Is Astral Projection Real?
What do you think about Astral Projection? I myself am unsure whether it's just another lucid dream. Many people believe that Astral Projection exists, which completely stumps me.
I am in no way bashing Astral Projection with this thread, I do not have any experience with it.
If you believe that it is possible to leave your body in a ethereal form and explore the world, provide your scientific theory to that here.
Good question. Maybe it IS real. But let's try and explain it scientifically if we can. (And science isn't always physics, but also psychology, and biology)
I actually don't have a scientific explanation for it, if it exists at all, maybe someone else can explain it.
I heard a scientific explanation about how Remote Viewing is possible. And Remote Viewing is like Astral Traveling in a way so they are connected: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm5L8z34sNg (Agree or disagree with this, at least it is science-based)
EDIT: I just watched it again, and I think he has some good ideas. It gets very scientific, even for me, but I understand it for the most part. I will sum it up for the layman the best I can.
In our world, long radio waves pass through us and shorter ones have no influence either. We live in a world of perceivable light waves and that is the 'middle' for us, give or take. But go an 'octave' higher or lower, and there may be a world that is as real as ours, and our 'middle' waves pass through them just the same. Where is the end of the electro-magnetic spectrum? Does it go on forever, but we simply can't perceive them? Is it an endless continuum? Evolution has engineered our minds to see the present, here and now, so we can survive, and perceive the proverbial oncoming tiger, and not see those other dimensional beings. But in a certain state of mind... theta wave, or even others, perhaps we CAN perceive these other 'realities'.
(I am just summing up the video link as best I can in case others don't want to view it. So don't blame ME if you disagree. But it does make you think....... :ugeek: )
And BTW good use of the poll feature. I never used those before, but it works well for this, and shows the results. It is simply a poll and gathers a consensus data, and nothing more. This is about science,
and not another one of those Astral Projection vs. Lucid dream debates I've seen plenty of times before...........
What some people take to be the astral plane is in fact the dream world that is generated in your head. Like in lucid dreaming, you are conscious within a dream. The difference is that if you are a believer in astral projection, you won't say "I'm dreaming," you will say, "I'm in the astral." I voted for the last option. I don't believe.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Summerlander wrote: What some people take to be the astral plane is in fact the dream world that is generated in your head. Like in lucid dreaming, you are conscious within a dream. The difference is that if you are a believer in astral projection, you won't say "I'm dreaming," you will say, "I'm in the astral." I voted for the last option. I don't believe.
So that's a psychological-science answer. As of now, I think it is all in our heads too and we must realize that when we are lucid dreaming we are not in the same frame of mind as awake. And we need to realize that and compare and contrast the differences in cognition when in those two states. For example, short term memory is almost non-existent in a lucid dream, and I have tried to remember what I did 5 minutes ago in a lucid dream and the details get replaced with the overwhelming force of future imagination and I get false memories.
Then I wake up and it is all clear.
That was my own personal scientific test, and short-term memory goes hay-wire when in a lucid dream, I must say in my experience. We can believe it is so real, and then wake up, and we question the difference of perception between sleep consciousness and waking cognitivity.
But I am still open minded and there is a part of me that still wonders if it is possible for other realities to exits. And even if science can prove the possibility one way or the other, that doesn't mean I have the capability to perceive them in an alternate perceptive state of mind.... or can I?
Why doesn't someone make a machine that can perceive these alternate dimensions existing at a different frequency? If it is possible, a machine can do it with far better and objective results than our minds.
If we can see other dimensions, a machine can (or can't), and it will be case closed either way. Problem solved! One way or the other. I'm not taking a side just yet. Can't we resolve this dilemma one way or the other with science yet?! Or even maybe some logical reasoning? (we can't and that's why it's hard).
But it's fascinating!
Last night I had ... well, I'm not sure what I had. I suddenly stood up from my bed and stood in my dark room. I thought that I was astral projecting (be it dreaming or not) so I looked back at my bed but my body wasn't there. But I knew it wasn't reality, because I had the "feeling." You know, that feeling you get where you don't even need to RC, you just know that you're dreaming. So far, every time I've "astral projected," it's been a dream for sure because something or another has been wrong. Example: my body was not in the bed, I could conjure images at will. But that might just mean that I haven't done it successfully yet and I'm just dreaming about it because of the day residue.
My theory is, if shared conscious is possible and shared dreaming etc, if remote viewing were possible, I think we are all connected on a human web network. Such as our brains can connect to other people's brains via some frequency. So if we were for example, remote viewing some other area, we would be getting that information from other people on the large core network.
I think it's real. There are ways of telling the difference between a dream and an astral trip.
What are those ways? If you don't mind me asking.
AceOfSpades wrote: I think it's real. There are ways of telling the difference between a dream and an astral trip.
This does not seem like a viable way to conclude a discrimination between lucid dreaming and the belief-centric astral projection affair. One must bear in mind that the dreaming mind has an infinite potential to concoct any credible and incredible scenario from the mundane to the abstract and truly profound. This factor alone dismisses your premise. Sorry but I had to point out that your statement upholds a very weak a priori judgement. This is, after all, the dream science forum.
If you want to start at the very beginning then what do you consider as real. Would a thought be real by your terms.
The question is more correctly is astral travel what you think it is - that will be hard to answer. Of course it is real, it has caused a reaction, some thoughts and some response in you body.
What we need is a clear definition of 'Astral Projection' And even a clear definition of 'Lucid Dream' so we can compare.
I'm starting to believe that it is a cultural interpretation and label of the same phenomenon as lucid dreaming. Just like hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones are all different names for the same thing depending on your culture.
And those 'wind-storms' (whatever you call them) come in different sizes, and intensity, and they tend to 'blow us away!' sometimes.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the difference, and I'm waiting curiously.......
The problem is definition, like it is in a lot of human discussions. And definition is arbitrary. So I'm going to give you na hypothetical definition: Astral projection is a projection of someone's body into a non-physical entity that can travel the earth, having/sharing the same cognitive habilities with the person that emits it. Of course, you will ask, can existe a non-physical entity? Just the word entity gives us immediatly the sense of physical object. I don't have enough physics knowledge, so I don't know if there are non-physical entities.
I will assume that people distinguish lucid dream from astral projection, by saying that in astral projection, the entity (your projection) experiences the real world (whatever that is...at least our frame of real world) and in lucid dreaming is just imagination.
Probably, this definition is not the same as other people that believe in the subject, I just don't have great knowledge on this matter. My comment is just to give more juice to the debate xD
Thinker wrote: And definition is arbitrary.
Yea, that's the problem. We need a clear one, that all agree on, before we can even begin to answer this thread's question.
From what I gather, believers in Astral Projection think they are observing the real world, or other worlds. Perhaps a little bit askew at times, they credit that to our brains' misinterpretation of what they sense while being out of body, or in a different 'astral body', and remote viewing something.
And a Lucid Dreamer is observing a world that is completely fabricated by their own imagination.
That's my basic definition that I was using (and it's the same as Thinker's), but I could be wrong too. I'm not an authority on Astral Projection.
HAGART wrote:
Thinker wrote:And definition is arbitrary.
Yea, that's the problem. We need a clear one, that all agree on, before we can even begin to answer this thread's question.
From what I gather, believers in Astral Projection think they are observing the real world, or other worlds. Perhaps a little bit askew at times, they credit that to our brains' misinterpretation of what they sense while being out of body, or in a different 'astral body', and remote viewing something.
And a Lucid Dreamer is observing a world that is completely fabricated by their own imagination.
That's my basic definition that I was using (and it's the same as Thinker's), but I could be wrong too. I'm not an authority on Astral Projection.
I and many others (although not all of course), agree that astral projection and lucid dreaming are the exact same thing!! But astral projection is still real, the ONLY difference is, astral projection happens from a contious state, and lucid dreaming happens in an uncontious state.
Dreaming takes place on the astral plane in the astral body just as astral projection does. The only thing is, lucid dreams are highly altered by your subcontious, and astral projections are far closer to the reality we live in.
But they are the same thing, that happens in the same place and their both real in my opinion!
I know people that have astral projected and seen their friends and what their doing even though their in another country far away from the astral projecter.
And for those, that are a absolutely sure astral projection dosnt exist, my question is, how do you do know? Because you don't know, and neither do I, and THAT'S the real truth.
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
I'm an atheist so I have no belief in the supernatural... so to me its just Lucid dreams. I have had very weird false awakenings that made me think of astral but then I always conclude that's its just in my head....
[ Post made via Android ] Image
If its possible that diff dimensions do exists would be considered supernatural?
[ Post made via Android ] Image
dreamerinmiami wrote: If its possible that diff dimensions do exists would be considered supernatural?
If it could be proven with science then it wouldn't be supernatural; It would be natural no matter how absurd it seems to our feeble minds. (We once thought the Earth was flat!) So far, I have only heard anecdotal evidence, and proof is hard to come by. I doubt we will solve it any time soon here in this thread.
To people that are curious about this other dimensions/universes stuff:
http://io9.com/5714210/string-theory-fails-first-major-experimental-test
Other dimensions, as far as I know, is very discussed in some áreas of psychics (ex: string theory). You can check documentaries about string theory on youtube.
Peter wrote: If you want to start at the very beginning then what do you consider as real. Would a thought be real by your terms.
The question is more correctly is astral travel what you think it is - that will be hard to answer. Of course it is real, it has caused a reaction, some thoughts and some response in you body.
I forgot to reply in the other day and I would like to ^^. I agree with you, tought is real, so we can say that what we dream is real, because it happens. Again, the problem is definition, in this case, defining the word real. It is a matter of convenience to say real world opposed to dream world (at least for me), because, altought we know that a dream is real, we are not interacting with our frame of real world. I would say we are not interacting with matter, but of course, if we don't know if matter really exists and we are dreaming (like matrix), so I use the word frame, because is the world we take reference as real.
Tend to agree, the biggest problem I have is when I see everything compared to the "real world" and the need to define in terms of this. I dont think its a valid point or really even worth a lot of effort. If I want to talk to my friends I will call them, go see them or whatever. Same for remote viewing, i will get them to use some real time video app on a smart phone.
Is astral projection real or not, back to the start. If you have an experience of astral travel or lucid dream and it leaves a memory then it is real in one sense, just the same as a thought that causes pleasure or pain. A painful thought is no less real that hitting you finger with a hammer.
Do you interact with the material world in astral travel, I think that is the question. While this is interesting so what if you do, I am more interested in exploring my mind and lucid dreaming or astral travel is a tool to be honed for this purpose. Lol - all my opinion
sorry if this has been posted here before, but here's something neat, realted to this topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs9PVUoIf-E
Thomas Campbell? ^^ :D
Me and that charlatan/pseudo-scientist used to exchanged messages and debate in a dream group ages ago. I still have him as a friend on Facebook. Here's what I think of him and his profanities:
http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=13557
I'd also like to add that the question in this topic is fine. We all know too well what is implied by "astral projection." It is a belief-centric term. It assumes that we have an astral body that can travel in astral realms, apparently objectively real planes of existence, and populated by discarnate entities.
It's a baseless interpretation that also alludes to the existence of an eternal soul, that we are immortal, the afterlife is true, and other ideas which usually stem from, or are supported by, religion.
Again, do I think it's real? No. I think versions of this concept are imagined by people while they are awake and then mentally generated to the delight of practitioners of hybrid states of dream consciousness. Astral projection is no more than lucid dreaming taken to be something else. Your mind is responsible for the wonderful environments you see in lucid dreams. Credit should be given where its due in my opinion. There is no reason to underestimate the brain in all its complexity. :|
That's it! :mrgreen:
:mrgreen: Sad But True. Mr. Green bursts a few bubbles......
Until proven otherwise The Astral Plane doesn't exist. Imagine if it did though?! This Earth and Waking Life is hard enough. Imagine having to deal with Astral Beings! What a head-ache that would be! I didn't sign up for this when I was sprouted into existence!!! (I'm being sarcastic, but I am also a lucid dreamer, and I'll joke with my Dream Characters about that! See what they say? No matter how intelligent and sentient and aware they are with personality, I still think they are miraculous manifestations of my mind. Not astral beings and I am not 'astral projecting'.)
It's starting to make logical sense to me despite scientific proof. Without scientific proof, lets use logic and imagine if it actually WAS possible? It would upset the balance of the universe wouldn't it?
If it was possible to interact with another reality and influence it, it would be a two way street. I don't see any evidence of other dimensional beings influencing this reality except in dreams. That's too convenient and coincidental and leads me to believe it is all in our head.... our wonderful and amazing, 'uncharted minds' of a head.
But I am a curious child and that is the way all scientific approaches should be. I would love to hear either proof or some other logical reasoning behind this. :D (I find this fun......) It's a great conversation.
I mean I suppose it doesn't matter who thinks what is real who doesn't, so posting this is a little pointless.
But at the same time, you guys don't know. You just don't, and you really shouldn't be trying to tell the world it's fact that you don't know. It's your opinion, you THINK it's not real.
Someone said it's not real Intill science proves it, WHAT? I don't see any science experiment disproving it, so saying it's not real just because it hasn't been proven by science is pure ignorance.
Before science proved lucid dreaming, people thought lucid dreaming didn't exist, but lucid dreaming still existed.
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
LucidLink wrote: I mean I suppose it doesn't matter who thinks what is real who doesn't, so posting this is a little pointless.
But at the same time, you guys don't know. You just don't, and you really shouldn't be trying to tell the world it's fact that you don't know. It's your opinion, you THINK it's not real.
Someone said it's not real Intill science proves it, WHAT? I don't see any science experiment disproving it, so saying it's not real just because it hasn't been proven by science is pure ignorance.
Before science proved lucid dreaming, people thought lucid dreaming didn't exist, but lucid dreaming still existed.
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
Agree. It's like the existence of God. We have no way of proving and have no way of disproving it, so I just say ''I don't know''. The problem with metaphysical discussions is that is hard to find evidence or maybe impossible (I don't like to use this word, so, the word maybe is important). Metaphysical arguments like ''the astral world exists'' could be beyond the human frame of observation, so there always uncertainty.
He could go like all day discussing the philosophical issue ^^ Better to create a new topic. This is in the realm of Epistemology, Methaphysics, etc.
LucidLink wrote: Someone said it's not real Intill science proves it, WHAT? I don't see any science experiment disproving it, so saying it's not real just because it hasn't been proven by science is pure ignorance.
It's not ignorance, it's the burden of proof. ;)
In a nutshell, if someone makes a claim "X exists", or "Y is actually possible", they have to back it up with proof. If they can't, the claim is generally dismissed.
It's not up to the skeptic to disprove anything, it's up to the claim-maker to prove their claims.
Teraku wrote:
LucidLink wrote:Someone said it's not real Intill science proves it, WHAT? I don't see any science experiment disproving it, so saying it's not real just because it hasn't been proven by science is pure ignorance.
It's not ignorance, it's the burden of proof. ;)
In a nutshell, if someone makes a claim "X exists", or "Y is actually possible", they have to back it up with proof. If they can't, the claim is generally dismissed.
It's not up to the skeptic to disprove anything, it's up to the claim-maker to prove their claims.
You call it "burden of truth", I call it ignorance. :)
Because as I said in my last post, people thought lucid dreaming wasn't real intill science eventually proved it. But lucid dreaming was real before science proved it. No proof doesn't mean it's not real, it means we need to find some proof before we can say one way or the other.
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
You should read Carl Popper. He argues that in science, nothing can be proved true, but it can be proved false. If you have a scientific argument that is not refuted by any evidence, is not certaint that it's true, is only provisionally accepted.
We have no strong evidence of Astral Projection, but is a logical mistake to say is not real, just because we have no proof
Teraku is simply right.
The burden of proof is not ignorance, it is actually very important. Before I get to why that is, I'd like to mention that Karl Popper (with a "K") was a verificationist himself as much as he would like to describe himself as a critic of verificationism itself, and, he is, after all, associated with logical positivism.
The burden of proof is important because if we didn't have it, any Joe would be claiming all sorts. I'll tell you what is ignorance: to believe in astral projection without evidence. In fact, to believe in anything without evidence. You might as well believe in unicorns, fairies, Jack Frost, the flying spaghetti monster, Zeus, Apollo, Neptune etc. just because, despite these things being highly improbable, they have not been disproved!
Things don't work like that in science. In fact, in a court of law, you make a claim... you have the burden of proof. The onus is on you to back up your story. You don't get to say, "I can't prove that I saw Elvis but you can't prove that I didn't either," or, "I saw Michael Jackson fiddling with kiddies, I can't prove it but you can't disprove it either." A judicial system that dared to take such statements at face value would be a derisory one.
On lucid dreaming being frowned upon. Science didn't actually dismiss the idea. Lucid dreaming is now an established fact and this came about via experimentation. Scientists also used to think that the universe was static, eternal, and only the Milky Way existed, until, of course, Einstein, Hubble, and others, came along and changed the picture (and it only got better with improved technology such as greater telescopes). The observable universe contains billions of galaxies and is not static, it is expanding.
Science makes progress and scientists are humble enough to admit they don't have all the answers - but they are certainly doing their best to get them. Science has also studied the brain and measured activity against levels of reported consciousness and its conclusions make it highly unlikely that vitalism holds any water. What is said about the acceptance of lucid dreaming cannot be said for spirits controlling bodies or the existence of astral planes. Some people try to use the TV analogy with electricity and all. But electricity is something observable and measurable and thus part of the physical world. In the brain, no self or spiritual life force is found.
Some say it is because it is non-physical and therefore lies outside our scientific scope. This, too, is nonsense. If you are going to claim that a supernatural life force controls physical bodies then it has to interact with physical systems, thus being detectable, and would have to be physical by default - otherwise how else could it possibly interact with the physical universe? Scientists, with technology, can detect sound frequencies that are beyond the range of human hearing and yet cannot detect a soul essence that grossly moves physical bodies? Doesn't make much sense...
Moreover, the soul concept is a non-sequitur. If you are going to say that we are conscious because we have souls you are not really presenting a solution. One can then pose the question: How or why is this soul conscious? Moreover, where is it?
Lucid dreaming can be easily proved. The same cannot be said for the existence of a spiritual plane...
You see, science does not have dogmas, it is humble enough to doubt its own theories, to test things, and make observations via experimentation. As Lawrence Krauss put it:
"Science has been effective at furthering our understanding of nature because the scientific ethos is based on three key principles:(1) follow the evidence wherever it leads; (2) if one has a theory, one needs to be willing to try to prove it wrong as much as one tries to prove that it is right; (3) the ultimate arbiter of truth is experiment, not the comfort one derives from one's a priori beliefs, nor the beauty or elegance one ascribes to one's theoretical models."
Now, I will explain why the agnostic position is weak when it comes to astral projection, spirits, God, and other religious tripe. None of the things aforementioned are 50-50 in probability/improbability (which would make agnosticism a respectable position to have on such matters). They are, in fact, highly improbable as science has given them the benefit of the doubt and has instead gathered enough evidence weighing against them. If you are going to be an agnostic about astral projection and God, you really have not done your homework on their improbability. You have not checked out the facts that make them extremely infeasible. Worse, you would also have to be as agnostic about unicorns if you adopt such position.
Ignorance is believing in something because you fancy the idea and care not for evidence. You wake someone during the REM phase and they will remember vivid dreams. You wake someone in delta and they will remember nothing - and they are very likely to be irritated and confused. Sometimes they need a few seconds or even a few minutes before they can even muster a polite, "Let me gather my thoughts," or, "Let me compose myself." The latter is very accurate and this reflects in brain activity. The mental faculties have to be built in the moment when one rises from deep sleep in order to produce the epiphenomenal consciousness.
We know subjectivity does arise from non-conscious matter, the puzzle is how as we probe brain complexity. It is very likely, as John Searle once made me think, that consciousness is like the property of being wet in water. Water feels wet but its atomic constituents are not. wet is an illusion and wet certainly does not last forever. Water can evaporate or freeze out. Chemical compositions change and illusions can cease to be.
Consciousness is a gap that science may fill in due time. Meanwhile, people who don't understand the burden of proof and provide no evidentiary substance have no right to fill it with whatever they please by word of mouth and pass their claims as truisms.
I don't believe in spirits, ghosts or astral projection just like I don't believe in unicorns. There is no reason for me to believe in such things. Until you have anything that is scientifically strong, which can surpass the overwhelming evidence for physicalism and our autonomic bodies, we will remain in this sceptical position. You may be open-minded but don't let your brains fall out.
I'd also like to add that science, when it comes to getting to the bottom of things, isn't about beliefs, opinions, or pure a priori deductions alone. These are not relevant/sufficient to form a sound conclusion. The statistics here do very little towards that goal.
This is a science forum. That's all.
Summerland:
Nor I or LucidLink said we believe in Astral Projection, because no one disproved it. That would be the use of a well known fallacy. We only said that just because you don't have evidence, does not mean it's impossible/not true. The burden of prove is important and if the person doesn't prove it, ''is generally dismissed '' like someone said. But, ''generally dismissed'' can't be = impossible. That is a logical (or epistemological, wtv) mistake, in my opinion. As you know, a lot of things is science were tought impossible or highly improbable, Einstein for example ''destroyed'' the laws of Newton, that were tought to be proved. Probabilities relies on a observational system, it's unfair to use probabilities against a methaphysical/beyond observation argument.
First, Einstein did not destroy Newton's laws. That's misconception. Newton's laws are still applicable on a classical scale. Einstein merely helped to expand our understanding of how the physical world and tidied up a few loose ends.
Secondly, I don't think you understand the burden of proof let alone scientism. Science cares not about what you believe. Science follows the evidence wherever it may lead and with that we expand our knowledge. As I said before, science demonstrates that there is no reason to believe in astral realms or ghosts because no such thing is found and plenty of evidence against. Yes, highly improbable, cannot say impossible, but the same applies for the unicorn. Such things are not feasible and after
[ Post made via Android ] Image
sorry, on the phone
After searching for such things with the right protocol we can safely say that they are simply not there. We've got devices that can detect frequencies beyond the range of human perception, we even have hadron colliders that uncovered the Higgs field, and yet, the one thing vitalists say give us a life force, such as a soul or spirit, something that supposedly controls the physical body (thus grossly interacting with physical systems) cannot be found.
Thinker, think about it, my friend, if it was there, we would have found it by now.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
I also think you are getting ahead of yourself with the whole "has not been disproved" argument. I could say to you right now that I can sprout wings from my back and fly like David Copperfield (only for real) and tell you that I can't prove it to you cuz I've got the flu. And if you doubted me I could say to you, "well, you can't disprove it!"
You see how nonsensical that sounds? How can one disprove something that has not been proved or verified in any way whatsoever in the first place? Hence your reasoning shoots itself in the foot.
Saying it might exist is only an assumption. It is a argument limited to words and insufficient grounds. Just like the assumption you made that I specifically mentioned you as a believer in astral projection. Perhaps you don't believe but seem reluctant to dismiss the idea altogether. As I said before, if you take this agnostic stance (which is a weak one in my view) you also have to be equally agnostic about fairies and unicorns - which is equally ludicrous and inviting of ridicule.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
It's strange as I look up there at the options I don't see a way I can select what I believe. It paints this whole thing as a black and white subject, very unscientific in my opinion. Hi am a first time poster and I just don't feel that ending this discussion in this way is, in any way, a meaningful conclusion to whats being discussed, so it's with great excitement that I make my first impressions in this way. :twisted:
Science is not about absolutes. It's an ideology based solely on beliefs, because at any point, science, scientists for that matter, believe that ANY "fact" can be proven false based solely on one repeatable experiment. Even its laws, it's most holy doctrine, can be disproved in a single day, by a well designed, repeatable experiment. So what does this mean really? That in effect science is the flashlight we use to shine knowledge on a dark and mysterious universe, as an analogy, it's a spirituality that believes in the universe, and draws no other conclusions beyond that other then to strive to understand what that thing is, "the universe". I am, based on this understanding, a scientist; my views and beliefs are subject to change at a single instance, with any measurable experience I can have on my own, that is repeatable and constant and that will allow me to draw my own facts from. And even then, with the knowledge that anything I know can only be a fragment of what could be known, that i'll always be humbled by what could be. So for the love of science, don't make the word "dream" so common, and don't make "astral projection" just another Religious ideal. Their has to be a grey area. And if we respect that grey area, dreams become just a little more then a body function, and just less then a full-blown conversation with some mystical creator, and to my newly found friends, I can sleep better feeling that truth. :lol:
Poor choice of words, metaphors, and warped reasoning, Brutal Honesty. It's not even funny and it's coming from someone who cares not for the truth. Gravity is a scientific theory. It is also pretty obvious! Can you believe, disbelieve, or disprove that one? The disproving tactic here is nonsensical, and, in case you're confused, it's not a matter of belief...
This reminds me about something I wanted to say to Thinker. Einstein also predicted the lensing effect of light in space to an accurate degree. But he overlooked it's practicality and significance in astronomy (he was not an astronomer anyway.)
Along came Fritz Zwicky who submitted a paper to the Physical Review where he demonstrated the use of lensing by galaxies. He studied the motion of a group of galaxies and realised that they were moving so fast that they should have flown apart, unless there was more mass in the cluster by a factor more than 100.
He unknowingly had discovered dark matter at the time, and guess how he stumbled upon it: using Newton's laws of motion.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
This is starting to get personal and away from the subject of the thread. Please keep to the theme of the thread or it will be locked. This is the one and only warning
Peter Moderator
It seems that some individuals choose to attack scientific methodology when it only tells us that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of astral planes. Moreover, what science has established is that lucid dreaming is a hybrid state of the brain, and nothing further than this, which can clearly be mistaken for astral projection or real out-of-body experiences.
I have toned it down and tolerated other people voicing their opinions and beliefs in forums like the paranormal and off-topic ones. But this is a science forum, so I will defend what it stands for. It is not about beliefs, it is about considering how far we've got scientifically and what is viable.
If this forum starts getting its topics locked because certain individuals corrupt it with their fantasies, dogmas, pseudoscience, and criticism of science itself, then I am leaving and not coming back. I'm tired of this nonsense. It's very childish.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Summerlander, you know as well if not better that anyone that it only takes one scrap of new understanding buy an intuitive leap to change human understanding and open new fronts. All this is something that we did not or could not understand prior and afterwards become obviously simple. I have no idea on what might trigger change but do know that anything is possible. On these forums people will debate and put up differing positions on issues and I want tolerance for these views and will lock or delete any threads that go against this and start attacking any member because another's view offend. If I cant moderate in this way I will very happily leave this forum. To all, keep to the subject and don't seek to run down anyone for a differing view no matter how much you think they are right or wrong. All our opinions are based only on what we know now and in an instant that could change
And with that I apologize Summerlander, what ever modest ideal I was trying to put forth Peter summed up with great efficiency. I am a wording guy in the end.... Again, I apologize. It doesn't help when am a new guy trying to make an impression, and for that, I apologize to everyone, still very neat forum, with some pretty neat people.
I understand Peter. Apology accepted Brutal. The question of whether astral projection is real or not is still a worthy one and deserves an answer. I believe we have answered where science currently stands regarding it.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
Summerlander wrote: I understand Peter. Apology accepted Brutal. The question of whether astral projection is real or not is still a worthy one and deserves an answer. I believe we have answered where science currently stands regarding it.
[ Post made via Android ] Image
For once, we agree haha!!
I also am sorry, I believe I may have slightly caused this too. I was never trying to force someone else's beliefs though, merely trying to get them to admit that they don't know and neither do I.
[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
I'm pretty surprised by the results. Only someone that's never experienced it before could possibly say it's just another lucid dream. You actually experience yourself separating from your corporal body. There's absolutely no mistaking it from just another dream. Then the experience itself is far more vivid too than even the most vivid dreams I've had.
I can understand simply not believing in it at all. I'm agnostic too and wouldn't believe any outside the box stuff unless I personally experienced it. IMO that's how it should be too. You should never take anyone's word for anything and always trust your own experiences and senses. But to liken to just another dream, I really cannot fathom. If you believe that's the case then it was, in fact, just another dream, and you didn't really experience a genuine OBE.
But I do not believe the experience takes place in the same waken reality we find ourselves in right now. Like you couldn't write yourself a note, and wake up and see it there on the table, for instance. This is something I never subscribed to. I'm not sure remote viewing, for instance is possible. To my experience my surroundings look genuine. Like when I first leave my corporal body I'll be in my room and be able to see all the furniture, etc... all where it should be. But if I look at fine details I can see it's not the same. Like look at that grandfather clock once, and see symbols instead of numbers. Or in the call log of my cell phone. Open the fridge and see an entire city in there instead of that bucket of chicken that should be there. And then the further I get from my body the more things warp & skew even. By the time I'm outside my house and down the block I'll be in a completely different environment.
[quote="Goldkoron"]My theory is, if shared conscious is possible and shared dreaming etc, if remote viewing were possible, I think we are all connected on a human web network. Such as our brains can connect to other people's brains via some frequency. So if we were for example, remote viewing some other area, we would be getting that information from other people on the large core network.[/quote]
I like the word "archive" best. But basically yeah, I get a similar impression. I mean if at one time everything in this universe was all one... one tiny, ridiculously dense spec of matter. Even as we expand our own ways wouldn't some thing(s) remain interconnected? Biological life forms and this universe act in very much the same way machines & computers do. With everything I see this universe would function in a very similar matter to that of a super computer.
I won't even pretend that I can back up my views scientifically. I'm no scientist. And sadly I believe science draws far too many premature conclusions, and it prevents it from truly understanding many affairs, as the book should remain open instead in many cases, and the proverbial cup at least half empty.
I've experienced the 'separation of body too' and it comes in many forms. Usually vibrations, a buzzing drone sound, floating and/or sinking. I wonder if it is simply our minds trying to make sense of the confusion of muscle atonia.
The experience that ensues afterward is always far more vivid and realistic than my typical DILDs, but perhaps it is because we have more awareness of self. (In most lucid dreams, I control it, but they are absurd and I forget who I am and don't have my waking sense of self).
Then sometimes I do and have all my senses. There is a big difference, but maybe it's just semantics to describe the intensity of the same 'wind storm'. (From my earlier post).
Let me pose this question and I bet scientific studies have been done: What if you take a brain scan of someone eating a chocolate cake in real life, and then take a brain scan of them eating a chocolate cake in a dream. The more similar it is, the more realistic it is for the dreamer.
Our brains are miraculous illusion machines!
(Perhaps waking life is an illusion too and there is a fine line. That's why I am still agnostic about this.)
ESPer wrote: I won't even pretend that I can back up my views scientifically. I'm no scientist. And sadly I believe science draws far too many premature conclusions, and it prevents it from truly understanding many affairs
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think? You said the following (which includes the assumption that real OOBEs do occur):
ESPer wrote: You should never take anyone's word for anything and always trust your own experiences and senses. But to liken to just another dream, I really cannot fathom. If you believe that's the case then it was, in fact, just another dream, and you didn't really experience a genuine OBE.
As I explained before, the agnostic position is a weak one in the face of overwhelming evidence against the notion of astral projection. Of course it was "just another dream" and no genuine OOBE was experienced because all OOBEs are products of an active mind during sleep. Genuine OOBEs simply do not occur because all such experiences are illusions.
I have experienced OOBEs, WILDs and DILDs. It is true that there seems to be a tendency for the experience to be more vivid (hyper-realistic even) when one seemingly separates from the body. But this cannot be used as evidence that it is not a dream (i.e. occurring in your head.) I have also had DILDs which have been extremely vivid and I could even get them to hyper-realistic qualities by simply heightening my senses within the lucid dream world.
All you have done is point out the different intensities of lucid dreaming and the fact that some people call them "astral projection" or "OOBE" if they happen to be really intense. All of this is well covered in Michael Raduga's "The Phase Guidebook." Stephen LaBerge has also highlighted what would constitute as proof in his "Exploring The World of Lucid Dreaming." Such evidence is yet to be presented and it seems highly unlikely in the face of surmounting evidence against vitalism.
As I said to AceOfSpades before:
Summerlander wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:I think it's real. There are ways of telling the difference between a dream and an astral trip.
This does not seem like a viable way to conclude a discrimination between lucid dreaming and the belief-centric astral projection affair. One must bear in mind that the dreaming mind has an infinite potential to concoct any credible and incredible scenario from the mundane to the abstract and truly profound. This factor alone dismisses your premise. Sorry but I had to point out that your statement upholds a very weak a priori judgement. This is, after all, the dream science forum.
I'm not surprised at the results at all. I think people are starting to wake up regarding the amazing illusions/porkies the brain can concoct and which we may voluntarily induce. 8-)
ESPer wrote: But if I look at fine details I can see it's not the same. Like look at that grandfather clock once, and see symbols instead of numbers. Or in the call log of my cell phone. Open the fridge and see an entire city in there instead of that bucket of chicken that should be there. And then the further I get from my body the more things warp & skew even. By the time I'm outside my house and down the block I'll be in a completely different environment.
This is very typical in lucid dreams. Symbols instead of numbers on clocks as the dream world itself expresses the abstract side of your mind, the part which does not deal in numbers or language and the lucid observer spots this anomaly directly. An entire city inside a fridge is also far removed from reality and visits Dali's surrealism. And the more you move away from your dream house the more the environment starts to look less familiar as you mentally remove yourself from that concept and other thoughts (conscious or unconscious) begin to express themselves. Did you know that Carl Jung referred to this as "active imagination," ESPer?
Ask any lucid dreamer in this forum with a bit of experience and they will tell you that they have experienced similar things under the label of "lucid dreaming," even when that includes the illusion of separating from one's physical body.
HAGART wrote: Perhaps waking life is an illusion too and there is a fine line. That's why I am still agnostic about this.
Our perception of reality is indeed one big illusion... but not reality itself. Stars are born and explode whether we know about them or not. The universe is expanding faster and faster whether we know about it, understand it, or not. The escape velocity for all the objects on the surface of our planet, whether one likes it or not, is 7 miles per second (a factor any rocket scientist building a spaceship must take into consideration.)
In a dream, we can mould what we perceive as we please, more so when we are lucid. We may also fly slowly upwards and into space because the laws of physics, including gravity, don't really exist (if they seem present it is only because we are allowing for mental barriers, or we believe them to be there in the first place. Likewise, if we believe the dream world to be some astral plane, it will behave like one (or our idea of what one would be like.)
And hence the difference between subjective and objective. In dreams things happen according to our states of mind. In reality, things happen regardless (i.e. independent of minds.)
Don't get me wrong, I study to be a scientist one day, I don't believe the existence of Astral stuff, unicorns, etc. I'm only trying to show Summerland that he should not have that positive (positivism) and dogmatic ‘’science is absolute and explains everything ‘’ view of reality ^^ I don't believe anyone disrespected other person. I'm with Peter, I will show my arguments and never attack the others. I just want to enrich my knowledge and get new conclusions.
I will address different things that have been said:
Summerander: ''First, Einstein did not destroy Newton's laws''
Answer: This subject is a bit beyond my knowledge, but I read somewhere (documentary I guess) that Einstein disproved some Newton’s stuff and that shook the notion of certainty in science. I’m not sure, so, I would be glad if you give the information.
Summerlander: ‘’ Poor choice of words, metaphors, and warped reasoning’’
A: I believe Brutal Honesty said some interesting stuff, not just metaphors and whatnot, and you should address those arguments. He said two things: 1: ‘’(Science) It's an ideology based solely on beliefs, because at any point, science, scientists for that matter, believe that ANY "fact" can be proven false based solely on one repeatable experiment. 2: ‘’Even its laws, it's most holy doctrine, can be disproved in a single day, by a well designed, repeatable experiment’’ I believe that he is sharing my anti- verificationism belief, saying that we can, at any point ‘’disprove’’ the early knowledge, so it means that what we thought to be true/proved, is false, so we can never assume for certain the truth of something. But I would enjoy if he explained this a bit more, just because it was the substantial part of his text
Summerlander:‘’Yes, highly improbable, cannot say impossible’’ and ‘’such things are not feasible and after searching for such things with the right protocol we can safely say that they are simply not there’’
A: The two phrases contradict each other. Your contradiction probably shows that you don’t like that esoteric vudu stuff and is hard for you to accept that those things may not be possible to prove impossible. I too, don’t like when people believe in that sort of thing for no reason, but what to trying to debate where is the impossibility of those things.
Summerlander:’' if it was there, we would have found it by now’’
A: You know better than me that it’s incorrect. The same thing could have been said a lot of time ago when everybody thought the earth was flat, etc etc
Summerlander: David Copperfield example:
A: If you said that you could fly because you have the flu I could not disprove that. Observation gives you the notion that you cannot fly , therefore, if the observation does not correspond to the reality, everything may have the possibility of happening . Even, inside the scientific realm I could not disprove. Empirical science’s conclusions are based on induction and on the assumption that the rules of the game are constant, etc etc Are you getting the picture?
Summerlander: ‘’ You see how nonsensical that sounds? How can one disprove something that has not been proved or verified in any way whatsoever in the first place? Hence your reasoning shoots itself in the foot.’’
A: Something that is proved can’t be disproved, it’s a logical flaw. If you disprove something it means that was not proved in the first place
I don’t find the existence of unicorns ridicule. All things are in the same level, regarding this kind of thinking This takes me to the last thing:
** Summerlander:‘’Our perception of reality is indeed one big illusion... but not reality itself ‘’**
A: The knowledge of reality itself, whatever that is, is only given by perception, that’s the point. How can you say that ‘’The universe is expanding faster and faster whether we know about it’’?? You don’t even know if the universe really exists. We all could be dreaming right know…although any example I give is a bit controversial, because they would me based on observation too(ex: the notion of dreaming)... But the central idea is that you don’t know if you can absolutely prove anything, whatever that is(again) – something similar to absolute truth, and science is not, is scientific truth, and that is other thing.
ESPer wrote: I'm pretty surprised by the results. Only someone that's never experienced it before could possibly say it's just another lucid dream. You actually experience yourself separating from your corporal body. There's absolutely no mistaking it from just another dream. Then the experience itself is far more vivid too than even the most vivid dreams I've had.
Actually, even having such an experience yourself wouldn't prove that Astral Projection exists. You are asleep, after all. How do you know that it wasn't just a very vivid dream? You can't trust your feelings or your senses on this one.
Thinker wrote: I'm only trying to show Summerland that he should not have that positive (positivism) and dogmatic ‘’science is absolute and explains everything ‘’ view of reality ^^
I never said science explains everything but it is the best method of enquiry we have. If you hark back to one of my previous remarks:
"Science makes progress and scientists are humble enough to admit they don't have all the answers - but they are certainly doing their best to get them. Science has also studied the brain and measured activity against levels of reported consciousness and its conclusions make it highly unlikely that vitalism holds any water. What is said about the acceptance of lucid dreaming cannot be said for spirits controlling bodies or the existence of astral planes. Some people try to use the TV analogy with electricity and all. But electricity is something observable and measurable and thus part of the physical world. In the brain, no self or spiritual life force is found."
Thinker wrote: Answer: This subject is a bit beyond my knowledge, but I read somewhere (documentary I guess) that Einstein disproved some Newton’s stuff and that shook the notion of certainty in science. I’m not sure, so, I would be glad if you give the information.
I think you might be referring to the fact that Einstein opined once that the classical physics of Newton were not enough to explain the mechanics of reality, especially when it came to electromagnetic interaction. Eventually, Einstein's work would help to develop quantum theory, a better candidate. Newton's corpuscle theory of light (as opposed to Huygen's wave theory) alone also failed to explain some of its behaviour following experimentation. Still, today the theory isn't necessarily wrong, just incomplete and in need of a quantum mechanical touch in its equations, hence the wave-particle duality.
I will stop there to prevent too much digression and will just add that this only illustrates what I said earlier regarding science: it is not dogmatic, it produces rich scientific theories and then tests them. It refines it's picture of the world and helps us to get to wherever the evidence may lead.
Thinker wrote: Brutal Honesty: 1: ‘’(Science) It's an ideology based solely on beliefs, because at any point, science, scientists for that matter, believe that ANY "fact" can be proven false based solely on one repeatable experiment.
If I must address Brutal's comments, so be it. The above is a false assumption. Science is not an ideology solely based on beliefs. It is a method of enquiry. He also has not provided any examples that we can verify and he is not clear about what he means by "fact" in that sentence. All he seems to allude to is the fact that if a team of scientists claim to have discovered something and provide a demonstration of how they arrived at their conclusions, other teams will test what they claim - often repeating or expanding their experiments.
That's how the scientific community works. They will use verification as well as falsifiability (note that this doesn't necessarily mean proving something to be false, it is also another method employed which may lead to a refinement of the theory). If the theory stands the test of time, usually due to overwhelming evidence, then it is correct and facts are established. For example, evolution is one of them. It's a fact.
Thinker wrote: 2: ‘’Even its laws, it's most holy doctrine, can be disproved in a single day, by a well designed, repeatable experiment’’ - I believe that he is sharing my anti- verificationism belief, saying that we can, at any point ‘’disprove’’ the early knowledge, so it means that what we thought to be true/proved, is false, so we can never assume for certain the truth of something. But I would enjoy if he explained this a bit more, just because it was the substantial part of his text
What he said starts with the nonsensical premise that science upholds a holy doctrine. Much of this can be dismissed with what I said earlier regarding verificationism and falsifiability. Falsifiability is also a form of verification and can potentially reinforce certainty or prove a theory to be incorrect. Yes, science also takes Karl Popper into consideration - as I pointed out earlier with that Krauss quote.
Thinker wrote: Summerlander:‘’Yes, highly improbable, cannot say impossible’’ and ‘’such things are not feasible and after searching for such things with the right protocol we can safely say that they are simply not there’’
I do seem to be contradicting myself there but I am not. You see, there is a difference between saying something is impossible (which I have not said) and saying something is not happening according to the evidence. Can you spot the difference?
At the roots of reality, the quantum realm, possible/impossible are replaced by probable/improbable. In its own way, it still takes the shortest route from "A" to "B" so to speak. Quantum laws, for example, do not forbid a grain of sand (made of many quantum particles) to hop out of a closed matchbox unaided. This seems weird but it's true. However, because the grain is an enormous object in the quantum realm, it starts to obey Newton's laws of motion... so to us, it appears to be still and not going anywhere. The bigger things get, the more time is incremented.
Calculations tell us that a grain of sand would need the age of the universe a thousand times over in order to hop out of the box. Quantum-mechanically speaking, this is a highly improbable event. Classically, you might as well say it won't happen (safe to use the word impossible within our context). You see what's happening here? Likewise, it has been recently predicted that our universe only has 20-30 billion years to go because the Higgs field was found to be metastable (as opposed to stable), and, as the cosmos expands, a bubble of space is likely to emerge and grow like a cancer destroying everything in its wake. This will also solve another paradox physicists have wrestled with: Boltzmann brains. They'll never happen and sorry to digress again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
I cannot say something is completely impossible because in science this is a bold claim when we have attempts at theories of everything (and even "anything") that often include multiple universes or alternate realities. I can, and I have, however, say that something is "infeasible" as this word tells us that something is not viable (in this case according to evidence and how our reality operates) but not necessarily impossible. If our universe was different, who knows? Perhaps in a different universe, conscious beings have a life-force like a soul, which is the source of their conscious awareness, and this can be scientifically established there (although they'd be pressed to solve the mystery of how such essence is conscious in the first place.
In our universe, however, dualism or vitalism present us with a picture that has been tested against reality and guess what: it has remained a hypothesis ever since - as opposed to a rich scientific theory full of calculations and observations that are later tested with experimentation. The idea that claims souls, the afterlife, and astral projection are real has not taken off and does not hold enough substance to form a theory like that of gravity or evolution. It does not even compare with Tonomi's integrated information theory of consciousness and seems even more infeasible against Koch's neuro-scientific observations.
Harking back: "After searching for such things with the right protocol we can safely say that they are simply not there. We've got devices that can detect frequencies beyond the range of human perception, we even have hadron colliders that uncovered the Higgs field, and yet, the one thing vitalists say give us a life force, such as a soul or spirit, something that supposedly controls the physical body (thus grossly interacting with physical systems) cannot be found."
Thinker wrote: Summerlander:’' if it was there, we would have found it by now’’ A: You know better than me that it’s incorrect. The same thing could have been said a lot of time ago when everybody thought the earth was flat, etc etc
You are not taking into account, however, that a "long time ago" was before the scientific revolution and the world was a different place then. People were afraid to defy the accepted views of the time, the dogmatic mores, the religious and superstitious beliefs. Suppression was ripe. Do you know what Galileo went through just to prove that Ptolemy was wrong?
Today, the world is more secular, there is more freedom of expression, which in turn facilitates the establishment of facts through science. In saying this, modern people can still be anti-science. In some parts of the US teachers can still be tried for teaching evolution (a well established fact).
Still, science has made progress. Because of this, it established that lucid dreaming is real and that it occurs when the brain is in a hybrid state of activity (somewhere between waking and dreaming) quite distinct from ordinary dreaming and the waking state. It has also made certain predictions which have come true - like the discovery of the Higgs boson. This was proposed in the 1960's and confirmed to exist earlier this year, and, although you may say it has taken nearly half a century that is because the means for scientists to test their predictions wasn't available for at least the first four decades. (The Large Hadron Collider was built at the start of this millennium.)
Meanwhile, astral planes of existence remain far from the height of scientific theories that lead to falsifiable predictions (reminder: to be tested): they are at the hypothetical level and nothing but a belief without substance. Faith-based really. People who have claimed to be astral projecting are found to be prone to lucid dreaming. 25 gram myths started by Christian pseudo-scientists are also quickly ruled out and their dodgy experiments dismissed. Their biased conclusions are quickly ruled out. Their so-called evidence turns out to reflect either errors or mundane factors that were conveniently dismissed (loss of bodily fluids at death, sweat evaporation, faulty scales etc.).
Thinker wrote: A: If you said that you could fly because you have the flu I could not disprove that.
No. In my example I said that I could fly but could not show you because I had the flu.
Thinker wrote: Observation gives you the notion that you cannot fly , therefore, if the observation does not correspond to the reality, everything may have the possibility of happening.
No. The observation that one has never been seen to fly may lead to the a priori deduction that one cannot fly indeed. However, if the individual in question claims that he can fly, we are pressed to test this. If the claimant can indeed fly, this should be demonstrable. If he claims he can't because he has the flu, we still give him the benefit of the doubt and wait until he gets better. If he gets better and refuses to provide us with a demonstration, then we are entitled to be sceptic or suspicious.
In other words, there is no reason to believe that the claimant can fly. Why would you? To believe without evidence is unreasonable. If the claimant has something to prove, let him prove it and then we'll change our minds. Science does not cling to ideas or hold dogmas, it follows evidence wherever it may lead.
So, yeah, show us you can fly and then we'll try to establish how and why. Demonstrate and we can go from there: he does not have wings or rockets attached to him; there is no weird weather making him appear to be flying; we can rule out strings; let's look at his skin pores, his brain, magnetic field etc.
Thinker wrote: Even, inside the scientific realm I could not disprove. Empirical science’s conclusions are based on induction and on the assumption that the rules of the game are constant, etc etc Are you getting the picture?
You can rule things out. You can even assess the make-up of the claimant and get a good idea of whether or not he can fly. As for the assumption that the rules of the game are constant, I don't really get it? What do you mean? If anything, science observes reality constantly moving and changing, even the atom! Yes, we are now confident enough that if you mix chemical X with Y you will get an explosion, we may expect this to happen because we have observed such to happen many times before and we have come to understand the mechanics.
This does not come from assumptions, this comes from observations and conclusions. Established facts involve rigorous studies. If we talk about constants such as gravitation, speed of light, or even the cosmological one, well, that is because they are there and their energies/behaviours have been worked out or measurements have been made. We also observe how these impact on reality. We can also predict changes for the universe (one mentioned earlier with the Higgs field and the prevention of Boltzmann brains). If we talk about the virtual particles of quantum theory, we cannot measure them (as they exist for an extremely short period of time for us to do so) but we know that they are there as we can observe their indirect impact on reality. Moreover, quarks only make up about 30% of protons, the rest (70%) is virtual particles - and since we are made of gazillions of atoms, you do the math!
As you can see, it is far from black and white.
Thinker wrote: Summerlander: ‘’ You see how nonsensical that sounds? How can one disprove something that has not been proved or verified in any way whatsoever in the first place? Hence your reasoning shoots itself in the foot.’’ A: Something that is proved can’t be disproved, it’s a logical flaw. If you disprove something it means that was not proved in the first place
I agree with your answer and will concede that I made a very poor choice of words this time. Let me rephrase then: "How can one disprove something that has not been demonstrated in the first place?"
This goes back to what I was saying about a hypothesis being the weakest position and a scientific theory (note: not to be mistaken for our quotidian use of the term "theory") being the strongest. In the David Copperfield context, the demonstration would not constitute proof of unaided flying but it would be necessary for science to formulate theories for what is being observed.
The theory of strings would contend that he is not really flying, just giving the illusion of such. The theory of rockets, mirrors, projected holograms, anti-gravity technology, weather etc. would contend the same. Can he fly anywhere? Let's assume so. Bear in mind that all of these theories would need testing which will determine whether they will survive or be ruled out. Following scientific methodology, as you know, will include verificationism and falsifiability. Once you rule out the "illusion of flying" theories, you can move on to theories of flying. What, in his anatomy/physiology is enabling him to fly? What is the physics, chemistry, biology involved and so on...
Anyway, as I was saying, simply making the claim is not enough. If someone tells me flying pigs exist, will I believe in such things straight away? Erm...no. Is the claimant likely to be lying? Why would the claimant lie? Okay, the claimant is marked by honesty among peers and seems to believe in what he claims. Have you seen one? Yes. Well, where? Let's go there. I don't see any (maybe the pigs flew somewhere else). We'll search. Can't find them. Let's take a look at your head to make sure you are not crazy or delusional. Perhaps you might even have seen an illusion? Let's try to recreate the conditions as you remember them etc. etc.
Thinker wrote: I don’t find the existence of unicorns ridicule. All things are in the same level
If they existed in the first place, I wouldn't find their existence ridiculous either. However, I find the belief in them ridiculous when there is no evidence for them whatsoever. As you can see, not all things are on the same level. Some are seen to exist and their existence can be empirically established. Others remain the stuff of folklore and legend, dreams and fantasy.
Thinker wrote: ** Summerlander:‘’Our perception of reality is indeed one big illusion... but not reality itself ‘’**A: The knowledge of reality itself, whatever that is, is only given by perception, that’s the point. How can you say that ‘’The universe is expanding faster and faster whether we know about it’’??
This gives us fertile ground for an epistemological debate but I'm afraid we'd digress again and Peter wouldn't like it...so I'll be brief. True. We need consciousness and perception in order to know anything. But there are certain things that can be verified which are objective as opposed to subjective. A human being can see a mountain in the distance using vision. A bat does not see but it can infer that an obstacle (the mountain) is there using sound waves - its own biological version of sonar. Both creatures perceive the mountain differently, in other words, they formulate different subjective models of the mountain. The object, however, really exists independent of their minds or perception. Both can die and the mountain will still be there.
In a similar vein, the universe has been expanding even before scientists discovered this. Some people are still oblivious to the this, an old timer may still think it's static and eternal...meanwhile, others observe it to be expanding. The truth is objective and undeniable regardless of what oblivious people think or dream. In fact, scientists often say that the cosmos keeps surprising them and it can often outdo human imagination.
Thinker wrote: You don’t even know if the universe really exists. We all could be dreaming right know…although any example I give is a bit controversial, because they would me based on observation too(ex: the notion of dreaming)... But the central idea is that you don’t know if you can absolutely prove anything, whatever that is(again) – something similar to absolute truth, and science is not, is scientific truth, and that is other thing.
Again, I would use my reasoning above against this unproductive and unproven solipsism. You are certainly entitled to your philosophical scepticism, but then, where will that lead you? Do you believe that I don't exist? That you are dreaming me up in some brain in a vat experiment? Then why would you bother talking to me? Perhaps you think it is more like "The Matrix" scenario, in which case, we still exist in some way and our universe would be a very intricate illusion (though still existent as such). If the universe is a matrix of some sort that gives the illusion of a 3D reality, then we have no choice but to play with it and our knowledge is based on how this illusion works. So, we still know something (just not something about the world beyond the simulation if one exists.
But this is all hypothetical. You got any evidence to support this claim? Please don't mention the Holographic universe as I debunked that as a valid argument ages ago and you would only prompt me to write another essay.
If your argument is coming from Søren Kierkegaard's existentialism, where consciousness comes before matter, know that such extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. I can give arguments for the likelihood of consciousness being an illusory by-product and why free will is an incoherent concept - also an illusion that would remove the responsibility of sentient beings that is valued in existentialism.
It is true that science does not yet have an answer for everything but it may get there one day given the chance. Here's a relevant quote:
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
- Charles Darwin
Let me finish with the following. People can perceive the objective world and agree that such things are what we call "real." Sometimes a faulty brain can perceive things which are not there, i.e. cannot be verified by others. We dream, hallucinate, and can delude ourselves. We have our own private worlds. But there is one that does not change like a dream does. One that takes longer to change and does not bend to our will. There are other things we take for granted. For example, we feel conscious and assume that others are, too, because they can speak and display similar behaviour to ours. They exude an air of consciousness according to our observations. This is the evidence we have which makes solipsism seem absurd. You are only talking to me, because, like me, you have developed a theory of mind.
Teraku wrote:
ESPer wrote:I'm pretty surprised by the results. Only someone that's never experienced it before could possibly say it's just another lucid dream. You actually experience yourself separating from your corporal body. There's absolutely no mistaking it from just another dream. Then the experience itself is far more vivid too than even the most vivid dreams I've had.
Actually, even having such an experience yourself wouldn't prove that Astral Projection exists. You are asleep, after all. How do you know that it wasn't just a very vivid dream? You can't trust your feelings or your senses on this one.
Touche! 8-)
I don't understand the "pot calling the kettle black" comment. My 2 comments seem to compliment each other, actually. Trust your own experiences of course, but never close the book on a matter. You would keep expanding upon your views as you take in more experiences.
Ironically, that you think my 2 comments are mutually exclusive is precisely the problem I find with science. Funny that you of all people would misinterpret it that way... twas my point exactly pretty much. Thanks for providing an example.