Well I’ll be double-dipped and rolled in nuts!!
Ok. Scratch DMT from my list of mumbo-jumbo. Vertex, my apologies.
Why do you assume that I’m not going to like it?
And, I’ll take those dollars and keep the donuts, thank you. I’m not saying it’s the same or different; I’m saying I don’t know.
More and more, the longer I’m on this site, I’m getting the impression that more than half the people are here just to play “how I can rank on you.”
You keep making assumptions like that and you’re just gonna look like an ASS.
What is this? A site where formerly abused children can reinflate their egos by putting other people down? Or is this about “Fighting Ignorance” like Cecil says?
I’d love to see your cite if you ever find it, but in the meantime, can you please act like an adult?
Hell, all this does is show exactly how the AP hallucination is produced.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, and how does it do that? It shows how the experience of AP is produced, but it does nothing to prove it’s a hallucination.
I’m glad we’re not paying you to do science.
Oh, and how does it do that? It shows how the experience of AP is produced, but it does nothing to prove it’s a hallucination.
I’m glad we’re not paying you to do science.
[/QUOTE]
You can call it an “experience” if you prefer, but if you want tp prove that its anything other than a subjective, cognitive phenomenon, the burden of proof is on YOU. Especially if you seriously want to proffer some nonsensical and ill- defined hypothesis about some kind of immaterial “spirit” leaving the physical body. You can start by proving that anything like a spirit exists in the first place. Until you can do that, your hypothesis is worthless and not worth considering. As it stands, there is simply no reason whatever to consider so-called “astral projection” as anything other than hallucination or elaborate fantasy. A travelling “spirit” does not even pass the laugh test.
Don’t waste your anger on them, forgive and move on.
They won’t understand until it hits them right between the eyes like it did me. I used to believe God and spiritual things were nonsense too.
Everyone will eventually experience an out-of-body follow by a near death experience. Some will recover and some won’t. Those that recover will know like we do there is a great deal more to life than material things.
Love
Just because you have a out-of-body/near-death experience doesn’t mean you HAVE TO attribute it to GOD. I’ve done 5-meo-dmt, and although it was the most amazing thing I’ve experienced, it wasn’t induced by GOD.
Tons of people smoke DMT everyday.
Snake,
I understand your frustration. There are many skeptics here (usually fine people, I should note) who, when it comes to a paranormal thread, enjoy drenching those whom they term “believers” in contempt while high-fiving each other.
This thread has totally exceeded my hopes for poor behavior and logic on the part of the skeptics. The poor behavior should be obvious to anyone, no matter what his take on the subject may be. But already we’ve encountered the king of canards (a lie, actually): no evidence, no documented evidence, etc., of the “paranormal.” Just couldn’t resist that one, eh? I know it’s tough.
A few comments on the debate itself. “Hallucination” is an often misused term. We do not refer to dreams as “hallucinations,” but skeptics favor this word because of its pejorative connotation: druggies and nuts have “hallucinations”; normal people don’t usually. The term “hallucination” applies when someone perceives something as occuring in the waking physical world that is false. Further, the term still applies even if the person understands that they phenomenon was not real: we all have experienced mild auditory hallucinations of our name being called, etc., yet we either know immediately or learn through investigation that our mind has deceived us.
What skeptics don’t seem to get is that dreams and other mental experiences can carry what the experiencer perceives to be real or not-self-produced content–even when the experiencer identifies the overall experience as a dream or other “not real” experience. Personally, I have experienced dreams and other mental states that carried what was, for me, new and genuine information–even though it was clear that the dream or mental state was “just” a dream.
Further, skeptics feel that they have “won” if they can show that a phenomenon they label “paranormal” has some grounding in physicality. Hence, if a drug produces an experience similar to an NDE or OBE, then that shows that the NDE or OBE was nothing more than a brain-based experience. Haw haw haw–it was just a dream or hallucination, nothing more.
But if skeptics are chuckling at this point, they are way behind on the debate curve. Many or even most New Age types like myself do not believe in a “spirit” completely divorced from matter–we are not dualists. Aristotle taught, and Aquinians long believed, that the soul was the form of the body, that is, a pattern that inhered in matter. I think this to be correct. Just as the words on this screen come to your eyes courtesy of matter and energy, so does our soul live by the same means. But neither the words nor our soul are themselves matter and energy.
So this pattern persists after death and, even during life, can perhaps travel about or perceive other things. How is this possible? A second body (often termed the “spirit body”) inheres in matter at a different vibratory level. Skeptics are, of course, free to scoff at these beliefs also, but they should at least be aware of them and refrain from scoffing at beliefs that are no longer widely held by those believing in and investigating these matters.
It may be that what we call AP or OBEs are similar to dreams, that they may be experienced without revealing any “real” content whatsoever. It may simultaneously be true that these experiences consist on occasion of very high levels of real or true content.
Now, I will add further that the above is my own personal organization of issues–others talk about them differently. Lekatt spoke of the brain as a tuning device for spirit. His views and mine may contradict, or they may not. The point remains, however, that neither he nor I (nor most anyone who seriously considers the matter) sees spirit as something completely divorced from matter that just happens to “hang around” the body.
But Snakespirit, a word of advice. It is difficult to know exactly how to get angry on a board when one’s experience is limited. The manner of your last post here is likely to raise hackles, especially since certain moderators take the opposite side of the debate, and fiercely so. I commend you for maintaining relative compose as long as you did.
aeschines,
There are many good points you make. I guess I would be in your “skeptic” catorgory. Never once did I imply that there is nothing to be gained from “hallucinations”. I just believe that people should be aware that it is a DRUG that induced that state of being. They are no better than people who use drugs recreationally.
Jack? Jack Chick? Is that you?
Yes, and your points about DMT were also edifying. I certainly do not believe in two worlds–one for matter, one for spirit. There is only one world, containing things that are connected to varying degrees.
Drugs do allow us to attune our minds differently, and these experiences can be valuable and convey true content. But one should be careful, too, since they can also convey either false content or true content that we are not ready to handle.
Cheers–I hope you join the board soon.
This is the core mistake made. You assign an independent identity operator to this agglomeration of qualia labeled the ‘self’ and subsequently divorce it from the material world. The ‘self’ is an emergent product, not an entity. The universe isn’t anthropocentric. A rock shares the same essence of soul that a human being does. Hence the ‘spirit’ essence of a human being is no more privileged in its state or activity after ‘death’ than is the ‘spirit’ of the planet Mercury. That is the ultimate truth taught by Buddhism as well as the endpoint of materialistic monism. So associating anthropocentric vectors of qualia (“love”, “kindness”, “bliss”, “hell”) is a misguided, fear-driven course of analysis.
Precisely. 
Are we talking about the term “soul”? I am specifically saying that the soul is not something separate from the material world.
This is a fine hair to split, as I am not quite sure what you mean by “entity.” I see the distinction between things as being primarily mathematical: Earth is distinct from Venus by means of “space,” attached to which are some (presumably) arbitrary qualia (when we’re on Earth, Venus is just a small point of light, etc.). It is hard to say what separates one mind from another. We just don’t know enough about consciousness.
In a way this is true. But a rock is not sentient like a dog, which is not conscious like a human. A car is not a blender, etc.
Note that I haven’t used the term “spirit essence.” Further, the planet Mercury is not alive, or at least it does not seem to be.
I believe that the vector of being-consciousness-bliss arises from the fundamental truths of pattern and number. In this sense, man is indeed made in God’s image, as per Genesis.
Neither am I. ‘Spirit’ refers to the underlying essence that “generates existence”. You claim that “A second body (often termed the “spirit body”) inheres in matter at a different vibratory level.”
Something that occupies a distinct existence. This book, that book. Note that in this example, the label ‘book’ is irrelevant and just used for illustration.
Mathematics is a cognitive byproduct. It happens to satisfy human intuition more robustly than other attempts. That’s all.
This is purely human conceit. You assume a rock is not sentient because it does not exhibit behaviour that you regard as independent to it. You treat it as subject to forces of nature. Do the reverse. Carry that notion forward to “life”.
Categorization can extend to infinite layers. You’ll agree that a Toyota Corolla and a Honda Accord are both cars, but you then make the distinction that one has a different design than other. So, take two Corollas. You might object that they have different colors. So, let’s take two of the same color. You argue that one of them has a dent. So, take two with identical superficial appearance. Then you’ll object that they occupy separate space. So, observe them in time-lapse photography, with both alternately placed at the same location. You’ll argue that they aren’t simultaneously located at the same location. Now, it’s gradually more difficult to distinguish. When you come to the base layer after all elimination, what’s left are entities. They possess identity. But in order to distinguish identity (this car, that car) you need ‘quality’. Since there’s some category that both the objects don’t satisfy. These two are the only operators required. Now, consciousness is not an entity (“second body”), it is an emergence. The products manipulated by emergences (“meaning”) are themselves emergences and have no underlying separate or privileged existence anymore than an emergent tornado comprised from air particles. All that ‘exists’ is the essence, the Atman or whatever label you wish to assign to it. This essence is not anthropocentric or meaning-centric. It just is. Any ability to describe this essence is, by definition, absurd. You’re bound by whatever pattern that generates you (the materialistic ‘soul’) and all descriptions are manifestations of this pattern. The observation requires an apparatus. The observing end can’t decouple the observation from the apparatus. Only reduce it down to fundamental base observatory processes.
I admire and respect your responses, but we apparently have come to very different conclusions about very many things. The point about mathematics alone requires a thread of its own–and I recently argued this elsewhere.
I purposely avoid the term “spirit body”–my beliefs about this [thing] are based not on a definition or philosophy but only on the reported phenomena. I have not reached any firm conclusions about its nature and am thus unable to argue further.
The mind may be merely an emergent phenomena, or it may attain at some point its own indestructable partition, as it were. Again, I go by the phenomena and do not try to delineate completely its nature.
I think both New Agers and materialists would do well not to say they know more than they do. Not that you yourself are, but beyond this point my own arguments will rapidly devolve into speculation and fantasy.
** Snake**
First of all, since no one has said so, “Welcome to the Sraight Dope.”
I am sorry if you are discouraged because you did not meet with universal acceptance of your viewpoints. Do some lurking, try looking at past threads on these topics and you’ll see that this has all been done and said before. This is * great debates*, and the assumption is that we will…um…debate.
My point/contention is that everything that you know, feel sense and think arises from the activity of your brain. The universe, your emotions, concepts of “truth” and “beauty,” the smell of warm earth after a rainshower doesn’t exist until your brain tells you it does. I think that “near death experiences” and “Astral Projection” (as well as scizophrenia and epilepsy) all arise from activity in your brain. The paper I cited (in direct response to **Snake’s ** comment about APs mechanism) seems to me to be the simplest, most probable and experimentally verifiable explanation. Sorry if it flies in the face of some of your constructs, but I am a firm believer in Occams razor.
Thanks for finding that cite, too. I find all the contributions to his thread interesting and valuable. I appreciate being able to read them and compare the relative merit of each.
I don’t get angry. I do find it annoying as hell when people make unbased assumptions about me or what I believe, intend, feel, think, etc. Annoyed, not angry. Not discouraged. Annoyed. Why? Well, because I’d rather spend time in debate of an issue, reading fact or opinion-based posts, learning new material, viewing things from different viewpoints or temporarily rejecting proffered positions because of faulty logic, insufficient evidence or off-topic diatribes. Annoyed. A few minutes ago I killed a mosquito that had started to drink my blood. I was not angry with the mosquito, just annoyed. I could have been drinking my coffee, reading or typing, but I spent time slapping instead.
And I hope this will be the last time I have to write this, but we are all of us merely human and I do not *expect * it will be the last time.
FOR THE RECORD:
[ol]
[li]This thread was not intended for Great Debates. It was started in CoSR. However, I think it is doing nicely here, producing lots of good debate, and I’ll live with it.[/li][li]I do not have a position, opinion, viewpoint, stance or stated belief in regard to what we are calling ‘astral projection.’ I have an experience that I described and I am interested in different explanations for this experience. Many people, yourself included, have contributed marvelously with varied explanations.[/li][li]I believe that I have not rejected any opinion, but have instead called into question some positions that I felt used unbased assumptions.[/li][li]I’m not discouraged; I’m elated! There’s some great material here, and I’m glad that this thread has taken the direction it is in currently. I’m going to download it and keep it.[/li][li]This discussion/debate was only started as ‘astral projection’ because I thought it a universal term easily understood by all. If anyone wants to name the phenomenon something else, fine. What I am interested in is the appearance of consciousness operating at a distance from or outside of our standard five senses.[/li][/ol]
I’m sure this will send some of you scrambling back along this thread to find some point I have made here in the past that doesn’t jive exactly with the numbered points above. I will then be subject to name-calling, accusations, derision, allegations that somehow the person who finds these things is better than I am, etc. Go ahead, annoy me if it gives meaning and purpose to your life (oops, I just corrected a typo here, I typed “to your lie.” Glad I caught it!). I’ll just smile and treat it like I do other annoyances.
:smack: Damn mosquitoes! The price of living in paradise…
Similarly, the price of gathering information on the SDMB is to put up with petty annoyances like character assasination.
Now: To those of you who have made civil commentary on any facet of this issue, Thank You. Just because I don’t respond to your post with accolades, gratitude, agreement, argument or debate does not mean I am ignoring you. I’m taking it ALL in, and I consider any reasonable input valuable.
Onward and (hopefully) upward.
It’s an experience. And isn’t all experience a “subjective, cognitive phenomenon?”
What hypothesis? Are you just arguing for the sake of argument? I have not made a hypothesis here.
:smack:
We can discuss that, if you wish. However, first see if your thoughts are provoked by reading this book.
What phenomena and reported by whom and in what form?
For the sake of this paragraph, I’ll entertain the notion that the mind could be a distinct entity. In that case, I’ll disagree with your suggestion that “…it may attain at some point…”. Either the mind is an entity or it isn’t. What you’re suggesting is that an emergence could abstract itself from existence (“achieve singularity”). Either it already is or it won’t ever be.
Well, all philosophy is speculation. All that’s different between objects labelled as knowledge and those as hypothesis, is consensus. If you believe that consensus defines Truth or limits itself to Truth, then indeed we can’t argue further.