Thank you for reading my thoughts,
You might remember me, I have been here before.
I now know how to communicate with future out of body people in a way that can be measured.
Please fill free to list any expert in this field of science that you know besides me?
Thank you once again for reading my thoughts,
Tim
Full Version: The Department of Positive out of Body Possibilities
Can you explain what you mean please?
From some of his earlier posts, I think Tim means dead people as being "out of body." He doesn't realize that people cease to exist when they die.
For what it is worth, check out the following:
=========================================
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Pag...t_row_offset1=0
PAGE A1, ==August 26, 2007:
NEED HELP GETTING OUTSIDE YOURSELF? Researcher replicates out-of-the-body in the lab.
Dr. Henrik Ehrsson, using electronics and working at the University of London, has found a way to deliberately induce the out-of-body sensation. People actually feel that they are standing behind themselves and watching their own backs.
Surveys suggest that as many as one in ten have had a similar experience. People who have this experience usually report that it happened as part of a traumatic and sometimes painful event, such as a car accident. Over the years I have heard quite a few-first person reports of such happenings. One was from my seriously ill daughter. Another was given by a medcal doctor who was seriously wounded in WW 2 when he was a tank commander. What he later described he saw--when he was "dead"--was verified by others in his crew. For a time, there were no signs of life and they assumed that he was dead.
I remember having one, myself. It was when I was a child, and very ill. I call this human ability--this ability to go outside the body and the mind--the spiritual, or pneumatological, ability.
The important point of this post is this: If we can believe it, certain serious researchers are now demonstrating that this out-of-the-body phenomenon can be duplicated, electronically.
=========================================
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Pag...t_row_offset1=0
PAGE A1, ==August 26, 2007:
NEED HELP GETTING OUTSIDE YOURSELF? Researcher replicates out-of-the-body in the lab.
Dr. Henrik Ehrsson, using electronics and working at the University of London, has found a way to deliberately induce the out-of-body sensation. People actually feel that they are standing behind themselves and watching their own backs.
Surveys suggest that as many as one in ten have had a similar experience. People who have this experience usually report that it happened as part of a traumatic and sometimes painful event, such as a car accident. Over the years I have heard quite a few-first person reports of such happenings. One was from my seriously ill daughter. Another was given by a medcal doctor who was seriously wounded in WW 2 when he was a tank commander. What he later described he saw--when he was "dead"--was verified by others in his crew. For a time, there were no signs of life and they assumed that he was dead.
I remember having one, myself. It was when I was a child, and very ill. I call this human ability--this ability to go outside the body and the mind--the spiritual, or pneumatological, ability.
The important point of this post is this: If we can believe it, certain serious researchers are now demonstrating that this out-of-the-body phenomenon can be duplicated, electronically.
So where does that leave science then? OBE's and NDE's are two areas that scientists have barely touched upon, understandably given that these are subjective experiences. But if tests can be done in a controlled environment, which is what i'd like to see done if this is true, then it means science will have to explain how the mind steps outside the physical body - now that would be a fun conference to be at...
Doesn't the pineal gland play a major role in OBEs/NDEs? It is my understanding that the human body, independent of introducing phychedelics, has the capacity for hallucination. It seems that the pineal gland is responsible for most of our "enlightened" states, and seems to be associated with the crown chakra.
QUOTE(Rick @ Sep 04, 2007, 04:59 PM) 
From some of his earlier posts, I think Tim means dead people as being "out of body." He doesn't realize that people cease to exist when they die.
Do you have proof that they cease to exist when they die?
QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Sep 04, 2007, 11:18 PM)
So where does that leave science then? ...
BTW, I think I was born curious. Perhaps because of this, and my fortunate education, I have always had what I think of as a curious and scientific attitude, about all things--physical, mental and spiritual, including religion.
My curiosity just prompted me to do a google on the name, Dr. Henrik Ehrsson.
Here is what found:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-...-80536913_x.htm
QUOTE
By Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer
WASHINGTON — The stories seem strange but riveting. A heart attack victim recalls floating in the air, watching paramedics revive him. A surgical patient remembers hovering, watching the doctors operate. Such widely reported out-of-body experiences have long been the territory of theology, philosophy and scary movies. Now scientists have turned their attention to the topic.
Researchers in England and Switzerland have figured out ways to confuse the sensory signals received by the brain, allowing people to seem to be standing aside and watching themselves.
No, they're not using drugs, legal or otherwise.
The research is described in Friday's edition of the journal Science.
Dr. Henrik Ehrsson of University College London's Institute of Neurology and the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, explained that he was interested in a person's perception of the "self."
"I'm interested in the question of why I feel that my self is located inside my physical body. How does my brain know that I am standing right here," he said.
And what would happen to the self if a person could effectively move their eyes to another part of the room and observe themselves from an outside perspective? Would the self move with the eyes, or stay in the body, he wondered...
For details, check out the link.WASHINGTON — The stories seem strange but riveting. A heart attack victim recalls floating in the air, watching paramedics revive him. A surgical patient remembers hovering, watching the doctors operate. Such widely reported out-of-body experiences have long been the territory of theology, philosophy and scary movies. Now scientists have turned their attention to the topic.
Researchers in England and Switzerland have figured out ways to confuse the sensory signals received by the brain, allowing people to seem to be standing aside and watching themselves.
No, they're not using drugs, legal or otherwise.
The research is described in Friday's edition of the journal Science.
Dr. Henrik Ehrsson of University College London's Institute of Neurology and the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, explained that he was interested in a person's perception of the "self."
"I'm interested in the question of why I feel that my self is located inside my physical body. How does my brain know that I am standing right here," he said.
And what would happen to the self if a person could effectively move their eyes to another part of the room and observe themselves from an outside perspective? Would the self move with the eyes, or stay in the body, he wondered...
As you say, "OBE's and NDE's are two areas that scientists have barely touched upon, understandably given that these are subjective experiences. But if tests can be done in a controlled environment, which is what i'd like to see done if this is true, then it means science will have to explain how the mind steps outside the physical body - now that would be a fun conference to be at."
"...now that would be a fun conference to be at." Trojan comments.
Yeah! As one, with some training in science--certainly one with the attitude of a scientist--I ask all scientists to be scientists.
Yeah! As one, with some training in science--certainly one with the attitude of a scientist--I ask all scientists to be scientists.
QUOTE(Tim4848 @ Sep 05, 2007, 12:46 PM)
Do you have proof that they cease to exist when they die?
Obviously the question is not about survival of the body after death, as by definition, the body is dead as proven by a death certificate. The question is about the survival of the mind or personality upon the death of the body. All scientific evidence and experience indicates that the mind (and personality) are the result of brain activity. No brain, no mind. QED.
I doubt the organism you call self will exist, but without getting too theological about it, the force behind you will return to the void.
QUOTE
...All scientific evidence and experience indicates that the mind (and personality) are the result of brain activity. No brain, no mind. QED.
Rick, I am glad you said, "indicates". Question: would you say, no brain, no mind, no spirit?BTW, did you hear about the behaviourist who even denied the idea that we have a mind? It is said that he made up his voice-box that he had no mind.
THE LIMITS OF SCIENCE
====================
http://www.ldolphin.org/scilim.shtml
"Science is the only self-correcting human institution, but it is also a process that progresses only by showing itself to be wrong."--Astronomer Allan Sandage.
The last three sections are well worth reading. They, make the point raised by Sandage.
I FOUND THE FOLLOWING RATHER INTERESTING
========================================
http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/Limits.htm
========================================
http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/Limits.htm
QUOTE
The three areas of limitation are
* Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to scientifically determine value.
* Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.
Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do.
* Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach.
In view of this final point, it's interesting how many scientists have forgotten their own limitations. Every few years, some scientist will publish a book claiming that he or she has either proven the existence of a god, or proven that no god exists. Of course, even if science could prove anything (which it can't), it certainly can't prove this, since by definition a god is a supernatural phenomenon.
So the next time someone invokes "scientific evidence" to support his or her point, sit back for a moment and consider whether they've stepped outside of these limitations.
* Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to scientifically determine value.
* Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.
Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do.
* Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach.
In view of this final point, it's interesting how many scientists have forgotten their own limitations. Every few years, some scientist will publish a book claiming that he or she has either proven the existence of a god, or proven that no god exists. Of course, even if science could prove anything (which it can't), it certainly can't prove this, since by definition a god is a supernatural phenomenon.
So the next time someone invokes "scientific evidence" to support his or her point, sit back for a moment and consider whether they've stepped outside of these limitations.
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Sep 06, 2007, 09:10 AM)
Question: would you say, no brain, no mind, no spirit?
I would say that (healthy living) brain implies mind. No brain implies no mind. What you call "spirit" is part of mind.
QUOTE
... there is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?"
Take a random sample of people and have them rate their judgement of prettiness or stink on a numeric scale. I think you will find the resulting values scientifically valid.
QUOTE
... science can't help us with questions about the supernatural.
Anything that is real, science can help us form valid judgements on. The supernatural power of dowsers to find water has been scientifically shown not to exist. Every properly controlled test of dowsing ability has had a null result.
Rick, being a spiritual being, states his opinion
RICK, MORE DIALOGUE ON HOW WE USE THE TERMS 'MIND' AND 'SPIRIT'
You say that what I call "spirit" is part of mind. Interesting. It is certainly one of the most complex words in English.
Interestingly, my World Book Dictionary defines mind as,
1. that which thinks, feels and wills as in a human or other conscious being: The powers or processes of the mind.
2.The intellect or understanding, as contrasted with faculties of feeling or willing; intelligence: Some writers write about a "good mind"; "an upright heart and a cultivated mind. Such statements may be repugnant to the scientific mind, which is apt to dismiss them as metaphysical or mystical nonsense (R. Hadekel).
3. a person who has intelligence...
4. the intellectual capacities of a body of persons...
5. reason; sanity
6. mental or physical activity in general, as opposed to matter.
7. a conscious or intelligent agency or being: the doctrine of a mind creating the universe. A pulse in the eternal mind (Rupert Brooke).
8. a way of thinking and feeling; opinion; view,
9. bent or direction of thoughts, etc....
10. tendency of thinking or feeling in social or moral respects; spirit; temper...
(Edmund Burke wrote about how wars can continue in "hostile minds".
11. One can have an "anxious state of mind" , or "peace of mind".
12. desire, purpose, intention, or will.
13. attention, thought, or mental effort:Keep your mind on your work.
14. rememberance or recollection; memory: out of sight, out of mind.
15. commemoration.
16. Psychology the organized total of all conscious experience of the individual.
17 Mind. (In the belief of Christian Scientists) God.
Our word comes from the Old English gemynd memory, a memory, thinking.
WB, using dozens of expressions--for example, "bear in mnd"--then goes on for a hundred lines or more.
===========================================
Now that is what I call a complex term. So is 'spirit'.
It's primary meaning is:
1. the immaterial part of man; soul....
2. man's moral, religious, or moral nature....
3. a supernatural being such as a deity, fairy, elf, ghost....
4. a person, personality....
5. an influence that stirs up and rouses....
6. courage, vigor, liveliness....
7. enthusiasm and loyalty....
8. the real meaning or intent....
9. and 10. have to do with dyeing and chemistry. 11. alchemy
12. Spirit. (in the belief of Christian Scientists) God.
Pluralize it, as 'spirits' and it refers to a state of mind....and on and on for scores of lines.
Our word comes directly from the Latin spiritus related to air, wind, breath and the act of breathing. The Greek is pneuma from which we get 'pnuematology' 'pneumatic' and 'pneumonia'. The Hebrew is 'ruach'; the Arabic is 'ruh'.
=========
Interestingly, our word 'body' come from Old English bodig; Our word 'brains'--the Old English is braegen--can be used to refer to the physical organ, but it also be used as a doublet for intellectual power, mind, or intelligence.
AND NOW THE QUESTIONS RAISED
============================
When I look at the above I ask myself questions like:
Mind. Spirit. What's the difference? If there is a difference, what is it?
Is there any difference between an animal's mind and a human mind?
What is the difference between animal minds and human minds?
Are we the only animals who are self-aware?
Are some human-like beings not self-aware?
What are your questions?
At this point, I will speak only for myself: I have the feeling that, at my birth, I came into this world only as a potential mental and spiritual being--that is, a fully functioning human person, or a self-aware human spirit--faults and all. The human being I am now, for better or worse, is the result of my family, my community in which I was raised and the choices I made.
What of the future? If I choose to be a fully developed human spirit, at some point in my evolution I could become a spiritual person independent of my brain and/or body. This level of being requires on-going conscious intention and a real effort on my part.
Is it possible that some few may already be there?
=========
BTW, when one considers how complex any language can be it is easy to understand how easy it is misunderstand one another and miscommunicate, even when people are raised in the same language. It also points out how important it is to communicate, regardless of how we feel, with good intentions and in good faith--that is, in faith, hope and love.
QUOTE
I would say that (a) (healthy living) brain implies mind. No brain implies no mind. What you call "spirit" is part of mind.
And, I, too--being a spiritual being--agree that this is okay by me.RICK, MORE DIALOGUE ON HOW WE USE THE TERMS 'MIND' AND 'SPIRIT'
You say that what I call "spirit" is part of mind. Interesting. It is certainly one of the most complex words in English.
Interestingly, my World Book Dictionary defines mind as,
1. that which thinks, feels and wills as in a human or other conscious being: The powers or processes of the mind.
2.The intellect or understanding, as contrasted with faculties of feeling or willing; intelligence: Some writers write about a "good mind"; "an upright heart and a cultivated mind. Such statements may be repugnant to the scientific mind, which is apt to dismiss them as metaphysical or mystical nonsense (R. Hadekel).
3. a person who has intelligence...
4. the intellectual capacities of a body of persons...
5. reason; sanity
6. mental or physical activity in general, as opposed to matter.
7. a conscious or intelligent agency or being: the doctrine of a mind creating the universe. A pulse in the eternal mind (Rupert Brooke).
8. a way of thinking and feeling; opinion; view,
9. bent or direction of thoughts, etc....
10. tendency of thinking or feeling in social or moral respects; spirit; temper...
(Edmund Burke wrote about how wars can continue in "hostile minds".
11. One can have an "anxious state of mind" , or "peace of mind".
12. desire, purpose, intention, or will.
13. attention, thought, or mental effort:Keep your mind on your work.
14. rememberance or recollection; memory: out of sight, out of mind.
15. commemoration.
16. Psychology the organized total of all conscious experience of the individual.
17 Mind. (In the belief of Christian Scientists) God.
Our word comes from the Old English gemynd memory, a memory, thinking.
WB, using dozens of expressions--for example, "bear in mnd"--then goes on for a hundred lines or more.
===========================================
Now that is what I call a complex term. So is 'spirit'.
It's primary meaning is:
1. the immaterial part of man; soul....
2. man's moral, religious, or moral nature....
3. a supernatural being such as a deity, fairy, elf, ghost....
4. a person, personality....
5. an influence that stirs up and rouses....
6. courage, vigor, liveliness....
7. enthusiasm and loyalty....
8. the real meaning or intent....
9. and 10. have to do with dyeing and chemistry. 11. alchemy
12. Spirit. (in the belief of Christian Scientists) God.
Pluralize it, as 'spirits' and it refers to a state of mind....and on and on for scores of lines.
Our word comes directly from the Latin spiritus related to air, wind, breath and the act of breathing. The Greek is pneuma from which we get 'pnuematology' 'pneumatic' and 'pneumonia'. The Hebrew is 'ruach'; the Arabic is 'ruh'.
=========
Interestingly, our word 'body' come from Old English bodig; Our word 'brains'--the Old English is braegen--can be used to refer to the physical organ, but it also be used as a doublet for intellectual power, mind, or intelligence.
AND NOW THE QUESTIONS RAISED
============================
When I look at the above I ask myself questions like:
Mind. Spirit. What's the difference? If there is a difference, what is it?
Is there any difference between an animal's mind and a human mind?
What is the difference between animal minds and human minds?
Are we the only animals who are self-aware?
Are some human-like beings not self-aware?
What are your questions?
At this point, I will speak only for myself: I have the feeling that, at my birth, I came into this world only as a potential mental and spiritual being--that is, a fully functioning human person, or a self-aware human spirit--faults and all. The human being I am now, for better or worse, is the result of my family, my community in which I was raised and the choices I made.
What of the future? If I choose to be a fully developed human spirit, at some point in my evolution I could become a spiritual person independent of my brain and/or body. This level of being requires on-going conscious intention and a real effort on my part.
Is it possible that some few may already be there?
=========
BTW, when one considers how complex any language can be it is easy to understand how easy it is misunderstand one another and miscommunicate, even when people are raised in the same language. It also points out how important it is to communicate, regardless of how we feel, with good intentions and in good faith--that is, in faith, hope and love.
My cat gives very spirited chase to mice and birds.
QUOTE(Rick @ Sep 07, 2007, 09:38 AM)
My cat gives very spirited chase to mice and birds.
O the challenge of our language! QUOTE(Tim4848 @ Sep 02, 2007, 09:35 PM)
Thank you for reading my thoughts,
You might remember me, I have been here before.
I now know how to communicate with future out of body people in a way that can be measured.
Please fill free to list any expert in this field of science that you know besides me?
Thank you once again for reading my thoughts,
Tim
Dear Tim,
Can you please describe some details related with the measurement technique not disclosing the know-how?
Please also clarify the word 'future'.
Please also note, that the phrase "reading thoughts" has many meanings on this particular forum.
Thank you.
QUOTE(Rick @ Sep 05, 2007, 03:45 PM)
All scientific evidence and experience indicates that the mind (and personality) are the result of brain activity. No brain, no mind. QED.
May I ask you please dear Rick, though I do respect you much as a very clever and old person, to be a little bit careful in making statements of such kind. Because your sentence reminds me the following phrases:
"All progressive communists ...
"All honest soviet people...
"All true Arians ...
"All progressive mankind...
The world All is a non scientific construct.
Thank you in advance.
If it's not the case, then I suggest you show some scientific evidence that does not indicate that the mind is the result of brain activity. One counterexample can destroy a false argument.
QUOTE(Enki @ Sep 09, 2007, 01:05 PM)
QUOTE(Rick @ Sep 05, 2007, 03:45 PM)
All scientific evidence and experience indicates that the mind (and personality) are the result of brain activity. No brain, no mind. QED.
May I ask you please dear Rick, though I do respect you much as a very clever and old person, to be a little bit careful in making statements of such kind. Because your sentence reminds me the following phrases:
"All progressive communists ...
"All honest soviet people...
"All true Arians ...
"All progressive mankind...
The world All is a non scientific construct.
Thank you in advance.
Reductionists, Enki! They are to be blamed for all lack of faith and hope in the world. The destroyed god, ET and every mystical creature in-between! What's your philosophy, Enki?
QUOTE(Rick @ Sep 10, 2007, 12:10 PM)
If it's not the case, then I suggest you show some scientific evidence that does not indicate that the mind is the result of brain activity. One counterexample can destroy a false argument.
I hope that opinion and observations of the former President of the Royal Society Sir William Crookes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Crookes) and some other cases described by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle should incline you to avoid usage of the word ALL for this cases, and try to keep to the golden middle in matters of such sensitive nature. I quote this passage for the second time on this forum.
QUOTE
In 1870 Crookes decided that science had a duty to study the preternatural phenomena associated with Spiritualism (Crookes 1870). Judging from family letters, Crookes had developed a favorable view of Spiritualism already by 1869 (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 232–233). Nevertheless, he was determined to conduct his inquiry impartially and described the conditions he imposed on mediums as follows: "It must be at my own house, and my own selection of friends and spectators, under my own conditions, and I may do whatever I like as regards apparatus" (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 177). Among the mediums he studied were Kate Fox, Florence Cook, and Daniel Dunglas Home (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 230-251). Among the phenomena he witnessed were movement of bodies at a distance, rappings, changes in the weights of bodies, levitation, appearance of luminous objects, appearance of phantom figures, appearance of writing without human agency, and circumstances which "point to the agency of an outside intelligence" (Crookes 1874).
Crookes' report on this research, in 1874, concluded that these phenomena could not be explained as conjuring, and that further research would indeed be useful. Crookes was not alone in his views. Fellow scientists who came to believe in Spiritualism included Alfred Russel Wallace, Oliver Joseph Lodge, Lord Rayleigh, and William James (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 62). Nevertheless, most scientists were convinced that Spiritualism was fraudulent, and Crookes' final report so outraged the scientific establishment "that there was talk of depriving him of his Fellowship of the Royal Society." Crookes then became much more cautious and didn't discuss his views publicly until 1898, when he felt his position was secure. From that time until his death in 1919, letters and interviews show that Crookes was a believer in Spiritualism (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 169–170, 249–251).
Crookes' report on this research, in 1874, concluded that these phenomena could not be explained as conjuring, and that further research would indeed be useful. Crookes was not alone in his views. Fellow scientists who came to believe in Spiritualism included Alfred Russel Wallace, Oliver Joseph Lodge, Lord Rayleigh, and William James (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 62). Nevertheless, most scientists were convinced that Spiritualism was fraudulent, and Crookes' final report so outraged the scientific establishment "that there was talk of depriving him of his Fellowship of the Royal Society." Crookes then became much more cautious and didn't discuss his views publicly until 1898, when he felt his position was secure. From that time until his death in 1919, letters and interviews show that Crookes was a believer in Spiritualism (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 169–170, 249–251).
But certainly this subject should be handled with utmost care.
QUOTE(code buttons @ Sep 11, 2007, 08:48 AM)
QUOTE(Enki @ Sep 09, 2007, 01:05 PM)
QUOTE(Rick @ Sep 05, 2007, 03:45 PM)
All scientific evidence and experience indicates that the mind (and personality) are the result of brain activity. No brain, no mind. QED.
May I ask you please dear Rick, though I do respect you much as a very clever and old person, to be a little bit careful in making statements of such kind. Because your sentence reminds me the following phrases:
"All progressive communists ...
"All honest soviet people...
"All true Arians ...
"All progressive mankind...
The world All is a non scientific construct.
Thank you in advance.
Reductionists, Enki! They are to be blamed for all lack of faith and hope in the world. The destroyed god, ET and every mystical creature in-between! What's your philosophy, Enki?
Yes Code Buttons, Reductionism, Exactly!
>What's your philosophy, Enki?
My philosophy cannot be versed by few words, it is science orientated Analytic philosophy valuing Emerald languages as one of the key gateways able to help to develop advanced scientific methods of scientific investigations.
QUOTE(Enki @ Sep 11, 2007, 12:57 PM)
I hope that opinion and observations of the former President of the Royal Society Sir William Crookes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Crookes) and some other cases described by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle should incline you to avoid usage of the word ALL for this cases, and try to keep to the golden middle in matters of such sensitive nature. ...
That wouldn't be the first time that an honest scientist was hoodwinked by charlatans. The King's College physicist John Taylor was fooled completely by Uri Geller in the 1970s, resulting in Taylor's erroneous book Superminds. Taylor later recanted.
http://www.randi.org/jr/06-19-2000.html
QUOTE(Enki @ Sep 11, 2007, 12:29 PM)
Yes Code Buttons, Reductionism, Exactly!
>What's your philosophy, Enki?
My philosophy cannot be versed by few words, it is science orientated Analytic philosophy valuing Emerald languages as one of the key gateways able to help to develop advanced scientific methods of scientific investigations.
Sounds like you're in the right path. You're walking a fine line between metaphysics and Natural Sciences, am I correct?
QUOTE(Rick @ Sep 11, 2007, 01:41 PM)
QUOTE(Enki @ Sep 11, 2007, 12:57 PM)
I hope that opinion and observations of the former President of the Royal Society Sir William Crookes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Crookes) and some other cases described by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle should incline you to avoid usage of the word ALL for this cases, and try to keep to the golden middle in matters of such sensitive nature. ...
That wouldn't be the first time that an honest scientist was hoodwinked by charlatans. The King's College physicist John Taylor was fooled completely by Uri Geller in the 1970s, resulting in Taylor's erroneous book Superminds. Taylor later recanted.
http://www.randi.org/jr/06-19-2000.html
The text I quoted is an excerpt form Wiki about Sir William Crookes.
No doubt about that many conducted very questionable researches in that field.
Many were fooled. But I think it is wrong to make statements of complete denial of the entire subject. Such denial is fully non-scientific approach. I think the question still is a subject of scientific debate and certainly in closed circles. Because if they exist, then it is not only science it is politics as well: politics related with handling matters between people and the Invisible World.
QUOTE(code buttons @ Sep 11, 2007, 01:52 PM)
QUOTE(Enki @ Sep 11, 2007, 12:29 PM)
Yes Code Buttons, Reductionism, Exactly!
>What's your philosophy, Enki?
My philosophy cannot be versed by few words, it is science orientated Analytic philosophy valuing Emerald languages as one of the key gateways able to help to develop advanced scientific methods of scientific investigations.
Sounds like you're in the right path. You're walking a fine line between metaphysics and Natural Sciences, am I correct?
Exactly.
QUOTE(Enki @ Sep 11, 2007, 08:38 PM)
QUOTE(code buttons @ Sep 11, 2007, 01:52 PM)
QUOTE(Enki @ Sep 11, 2007, 12:29 PM)
Yes Code Buttons, Reductionism, Exactly!
>What's your philosophy, Enki?
My philosophy cannot be versed by few words, it is science orientated Analytic philosophy valuing Emerald languages as one of the key gateways able to help to develop advanced scientific methods of scientific investigations.
Sounds like you're in the right path. You're walking a fine line between metaphysics and Natural Sciences, am I correct?
Exactly.
I am setting up the biggest event in somebody life time, and I hope to see it, as I think I can.
All I need is some people to help me with the plans for this positive possibility.
What day in the future works for you?
Thank you for reading my thoughts,
Tim
QUOTE(Tim4848 @ Oct 10, 2007, 09:36 PM)
I am setting up the biggest event in somebody life time, and I hope to see it, as I think I can.
All I need is some people to help me with the plans for this positive possibility.
What day in the future works for you?
Thank you for reading my thoughts,
Tim
Tim, I am not native speaker, and do not clearly grasp what you wrote. I am sorry.
Can you re-write what you wrote on conventional English.
Please explain.
Bests,
Enki
Dear Santa,
I have really been good this year, could you check and see if somebody would make a page about this topic "The Department of Positive Out of Body Possibilities" in the Wikipedia free Encyclopedia for Christmas.
Thank you Santa, and you can communicate with me about that positive possibility anytime,
Tim
I have really been good this year, could you check and see if somebody would make a page about this topic "The Department of Positive Out of Body Possibilities" in the Wikipedia free Encyclopedia for Christmas.
Thank you Santa, and you can communicate with me about that positive possibility anytime,
Tim
QUOTE(Enki @ Oct 12, 2007, 11:45 AM)
QUOTE(Tim4848 @ Oct 10, 2007, 09:36 PM)
I am setting up the biggest event in somebody life time, and I hope to see it, as I think I can.
All I need is some people to help me with the plans for this positive possibility.
What day in the future works for you?
Thank you for reading my thoughts,
Tim
Tim, I am not native speaker, and do not clearly grasp what you wrote. I am sorry.
Can you re-write what you wrote on conventional English.
Please explain.
Bests,
Enki
English is my primary language and even I dono what the hell he's talking about lol.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.