate _existing_ evidence that points to g on the surface of the Earth as being 9.8 m/s[sup]2[/sup]. Such evidence, like the claim, would have to be commensurably “extraordinary” inasmuch as it must _reliably_ trump existing evidence (i.e. it must deviate from “the usual course” such evidence has always taken in the past). Semantics? Yes. Valid? I don’t see why not. > [@](#): > > Dude, I’m telling you–these studies were a frickin’ joke. The intent of the questionnaires was supposed to be “hidden,” but it was always 100% clear. I once walked out on an experiment (we got credit anyway if we were “uncomfortable,” etc.)–I think it was about attitudes toward homosexuality or whatnot–because it was so insulting to my intelligence. I don’t doubt your reaction. I also don’t doubt you had very poor experiences with psychology overall, but it is pointless to rail against experimental psychology by citing techniques (classroom surveys and questionnaires) that are flatly rejected by it! It is also pointless to use a personal anecdote from one university experience to invalidate all psychological inquiry. But I agree that quality is often lacking. My own experiences (mostly as a subject but also as an experimenter), on the other hand, were distinctly superior to yours from the scientific point of view. I won’t trot them out though because anecdotal evidence is not adequate evidence and won’t get us anywhere. > [@](#): > > Re your comments about neuroscience, etc.–yeah, there have been some results. Not really related to my point. Excuse me, “some” results in neuroscience?? Isn’t that a little understated? Anyway, you threw down a challenge asking anyone to discuss any value or quality in experimental psychology, which I did. That seems rather related to your point, although you then say that your point was: > [@](#): > > Which is that “lab” (er, classroom) experiments for psychology are taken seriously (ie, ignored) by those same skeptics that will go bonkers over perceived flaws in parapsych experiments–despite the fact that the former are a joke. Ah, here you restate your objections as pertaining to “classroom psychology” rather than experimental psychology. Now things become clearer. Well I agree with you, and that is why I pointed out that experimental psychology tends to avoid such an approach as passing out questionnaires to bored students. Why? Because it was found out to be a frequently shaky method. When such methods are used, all the standard caveats of said methods apply to resulting papers (and if written properly such caveats are clearly stated in the paper), and the evil, accepting scientists who read them take them into consideration. Such results are not accepted blindly – but then again it should be noted that these “classroom” exercises are not making extraordinary claims such as the existence of mysterious and undetected “fields” and energies for which no reliable evidence or indication exists in the entire field of science. The difference is obvious. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by Abe_ > > Ah, yet another sally against the evil sceptical reductionist-materialist view, a sally as valid as the one I addressed a couple messages ago. Well, here you make no sense at all, Aeschines. Scepticism is not a position, it is a method. > > Gawd, not this bromide again. It’s the simple truth. I don’t dispute that some who call themselves sceptics use the tag as a position rather than a method, however you will simply have to accept this if no better arguments than those you have already provided are forthcoming, and this doesn’t count: > [@](#): > > This is a neat bit of equivocation that works wonders for the “cause.” 95% of self-labeled skeptics are reductionist-materialist, such that those who don’t share this viewpoint really don’t feel comfortable applying this label to themselves. Yet, skepticism is, **in reality** , this noble doubting, this pure pursuit of truth! Yes it is, just as science is the noble pursuit of knowledge via the formulation and understanding of models. Your above rant is not merely anti-scepticism, it is also curiously anti-scientific. Replace “scepticism” with “science” and you have exactly the same tired tripe trotted out by hardline creationists and paranormalists complaining that they and their work are not taken seriously. Being a sceptic (as I pointed out with a few examples in my previous message) does not require a position on anything, it merely requires critical thinking skills and the ability to doubt and question _any topic or claim_. Mind you, it is hardly surprising that many of your reductionist-materialists should be sceptics, since the one position and the one method can mesh together fairly well (but other combinations exist too!). > [@](#): > > Guess what, honest Abe? You and I probably agree on 90% of issues–but I don’t call myself a sketpic. Guess what else? You and I take an epistemological approach to things with about 90% overlap–but I don’t call myself a skeptic. Why? The term is so loaded with things outside that “we are searchers of the truth” spin that I could never feel comfortable using the term. Too many self-labeled “skeptics” have denied too many well-proven phenomena for too long for me to think well of that nomiker. This is another forceful assertion where the force and the passion seek to make up for the lack of evidence. The exact same claim above could be made of any method (science) or any position (theism) and still have the same validity – none. Here in Hong Kong there is a political party called The Democratic Alliance For the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB). In spite of their name they have nothing whatsoever to do with democracy, but are instead a Beijing organ fiercely pro-mainland and pro-communist party. The (real) Democratic Party of Hong Kong is understandably not happy about this, since the DAB are the farthest thing from democracy you can conceivably have, but what can the DP do about it? Nothing. The DAB keeps trying (and sometimes succeeding) to win votes from the population with frequent references to democratic values, power of the people, and whatnot. What we can all do is avoid generalizations and similar fallacies: the DAB aren’t democratic and they shouldn’t be taken as an index of democrats simply because they call themselves democrats. Those who hold a reductionist-materialist view may or may not be sceptics, but automatic nay-saying is simply not part of the sceptic’s toolbox. I couldn’t care less what people call themselves, I could call myself a poet but that wouldn’t make me one – rather it would be my methods (er… eloquence and poetic sense?) that would establish me as a poet. Let’s also not forget that there are many, many, amateurs out there. Just as you don’t turn to the legions of uninformed amateur film critics to obtain a film review, you shouldn’t base your thunderous judgement on sloppy/biased amateurs for sceptical input. And we can also make an effort to provide cites rather than anecdotal evidence to help reduce the noise. You really seem to have a problem with sceptics – can you support your claims with documented non-anecdotal evidence? > [@](#): > > Then most media skeptics are fanatic naysayers. Cites to demonstrate this surprising claim? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by Abe_ > > When a mind is “truly open”, the rain and the insects and the forest creatures get in and make a mess of everything. Pretty soon you have mildew everywhere, things rust to pieces, and the droppings of base vermin underfoot is likely to give one endemic typhus or toxoplasmosis or whatnot. > > But if that’s the price of TRUTH!? What gets in _may_ contain a modicum of truth (or it may not), but it is so mixed with quantities of ordure that you end up with an unpleasant mess. Installing a good door will allow the truth in, and keep the endemic typhus and the rest of the crap out. Although I deliberately didn’t mention the door, this was the gist of my tongue-in-cheek analogy. > [@](#): > > BTW Abe, I am frustrated with your boilerplate rhetoric here, but please don’t take it personally. On most issues, I assue you, you and I will be playing on the same team. Unless you like GW Bush! :eek: Irrelevant to the discussion, although a quick search will allay your doubts. If you honestly think I’ve served you up boilerplate rhetoric I assure you you are mistaken, but I suspect that you have already (long ago?) accepted weak evidence in support of extraordinary claims, and are unwilling to consider that your evidence may be flawed – this is supported by 1) your citation of the 1994 Ganzfeld study (which stood only until 1999), and 2) the poor resort to the “they laughed at Galileo too” fallacy, which is just about the lowest one in the book. What you can do now is demonstrate that the evidence you base your judgement on is **not** weak as it would seem (as suggested by greater scientific evidence and consensus), but instead is as good as you keep stating it is; and if you stop attacking the character of sceptical observers and instead concentrate on the subject of discussion, I’m predicting that will help a lot too. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/322 "2004-05-19T11:30:49Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > [http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/RSA\_text.html](http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/RSA_text.html) > > It’s hilarious, but while Wolpert (the skeptic) just blithers, Sheldrake cites study after study, after statistic, after number. > > Are you sure you guys really _want_ these cites? :rolleyes: The very first things Sheldrake starts out with, after what appears to be a very decent introduction by Wolpert, are: 1. the suggestion that those who do not think there is evidence for telepathy have a closed mind 2. alluding to creationists along the same parameters as his references to his opponent, who is a bona fide scientist, and therefore placing the two on a similar if not the same level 3. the classic pre-emptive “if you have a closed mind you won’t be convinced no matter how much golden evidence I throw at you” – meaning that if you don’t believe him you have a closed mind. Would you call that a good start?? That is absolutely pathetic, and it’s just in the first few sentences! I would also like to refer you to live debates between creationists and real scientists: creationists often tend to come out with the upper hand for some reason. Does that invalidate evolution and cast a negative light on scientists who argue for it? Or does it suggest that those willing to play fast and loose in a debate will come out on top? Let’s take a very quick look at this pathetic drivel, I don’t have time to do so at length but we can definitely blow away the dust of equivocation and recognize a clear pattern. Wolpert’s opening is fine and reflects current state of scientific knowledge, so let’s go to Sheldrake’s reply: > [@](#): > > **Sheldrake:** > For me, the most persuasive and important evidence is the fact that so many people believe they’ve actually had telepathic experiences. Most people, indeed, according to surveys in Britain, Europe, America and all round the world, believe they’ve had these experiences. Do we honestly need to go into this? If something is believed by ten or a hundred or a thousand billion people, it still has absolutely no impact on the truth. Oh, and look, he’s using _surveys_ as his “most persuasive and important” evidence in support of telepathy. Sheldrake’s main item is precisely what, you, Aeschines, were so upset about in your understanding of psychology! > [@](#): > > Now, some might say, and in fact Lewis Wolpert would say, that this is, in fact, an illusion, that they have been coincidences and they’ve wrongly believed these to be telepathic. Tricks of memory, forgetting when they’re wrong, only remembering when they’re right and so forth, but the fact is millions, hundreds of millions, in fact, billions of perfectly normal, rational people, believe that they’ve had these experiences. Can they all be wrong and so easily deluded? Yes, I don’t see why not and neither should he, if he were serious about science. Numerical superiority has no bearing. A billion people can be wrong just as easily as one person. Opinion is not evidence. > [@](#): > > Secondly, there have been many collections of case histories, stories of peoples’ telepathic experiences. These are generally dismissed, in their entirety, as being anecdotal. This is incredibly dishonest and fabulously silly. Of course anecdotal evidence is not acceptable. He is (again) going against the very grain of the scientific method that he purports to follow. He then explains why it’s OK for him to use anecdotes as real evidence. Remember, this is his second-most item of evidence in support of telepathy and he’s been engrossed in excuses and apologies right from the start! Anecdotes render one excessively prone to error, confusion, dishonesty, etc. Scientists do not rely on anecdotal evidence (or testimonials, famously used to sell to the gullible everything from snake oil to penis enlargement pills). The basis for all scientific knowledge are observable, measurable, and repeatable phenomena. A belief is an article of faith accepted without empirical evidence, and falls outside the realm of scientific inquiry. A belief is not demonstrated using the scientific method, nor does it affect it. No matter how many people at some stage held the belief that the Earth was flat, the Earth was not flat. No matter how many hundreds of millions of propagandaphagi believed Saddam was a maniac armed to the teeth with WMD, such strong belief did not at any point cause the spontaneous appearance of the deadly devices and IAEA scientists kept repeating as much the entire time. Scientists do not rely on testimonials and anecdotes for these reasons and because anecdotes are “closed” items; scientists openly state all details of their scientific methods for peer review, wich requires open qualified evidence so that the attempt to replicate it may be made. Other scientists are encouraged to retest and refine the methods and conclusions, and are able to do so because of the open-ness of the material they work with. Sheldrake then cites a 120-year old study in support of telepathy, but probably more to establish a bit of history and respectability to the field than anything else-- let’s skip ahead. The next item is Sinclair’s 1929 book _Mental Radio_, which is all about remote viewing (“it was a great bestseller” - so what?). Fast forward to 1966 and the feverish era of dream telepathy research, wisely abandoned a few years later. Fast forward to Ganzfeld in the 1970s. More self-congratulatory prattle. Human-animal telepathy, etc. What has he really said? Nothing of real impact. This is addressed beautifully by Wolpert: > [@](#): > > **Wolpert** : Well, it’s [the deluge of brief references provided by Sheldrake] hard to review critically, without going into each case separately. Exactly. Taken one by one, I’d be very surprised if (exactly like the 1994 Bem & Honorton study) anomalies didn’t surface for each and every single experiment, pseudo-experiment, study, or pseudo-study cited. But of course, it’s easy enough to select several hundred items, lump them together, ignore follow-up criticisms, and overwhelm the opposition with them. If you think this is an honest citation technique, I’d strongly question your understanding of science. Wolpert then asks the big question: > [@](#): > > it’s slightly weird that, what the people who work in this field [do] is just to provide more examples. They make no effort whatsoever to understand what’s going on. You see, any normal scientist would say, “Let’s take our best example for telepathy.” Let’s say it’s the phone. “Now, let’s try and understand what’s going on there. For example, how does it vary with distance, for example? What happens if I actually cheat and none of the people or the people I’ve told, will the people at the other end know?” In other words, try to falsify the hypothesis Nothing to add there. Wolpert proceeds to cite a few studies that falsify the previous claims, specifically: > [@](#): > > I have in front of me a paper by Richard Wiseman, Matthew Smith, and Julie Milton, actually done with your dog… which you claimed, knew when … [you] were coming home, and their analysis of the behaviour of the dog, Jaytee, shows that the dog didn’t have a clue. It would go outside for all sorts of reasons, and, you know, there was somebody passing by, there was a cat in a nearby tree. It didn’t have a clue when you were coming home The other study is, funny enough the same one I cited in my response to you, Aeschines. He then tackles this ridiculous belief in anecdotes, and I suspect he is perhaps being heckled or interrupted frequently because the transcript is in a real sorry state. I can’t fault his take on the inadmissibility of anecdotal evidence though, he’s got it right. Cute example of the force and the airplane anecdote. Wolpert moves on to make a critical point: > [@](#): > > Also, when Rupert says, “186 papers were published in the scientific literature.” Which scientific literature? The parapsychology literature. Now, I’m not snobbish - (yes, I am, of course I’m snobbish!) - if it were in the British Journal of Psychology or Science or Nature or the Transactions of the Royal Society, I would take it much more seriously, and if it were a real phenomena, these journals would publish it. There’s no question of it. What’s in it for us? Why should we scientists, be worried that telepathy exists, even though we can’t explain it? That’s very good too – he not only puts things into the proper perspective (respectable scientific journals versus dubious and overtly biased proponents of questionable fringe theories) but he then goes on to try dispel that whole idiotic conspiracy theory that many laymen and rejected scientists (or pseudo-scientists) seem to enjoy propagating, which is eerily similar to the whole “natural medicine” vs. “mainstream medicine” nonsense. Anyone who believes in this sort of conspiracy cagal would do well to read Wolpert’s point about the excitement that **real** paranormal experimental evidence would cause among **real** scientists. He repeats himself on the importance of investigating an effect as opposed to merely detecting it and seems to be interrupted again. He then cites some probability quirks, expanding on the coincidence factor cited earlier, in his opening. Coincidences can appear remarkable, yes. But are they really? Not unless you can prove it, damn it. I have to stop there but I see absolutely nothing to laugh at in Wolpert’s reply. **Except** that the transcript seems pretty badly mangled in some parts, and requires a little bit of reconstruction to make it clear in some cases. ---
**Author:** ![Algernon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@Algernon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algernon)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/323 "2004-05-19T13:23:58Z")
I want to simply say that **Abe** , you have now been added to my list of SDMB-people-I-admire. Well said. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/324 "2004-05-19T13:27:43Z")
> [@VertexShader](#): > > There are DMT reports. I posted that back on page 5, it appears you weren’t paying attention. Take your time and read a great many. > > I’m glad we are finally making progress, Lekatt. > > Ketamine is nowhere near as interesting, or as natural, as DMT. DMT is found in each and every one of us, and in pretty much animal/plant on this planet, ketamine isn’t. The DMT molecule very closely resembles Serotonin, which as you should know, is a neurotransmitter. Some have gone as far to call DMT a neurotransmitter itself. > > One of the most amazing coincidences(?) is that Buddhists believe it takes 49 days for the soul to reincarnate. 49 days is how long it takes for the pineal gland, where DMT is produced, to appear up in a fetus. The “third eye” of many beliefs centers right on the pineal gland. When I went to the link I recognized the page. I have been reading these experiences for a while off and on. I am giving the link to one I feel is close to a NDE. [http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=7237](http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=7237) I disagree with you on the effect of DMT over Ketamine. Ketamine experiences were less visual and more of the feeling of loved than DMT. However, both drugs and all drugs are not the cause of NDEs. I noticed many of the users of DMT saying their heart was not beating or they couldn’t breath. The drug takes the experiencer to the threashhold of death, and that is what causes the experience. In the link above the individual had a real spiritual experience that impressed him considerable as the NDE does. But he does warn others as he should about the drug. When at attempt is made to reach the spiritual world with drugs it is dangerous due to the chance of overdose and dying. It is also dangerous due to the emotional level of the individual. If you enter the spirit world unprepared emotional you can have a very bad experience. Now, one thing needs to be said over and over again. There are natural ways to reach the spiritual world. When you use these methods you are in control of your experience. But when you use drugs to enter the spirit world the drug is in control of your experience and it can be very bad. I think you should read some NDEs for comparison. Love ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/325 "2004-05-19T13:33:09Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Please cite the debunking of PEAR and the other things you half-mentioned. I’m not challenging you; I want to read about these. PEAR debunked themselves (albeit under pressure).[Here’s a summary.](http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/shapesintheclouds.htm) “Once again, there was reasonably good agreement among the six scoring recipes, but the overall results were now completely indistinguishable from chance.” > [@](#): > > Oh puh-lease. See what I’ve been saying about psychology in this thread. In the soft sciences they come up with correlations that would make a lab scientist blow milk out his nose–whereas in parapsychology they’re actually coming up with amazing stats that skeptics just ignore anyway. At any rate, it says in the cite of the debate that the guy made a criterion–1 minute or something like that–but changed arbitrarily later and said the experiment had failed. The nerve! Sheldrake claims this, but has no evidence that protocol was changed at inappropriate times. He then whines that Wiseman did not sufficiently data-mine. Not a good sign. > [@](#): > > Cites for the above, please. Rhine? Please, look at his results after he inserted protocols. Nothing worthy of note. Eisenbud? Read the LIFE article about his start pupil, or better yet read his fawning book where the Queen of England symbolicly becomes the USS Thresher. SRI? Pwah! Read the intro to the Nature paper they toss in everyone’s face. Schwartz? His first dreck he weaselly admitted not having good enough controls (but wrote a book about the experiments anyway). His latest ‘work’ was so poor that the woo-woo journals rejected it. > [@](#): > > And you seem to imply that every experiment in the history of parapsychology has been debunked, when you know that that’s not true-ue! On the contrary, I ‘know’ nothing of the sort. > [@](#): > > The same STRONG effects observed in the 19th century are observed today–even with controls 50x tighter. Bull. The controls are just as bad and sometimes are even worse. Parapsychology has just twisted a few dials and plays with meta-analysis to make it seem as if there is success. They’ve gotten better at data mining and hiding the fact that they are doing so. That’s about it. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/326 "2004-05-19T17:35:15Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > You offer probably THE longest-lasting modern paper in favour of Ganzfeld existence. However you neglect mention that this paper (from 1994) was already invalidated last century, in 1999 to be exact, by Milton and Wiseman (“Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous Process at Information Transfer,” Psychological Bulletin 125(4): 387-391). Still, five years is a good run for a paper making paranormal claims. Here you are raising the discussion to a level rarely seen on SMDB when discussing the paranormal: you are commenting about actual studies and showing some good knowledge of them. I will confess now that, although I have a basic understanding of statistics and science, I am not a paranormal investigator, and I am not tuned into that world. I do not know what studies that consider the _thing_, which they are sheepish about at this point, etc. My basis for believing that psi is real comes from having read a lot on the Internet and in books–I have looked at both sides of the argument. I have a basic feel for the claims that parapsychologists make and for the ways that skeptics respond to them. So, call it layman-plus. I’m basically forced to play the game of “Your expert says this, but my expert says that.” On SMDB, the typical algorithm for debunking any study is to find something online about that a media skeptic has written, or one of the skeptic sites, cite it and consider the case closed–without, of course, processing that information oneself and really understanding the issues involved. Of course, this type of cite-and-run tactic doesn’t end up convincing anyone. Personally, I have not enjoyed the tone and overall level of reasoning I have seen coming from the media skeptics. And I have read debunkings of the debunkings and have tended to come out convinced by the parapsychologists–assuming, of course, some base data with a minimum level of respectability: the real studies, that is. The skeptics often seem to take the shortcut algorithm of, “Find the tiniest flaw and you’re done.” So, it sounds like you know more than I do, and I can either train harder and get in the ring with you, or I can just admit that my belief in psi and other things has been formed by the totality of my readings and experience–I cannot battle you fact for fact. I don’t have the facts. (Which is not to say that I have not studied certain studies thoroughly, but that I just don’t have them stored in memory, etc.) Now, if the skeptic community out there were really interested in convincing persons like myself who actully care enough to study the matters–and they don’t, really–then I can conceive of a method that would be really helpful, perhaps even successful. I’d like to see a database, even a nice long list on a web page, stating all the studies that have been done, and what their status is now: Does the parapsychologist side still hold that its good research? Is it a jewel in the crown, so to speak? Or are even parapsychologists ashamed to bring it up? Was it published in a journal? And, assuming that each and every study will be unacceptable for some reason, the reason for invalidation explained in terms that are sufficient to debunk–which can be replied to or not, as the case may be. Now you mentioned the 1994 study that was debunked, so you say, in 1999. First of all, I wasn’t citing that study as evidence that I personally feel is good. At that point in the debate I was simply trying to move beyond the disingenous “No evidence!” claim that gets made every time. Now, here’s an example of why these things don’t move forward. You say it’s been debunked. But you don’t mention what the other side has to say. Are they sagging now, ashamed of their failure? Or do they have anything to say in reply? The blithe implication, “Oh everyone knows that that study was debunked _years_ ago” just leaves me nonplussed. The skeptics have many tools at their disposal, I should think, to focus at least on the area of real controversy and get down to brass tacks. Bromides about there being “No evidence” do their position no justice whatsoever. Even though I am on the opposite side, I can easily imagine a better way for Wolpert to start off his speech. Now, I’m just imagining the following, but wouldn’t this be better? Ladies and gentlemen, let’s start off concretely. The first parapsychology experiment that we can really call an experiment took place in 1888. Since then, at last count, there have been 3,452 studies published in peer-reviewed journals, of which 2,867 have taken place since WWII. Now, paraspsychologists generally recognize that the pre-War studies did not have sufficient controls, they are not thought of as good research by either side of the debate, so let’s focus on the post-War studies. Of those 2,867 studies, in my count 650 deal with non-controversial phenomena. For example, the placebo effect and whatnot. These are studies that we skeptics have no problem with. That leaves us with 2,217 studies. But not all studies come up with positive results. In fact, the majority of these studies came up with negative results. We skeptics have no problem with these, either, for obvious reasons. We are left with precisely 1000 studies that claim positive results for psi. And, again, speaking concretely, ladies and gentlemen, the majority of these remaining thousand are obscure studies that not even most parapsychologists have heard about, or, for that matter, care about. This doesn’t mean that they are wrong for that reason, but they are not prepared to defend them. And the reason that most of these studies are forgotten is that they reported extremely small effects. Or they were latter criticized, their methods and whatnot, by other parapsychologists. A variety of reasons. So the fact is, there are only 200 or studies that are ever really cited in the literature today. In fact, I have the number here–and even some of these are fairly obscure–just 175 studies. I doubt that my good opponent here–this is my own psychic prediction [laughter]–will cite or mention anything other than these. And you know what, ladies and gentlemen [waves packet of papers], I am prepared, right now, to explain in simple and understandble terms, why every single one of these studies is absolutely, incontrovertably, DEAD WRONG. Wouldn’t that be a kick-ass way to argue? So much better than bromides about “no evidence!” And, every time, you could trot out the same list, the same facts, and tear the other person to pieces. > [@](#): > > If such an incredible body of scientific knowledge as you claim really exists, then your only remaining argument here is that this is all a conspiracy by sceptical scientists to cover up the truth, since such an impressive collection of high-quality peer reviewed and replicable studies adding significantly to our understanding of physics would hardly need a champion… if it existed. Is this conspiracy your argument? You seem to think of me as some tinfoil nutter ranting about evil scientists and conspiracies. I ain’t that way. But I’m sure that as we interact more on these boards you’ll come to see that I ain’t such a bad sort, morally or mentally. > [@](#): > > The “extraordinary” phrase was someone’s (Carl Sagan?) pleasantly axiomatic way of saying that evidence must be commensurate to the claim advanced. You haven’t debunked anything, you have simply restated the axiom. The axiom is useful because it reminds us that that 0.0001 variation from “ordinary” results is usually not enough to rattle our current understanding of science (as the existence of Ganzfeld would, if it really were detectable), rather it suggests experimental or analytical error and calls for close examination or dismissal of unacceptable experimental/observational errors. I don’t like the word “extraordinary” for reasons already explained. We seem to agree that sufficient evidence is sufficent. I think that word suffices. If someone would care to provide a numerical definition for “extraordinary” in various cases, then I could accept that. Otherwise the word will, in essence, continue to mean, “Whatever doesn’t fit my worldview.” For two different worldviews are at work. The skeptics see science as mostly done, the details just need to be filled in. So if someone makes a claim that challenges the basic edifice of science, then that claim is a priori almost certainly wrong. Personally, I see our knowledge of consciousness and psi about where chemistry was in 1570–we don’t even have a decent _wrong_ theory like phlogiston yet. The thing is, when it comes to the paranormal, the skeptics don’t take all the claims very coolly–it isn’t water off a duck’s back. It’s more like the duck is on fire and his life is threatened. If the claims aren’t debunked forcefully and immediately, tragedy will result. And you can see the venom and contumeley that results from this clash right here on SMDB. > [@](#): > > Those who hold a reductionist-materialist view may or may not be sceptics, but automatic nay-saying is simply not part of the sceptic’s toolbox. I couldn’t care less what people call themselves, I could call myself a poet but that wouldn’t make me one – rather it would be my methods (er… eloquence and poetic sense?) that would establish me as a poet. Yes, well, your comments about the parties in Hong Kong are also most pertinent. I understand the “nice” definition of skepticism. No problem with it. But the fact remains that people like me who have a New Age worldview see the self-labeled skeptics as close-minded. Maybe we’re wrong, but assertions to the contrary just aren’t going to help that word spin more positively. And more than once on SMDB, I will explain, carefully, that skepticism is self-defined (that is, by its proponents) in this positive way but that, in fact, for various sociological reasons, most skeptics are reductionist-materialists who have a very defined worldview. To the point where you could never find a self-labeled skeptic who would say that psi has been proven (but not ghosts, etc.), since the very definition of “skeptic” at this point–for practical purposes–is someone who denies this list of things. But then–and this gets Twilight-Zoney–people will just come back and say, “No, we’re not close-minded, since skeptics are always open to good evidence.” And then you just realize that there is this gulf between the worldviews, and nothing can bridge it. > [@](#): > > Let’s also not forget that there are many, many, amateurs out there. Just as you don’t turn to the legions of uninformed amateur film critics to obtain a film review, you shouldn’t base your thunderous judgement on sloppy/biased amateurs for sceptical input. Kind of a bad example, since IMDB is actually very useful for getting film reviews. The trouble with science is that it takes one to know one–as I said, beyond a certain level in the debate I am left citing experts. I don’t have the tools to fight back myself. So I can’t always know who the “real” experts are. > [@](#): > > If you honestly think I’ve served you up boilerplate rhetoric I assure you you are mistaken… You did at first, but now this is turning into a real debate. > [@](#): > > …The poor resort to the “they laughed at Galileo too” fallacy, which is just about the lowest one in the book. This is a little low itself, rhetorically, since I was not guilty of the fallacy (which is that they laughed at people who were right, so if you get laughed at, you’re right), when I was referring to the very real problem of evidence crashing against a worldview–the sociological aspect. Specifically related to the point about being “unimpressed.” > [@](#): > > The very first things Sheldrake starts out with, after what appears to be a very decent introduction by Wolpert, are: > > 1. the suggestion that those who do not think there is evidence for telepathy have a closed mind > > 2. alluding to creationists along the same parameters as his references to his opponent, who is a bona fide scientist, and therefore placing the two on a similar if not the same level > > 3. the classic pre-emptive “if you have a closed mind you won’t be convinced no matter how much golden evidence I throw at you” – meaning that if you don’t believe him you have a closed mind. > > Would you call that a good start?? That is absolutely pathetic, and it’s just in the first few sentences! Well, we seem both seem to feel that the “other side” started off poorly. Even so, if you believe in psi, then your experience is probably of feeling that the other is speciously denying results and has its mind closed to the evidence. I know that that is how I feel. What Sheldrake is doing here is not making arguments per se but just framing the overall feel of the debate–from his viewpoint. It’s just rhetoric. No, I don’t think it’s pathetic, since it meshes with my own experience. > [@](#): > > I would also like to refer you to live debates between creationists and real scientists: creationists often tend to come out with the upper hand for some reason. Does that invalidate evolution and cast a negative light on scientists who argue for it? We’ll come to this point again below, but people of all cultures are pretty much compelled to believe in psi because of their own experiences. They _feel_ it to be true. (This doesn’t make it true, of course). People believe in Creationism only because of the historical accident of Xianity. It is a localised culture thing. Of course the Creationists are going to come out on top in certain subcultures/regions in America. Their whole worldview is predicated on dogma, not personal experience. > [@](#): > > Or does it suggest that those willing to play fast and loose in a debate will come out on top? The Creationists aren’t liars–they are compelled by the viral dogma meme to think and act as they do. They deserve pity, not anger. > [@](#): > > Wolpert’s opening is fine and reflects current state of scientific knowledge, so let’s go to Sheldrake’s reply: Oh, this is rich! Let me put it this way–I don’t argue against Creationists, since I understand that they are suffering from a meme infection, but were I to do so I would at least try to take into consideration what they in fact believe. The debate is **about** whether the “current state of scientific” any good when it comes to psi. I mean, all of what Wolpert said requires almost no expertise at all. With an hour or so of cramming and a decent crib shit (related to the dog study or whatnot), I could have gotten up there and faked believably that I held the same position. > [@](#): > > Do we honestly need to go into this? If something is believed by ten or a hundred or a thousand billion people, it still has absolutely no impact on the truth. Oh, and look, he’s using _surveys_ as his “most persuasive and important” evidence in support of telepathy. Sheldrake’s main item is precisely what, you, Aeschines, were so upset about in your understanding of psychology! Ah, but here you are wrong in a very unfortunate way, and the skeptics are too. Note that psi is NOT like what we think about physics, because it relates directly to what we feel, to consciousness. The fact that 90% of the world population is **wrong** in this specific way is nearly as useful as if they were correct. It is a huge clue to how consciousness works, if it nothing else. But the skeptics seem to say, Hey, the world is wrong–get over it. Been there done that. This is the least, productive, the least inquisitive way to do science. Sure, there have been books written about why we believe in gods, psi, whatever, and some of those may have some good in them. But if you really want to do psychology, really get into the mechanics of the mind, then these mental “errors” don’t just impact the truth, they ARE the truth to be studied. > [@](#): > > Anecdotes render one excessively prone to error, confusion, dishonesty, etc. Scientists do not rely on anecdotal evidence (or testimonials, famously used to sell to the gullible everything from snake oil to penis enlargement pills). I think we’re back in boilerplate with this–I think “evidence” in this skeptic usage is nothing more than a pejorative that obscures how various scientific disciplines process information that skeptics would so label. I just don’t take this rhetoric seriously. Each science has its own protocols for what kind of evidence it looks for and standards for the quality thereof. Physics is a lab science in which “anecdotes” could not possibly pose a problem, wheres a science like sociology is based totally on information that could all easily be dismissed as “anecdotes.” The chatter about “anecdotes” on the part of skeptics seems to assume that there is the demononical form of data that science has had to go out of its way to purge itself of. Such a dialectic, as far as I can see, hasn’t taken place; that is, “anecdotal evidence” is something that skeptics wring their hands over, not “real” scientists. > [@](#): > > The basis for all scientific knowledge are observable, measurable, and repeatable phenomena. No, this is wrong. Not all phenomena that science takes seriously are “measurable” (in psychiatry, for example, where you often simply have to take people at their word about internal mental symptoms), nor are they always repeatable (idiot savants with unique talents, etc.). There are many fine points you’ve made that I haven’t addressed. If you feel I’m dodging something, feel free to ask me it directly again. Here I’ve just laid my cards on the table–I am certainly no paranormal expert/badass. I apolgize that some of my rhetoric in my last post to you was of pretty poor quality, and I hope I’ve been able to tune it up a notch in this post. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/327 "2004-05-19T17:47:00Z")
My post was so filled with errors that I truly disgust myself. I’ll correct just one important things: **I think “evidence” in this skeptic usage…** That should be “anecdote.” ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/328 "2004-05-19T19:09:11Z")
There are two major schools of thought, and numerous smaller ones, offered on this board. The major ones being: Religious and Scientific. Both belief systems are designed by man and said to be the only way in which to examine the universe in which we live. Each side fully believes in the accuracy of their system. Over the years tons of rules, laws, procedures, rituals, methods, and dogma have been added to the body of proof each carries to show they are “superior” to the other. But most of the major issues of life are unknowable. No one can say how this world came into being. When the first energy, form and matter arrived or where it came from. We remain in the dark on this and many other issues, yet both the scientist and the religionist claim to have the answer. I live by my experiences, have ever since my near death experience made dust of all my cherished beliefs 16 years ago. I have experienced a physical world and a spiritual world that interact with each constantly and consistently. I believe what I have experienced. There are such things as ESP, out-of-body, and the spiritual world. We are spiritual beings having a physical experience to learn who we are and how to control our thought processes. Having said that, please pass on the Bible thumping and the quoting of scientific mumbo jumbo. I will remain “ignorant” in my personal experiences and finish my life in a world of wonder, peace, and love. Love ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/329 "2004-05-20T00:09:08Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > But most of the major issues of life are unknowable. No one can say how this world came into being. When the first energy, form and matter arrived or where it came from. - The world came into being approximately 4.5 billion years ago, as a colossal disk of matter orbiting the sun coalesced into larger objects, and eventually [spheroid, planet-sized agglomerations.](http://stardate.org/resources/ssguide/planet_form.html) - Energy and matter are the same thing, in different forms. They can generally said to have originated at the Big Bang, though matter did not come into being until a few minutes after the energy, in a process known as [Big Bang nucleosynthesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_nucleosynthesis). - The question of “where this matter / energy came from” assumes certain things about time and space, which didn’t exist ‘before’ the Big Bang. Feel free to come up with whatever theological / philosophical concepts you want here. - This stuff is hardly “unknowable”, it’s just that you don’t know it, or don’t want to believe it. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/330 "2004-05-20T00:23:39Z")
> [@lambchops](#): > > - The world came into being approximately 4.5 billion years ago, as a colossal disk of matter orbiting the sun coalesced into larger objects, and eventually [spheroid, planet-sized agglomerations.](http://stardate.org/resources/ssguide/planet_form.html) > - Energy and matter are the same thing, in different forms. They can generally said to have originated at the Big Bang, though matter did not come into being until a few minutes after the energy, in a process known as [Big Bang nucleosynthesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_nucleosynthesis). > - The question of “where this matter / energy came from” assumes certain things about time and space, which didn’t exist ‘before’ the Big Bang. Feel free to come up with whatever theological / philosophical concepts you want here. > - This stuff is hardly “unknowable”, it’s just that you don’t know it, or don’t want to believe it. Where did the sun and the colossal disk of matter come from? Love ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/331 "2004-05-20T00:29:39Z")
The same place your God, should he exist, came from. ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/332 "2004-05-20T01:37:14Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Where did the sun and the colossal disk of matter come from? The Sun formed at the centre of the cloud / disk of matter. The disk of matter was pulled together by gravity, and included the remains of stars, including stars that had gone supernova, and some matter which had not yet been part of a solar system. All this matter came from the Big Bang. If you’ve passed primary school, surely you know this stuff. Am I missing your point? ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/333 "2004-05-20T02:32:29Z")
**Lambchops** , **Lekatt** is trying to get you to back up until you can’t go no more…“What came before that? And before that?” This kind of argument eventually produces a satisfied “Aha!” from creationist-types who say, “You really don’t know, do you? So _God_ must have started it!” Or in **Lekatt’s** case, _Love_, as that starts and ends all things in his lovely world. But what has any of this to do with astral projection? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/334 "2004-05-20T02:41:14Z")
> [@lambchops](#): > > The Sun formed at the centre of the cloud / disk of matter. The disk of matter was pulled together by gravity, and included the remains of stars, including stars that had gone supernova, and some matter which had not yet been part of a solar system. All this matter came from the Big Bang. > > If you’ve passed primary school, surely you know this stuff. Am I missing your point? Yes, you are missing the point. Where did the cloud come from? One can not learn until the need to learn is established. What we talk about is unknowable. Does that frighten you? Did me. Love ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/335 "2004-05-20T02:51:35Z")
BTW, I checked out the link you gave to the abstract on ganzfeld results, and, like anything else, the controversy still continues, some saying the 1999 study was wrong, others doing new research saying replicability is possible, etc. etc. Can’t step in the same river twice, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/336 "2004-05-20T02:52:20Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > **Lambchops** , **Lekatt** is trying to get you to back up until you can’t go no more…“What came before that? And before that?” This kind of argument eventually produces a satisfied “Aha!” from creationist-types who say, “You really don’t know, do you? So _God_ must have started it!” > > Or in **Lekatt’s** case, _Love_, as that starts and ends all things in his lovely world. > > But what has any of this to do with astral projection? What it produces is enlightenment. Nothing has been mentioned about creation. But where did God come from? Do you think God is made up? Does it frighten you that the beginnings are unknowable. Does most people, because they “need” to know even if they have to make it up. Oh, yes, it has everything to do with everything. Surprised that these questions and other similar questions are being discussed with young children in classrooms. Experimentally. Love ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/337 "2004-05-20T02:56:28Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Yes, you are missing the point. Where did the cloud come from? > > One can not learn until the need to learn is established. > > What we talk about is unknowable. Does that frighten you? > > Did me. > > Love I just said where the cloud came from. You are being intellectually dishonest. The origins of the universe are not unknowable, it’s just that YOU don’t know about them, or choose not to. Same with astral projection, or whatever woo-woo crap you’re talking about. Most people know that’s it’s a load of crap, but you choose to delude yourself. Whether your lack of knowledge frightens you is your own business, but please don’t come back with “The one who is truly deluding himself is the one who says that I am deluded”. If you want to post that kind of thing, go [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=256633). ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/338 "2004-05-20T03:00:28Z")
> [@lambchops](#): > > They can generally said to have originated at the Big Bang, (…) - This stuff is hardly “unknowable”, it’s just that you don’t know it, or don’t want to believe it. The “Big Bang” is still just a theory. But you are right about one thing, the stuff is hardly “unknowable,” it’s just that we are still in the speculative/gathering evidence phase. We’ve come a long way but we still have a long way to go. ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/339 "2004-05-20T03:06:00Z")
> [@Snakespirit](#): > > The “Big Bang” is still just a theory. It’s a [fact \*\*and \*\* a theory](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html), like evolution. What it is not is an unproven hypothesis, as you suggest. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542/340 "2004-05-20T03:07:57Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > What it produces is enlightenment. > > Nothing has been mentioned about creation. > > But where did God come from? > > Do you think God is made up? > > Does it frighten you that the beginnings are unknowable. > > Does most people, because they “need” to know even if they have to make it up. > > Oh, yes, it has everything to do with everything. > > Surprised that these questions and other similar questions are being discussed with young children in classrooms. Experimentally. > > Love Probably should qualify that as far as I know it isn’t being done anymore. It naturally produced a lot of flak. teaching children to think for themselves is not popular. Most adults think the kids should believe as they do no matter how unprovable it may be. Love [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/astral-projection/242542.md?page=18)