Thread: Has anyone ever brought objects back from an astral trip?

Originally posted by ataraxis


Are.....are you serious?

YES, I'M VERY SERIOUS. ARCHAOLOGISTS AND HISTORY WRITERS MADE UP THE ELABORATE STORIES ABOUT 100'S OF THOUSANDS OF WORKERS BECAUSE THEY THEMSELVES COULD NOT AND WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT FACT AS THEORY OF AS FACT FOR THAT MATTER.

THE MIND IS VERY POWERFUL BUT WE HAVE TO GIVE IT PERMISSION TO DO THE UNTHINKABLE. REMEMBER THE MOVIE FIRESTARTER WITH DREW BARIMORE? sHE STARTED ALL THOSE FIRES WITH HER MIND!!!

Originally posted by Peregrinus

That's certainly how it's been used in this discussion and throughout most of this forum. None of the scientific claims I've seen on this thread forwarded to support the idea that an object can be magically transformed from a noncorporeal thought into corporeal form simply by waking up has been in any way valid.

DO YOU KNOW THAT THINGS EXIST IN THE ASTRAL FIRST BEFORE THEY CAN BE MANIFESTED INTO THE PHYSICAL? LIKE THOUGHTS!

Originally posted by ataraxis


A) Not really, there are things you can't do.
B) It's not limits of BELIEF, it's a matter of SCIENCE
C) They really aren't, that's the thing. There hasn't been a DEFINITIVE experience of those abilities.

BEFORE THERE WAS SCIENCE, THERE WAS CULTURE. IF THAT'S THE CASE ALCHEMIST ARE FAKERS AS WELL?

Originally posted by ataraxis



B) It's not limits of BELIEF, it's a matter of SCIENCE

Not that I don't understand your point of view, but if you are quoting someone's Scientific conclusions as your own, without Scientifically testing the theory for yourself, it is a Belief. Nothing more. If "Science" was synonymous with Universal Truth, there would be no such thing as scientists drawing different conclusions, and there would be no such thing as Disagreement in the scientific community.

Just my two cents.

Originally posted by Oneironaut


Not that I don't understand your point of view, but if you are quoting someone's Scientific conclusions as your own, without Scientifically testing the theory for yourself, it is a Belief. Nothing more. If \"Science\" was synonymous with Universal Truth, there would be no such thing as scientists drawing different conclusions, and there would be no such thing as Disagreement in the scientific community.

Just my two cents.

i agree

Originally posted by hydraat_takiyah


YES, I'M VERY SERIOUS. ARCHAOLOGISTS AND HISTORY WRITERS MADE UP THE ELABORATE STORIES ABOUT 100'S OF THOUSANDS OF WORKERS BECAUSE THEY THEMSELVES COULD NOT AND WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT FACT AS THEORY OF AS FACT FOR THAT MATTER.

THE MIND IS VERY POWERFUL BUT WE HAVE TO GIVE IT PERMISSION TO DO THE UNTHINKABLE. REMEMBER THE MOVIE FIRESTARTER WITH DREW BARIMORE? sHE STARTED ALL THOSE FIRES WITH HER MIND!!!

:rollllaugh: You are a riot, hydraat. Archaeologists came up with the \"elaborate stories\" because they are true.

Err, sure, the mind is a great thing indeed. It can solve ultiamtely complex math problems, come up with scientific conclusions, and have have an intense amount of creativity and imagination (you really exceed in that last aspect!). But no, the mind CANNOT move 80 ton blocks of rock. It's not only that it's impossible, but haven't you ever heard of the laws of motion? One of them is basically an object at rest will stay at rest unless force is applied. So basically, no, that can't happen.

PLEASE, for gods sake, back up SOMETHING you say.

No, I don't remember that movie (I've heard of it though). But basing paranormal beliefs on movies is just a silly thing to do. It's called \"fiction\"/\"fantasy\" for a reason.

Originally posted by hydraat_takiyah


BEFORE THERE WAS SCIENCE, THERE WAS CULTURE. IF THAT'S THE CASE ALCHEMIST ARE FAKERS AS WELL?

Yes... yes they are. I love how you think it is absurd to think that alchemy is a pseudoscience. And anyways, there was science, always. Sure, there weren't definitive laws of science set in stone, but people observed and made conclusions based on their observations. Even the cavemen thought "fire--hot." As primitive as it is, it's science.

Originally posted by Oneironaut


Not that I don't understand your point of view, but if you are quoting someone's Scientific conclusions as your own, without Scientifically testing the theory for yourself, it is a Belief. Nothing more. If \"Science\" was synonymous with Universal Truth, there would be no such thing as scientists drawing different conclusions, and there would be no such thing as Disagreement in the scientific community.

Just my two cents.

Are you saying that some things I shouldn't state as truth because I haven't tested the theory for myself? Sure, with any scientific statement there is disagreement among scientists UNTIL enough evidence is provided for a definitive conclusion. It's not a "belief" - it's not like I'm going and putting all my confidence in some scientific law without even thinking about it. When evidence suggests that something is true, or proves it is true, it's not really a "belief."

Originally posted by jabatheglut
nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?
Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This leads to correlations between observable physical properties of the systems. For example, it is possible to prepare two particles in a single quantum state such that when one is observed to be spin-up, the other one will always be observed to be spin-down and vice versa, this despite the fact that it is impossible to predict, according to quantum mechanics, which set of measurements will be observed. As a result, measurements performed on one system seem to be instantaneously influencing other systems entangled with it. ----However, at this time classical information cannot be transmitted through entanglement faster than the speed of light

this is true, however, nothing is really travelling as such.

Originally posted by ataraxis


Are you saying that some things I shouldn't state as truth because I haven't tested the theory for myself? Sure, with any scientific statement there is disagreement among scientists UNTIL enough evidence is provided for a definitive conclusion. It's not a \"belief\" - it's not like I'm going and putting all my confidence in some scientific law without even thinking about it. When evidence suggests that something is true, or proves it is true, it's not really a \"belief.\"

Not necessarily so.

Excerpt from:
13 things that do not make sense
19 March 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Michael Brooks
3 Ultra-energetic cosmic rays
FOR more than a decade, physicists in Japan have been seeing cosmic rays that should not exist. Cosmic rays are particles - mostly protons but sometimes heavy atomic nuclei - that travel through the universe at close to the speed of light. Some cosmic rays detected on Earth are produced in violent events such as supernovae, but we still don't know the origins of the highest-energy particles, which are the most energetic particles ever seen in nature. But that's not the real mystery.
As cosmic-ray particles travel through space, they lose energy in collisions with the low-energy photons that pervade the universe, such as those of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Einstein's special theory of relativity dictates that any cosmic rays reaching Earth from a source outside our galaxy will have suffered so many energy-shedding collisions that their maximum possible energy is 5 × 1019 electronvolts. This is known as the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit.
Over the past decade, however, the University of Tokyo's Akeno Giant Air Shower Array - 111 particle detectors spread out over 100 square kilometres - has detected several cosmic rays above the GZK limit. In theory, they can only have come from within our galaxy, avoiding an energy-sapping journey across the cosmos. However, astronomers can find no source for these cosmic rays in our galaxy. So what is going on?
One possibility is that there is something wrong with the Akeno results. Another is that Einstein was wrong. His special theory of relativity says that space is the same in all directions, but what if particles found it easier to move in certain directions? Then the cosmic rays could retain more of their energy, allowing them to beat the GZK limit.
Physicists at the Pierre Auger experiment in Mendoza, Argentina, are now working on this problem. Using 1600 detectors spread over 3000 square kilometres, Auger should be able to determine the energies of incoming cosmic rays and shed more light on the Akeno results.
Alan Watson, an astronomer at the University of Leeds, UK, and spokesman for the Pierre Auger project, is already convinced there is something worth following up here. \"I have no doubts that events above 1020 electronvolts exist. There are sufficient examples to convince me,\" he says. The question now is, what are they? How many of these particles are coming in, and what direction are they coming from? Until we get that information, there's no telling how exotic the true explanation could be.
[/b]

My point is simply that scientific law should be taken for what it is: A widely accepted scientific hypothesis. Einstein was a genius. There is no doubting that. However, to mistake someone’s hypothesis (no matter What their credentials are) as Universal Truth which has no room for contradiction shows bias and (not to insult) gullibility. Perhaps Einstein is correct, concerning the GZK limit, perhaps he is not. The important thing, I think is that only those willing to question popular scientific conclusion will be the ones to breakthrough boundaries set by these older, possibly out-dated, conclusions. Infallibility is not a prerequisite for Scientific Law, nor is it prerequisite for Anything man-made. Agreed? I think too many people lose sight of this.

Originally posted by Oneironaut


My point is simply that scientific law should be taken for what it is: A widely accepted scientific hypothesis. Einstein was a genius. There is no doubting that. However, to mistake someone’s hypothesis (no matter What their credentials are) as Universal Truth which has no room for contradiction shows bias and (not to insult) gullibility. Perhaps Einstein is correct, concerning the GZK limit, perhaps he is not. The important thing, I think is that only those willing to question popular scientific conclusion will be the ones to breakthrough boundaries set by these older, possibly out-dated, conclusions. Infallibility is not a prerequisite for Scientific Law, nor is it prerequisite for Anything man-made. Agreed? I think too many people lose sight of this.

Alright, I suppose you're right. However, a lot of Einstein's work was really theoretical. But things like the laws of motion... they have been tested and are known to exist. Einstein's theory about the whatever that article was talking about was based on calculations he had done.

You can't bring objects back from an astral trip, because astral projection isn't something physical.

That, and it's not real

Originally posted by ataraxis
That, and it's not real

It feels good to keep telling yourself that, doesn't it?

If I was scared to death of spiritual things like you, I'd run from astral projection too. Even brain websites say dreams and lucid dreams take place outside the body, and here are you... scared of it.

Originally posted by RyanParis


It feels good to keep telling yourself that, doesn't it?

If I was scared to death of spiritual things like you, I'd run from astral projection too. Even brain websites say dreams and lucid dreams take place outside the body, and here are you... scared of it.

Pretty baseless assumption don't yout think... First of all, "brain" websites doesn't mean "science" websites. Many astral projection websites are about your brain as well as trying to explain things from what is called pseudoscience. When it says "outside of the body" it means "inside the mind." Why in the hell would I be scared of spiritual things? I think your point of view is lovely that all skeptics are simply scared of paranormal things and know they are true but don't want to admit it.

Why don't you give me a link to some of these "brain" websites? I assume anything referencing to astral projection is going to be advocating paranormal things such as astral projection... That, and links prove nothing. As a wise person recently said to me "I can give you tons of links that Hitler is alive and is a farmer in Kansas and that makes it true!" Maybe that statement will let you "see the light."

And anyways... about your first statement, it is actually quite the opposite... YOU feel good about telling yourself that astral projection is true. Sure, you won't believe me, but how can you deny what I am saying? Humans have an intense desire to be more than they are capable of, to exceed the realm of reality - so by believing in telekinesis, astral projection, and other paranormal phenomena, they succeed in this! I understand why too - if I was much more ignorant I would want to believe in that stuff too. It's not because of evidence for it, or any sort of thing that would make me "convinced," but the fact that it is much more comforting to believe in paranormal abilities. It can be depressing that humans are imprisoned by the laws of physics - we are nothing but highly intelligent (and evolved) apes.

Ataraxis wrote:

Humans have an intense desire to be more than they are capable of, to exceed the realm of reality - so by believing in telekinesis, astral projection, and other paranormal phenomena, they succeed in this![/b]

Humans also have an intense desire to Know more than they are capable of, at any point in time, do they not? This is evident in the constant misconception that the boundaries of Reality have been defined with such precision that Possible and Impossible are absolutes. They over-look inconsistencies in their observations, call them anomalies, and sweep them under the rug. This is not Science. As an obvious Man of Science, I'm sure you can agree.

Ataraxis wrote:

I understand why too - if I was much more ignorant I would want to believe in that stuff too. It's not because of evidence for it, or any sort of thing that would make me \"convinced,\" but the fact that it is much more comforting to believe in paranormal abilities. It can be depressing that humans are imprisoned by the laws of physics - we are nothing but highly intelligent (and evolved) apes.[/b]

If I was much more ignorant I would probably believe that “evidence for it” doesn’t exist. For a skeptic to ask for \"Proof\" something exists before haulting their biased assaults on the intellects of those who advocate metaphysical Possibility, while overlooking evidence is like a court saying \"Non of us were there at the scene of the crime. There is nothing you can provide to the court that will allow us to convict a man of a crime we did not witness.\"

From \"A Lawyer Presents a Case for the Afterlife\"

'The greatest illusion is that man has limitations.'
Robert A. Monroe

'Edison and I are convinced that in the fields of psychic research will yet be discovered facts that will prove of greater significance to the human race than all the inventions we have ever made in the field of electricity.'
Dr Miller Hutchinson, Edison’s close associate

The consistency of OBE's
• Dr Dean Sheils analyzed over 1,000 studies of OBE's in 70 non-Western cultures. His conclusive results showed that whereas it was expected that there would be significant variation in the OBE, he found that there was absolute consistency. Dr Sheils claimed that the results were so universal that the phenomenon had to be genuine (Lazarus 1993: 167).
• Many of the literary giants of this century publicly stated that they had an OBE: they include Ernest Hemingway, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Tennyson Edgar Alan Poe, D H Lawrence, Virginia Woolf (Lazarus 1993:166).
• A most highly credible scientist, Dr Robert Crookall analyzed over 700 reports of OBE's. He found that 81% of those who had experienced them had a firm conviction of life after death owing to their personal experience. What astounded Crookall, a meticulous scientist, was the consistency of the reports of OBE's coming from all over the world with near death experiences and with the communications coming from high level mediums (Crookall 1970).
Astral body observed during exteriorization
• The Society for Psychical Research has a great number of cases of OBEs on record. One of the most interesting involved the person experiencing the out of body state being actually perceived as if in the flesh by another person:
Mr Landau reports that in 1955 his wife-to-be told him of her OBE's. One night he gave her his diary and asked her to move it to his room during her next OBE. Early the following morning he saw her apparition which backed out of his room across a landing to her room. He watched while the apparition vanished into her body sleeping on the bed. When he returned to his room he found her rubber toy dog which he had last seen on a chest of drawers beside her bed, lying beside his bed. When questioned about it she stated that she had felt uncomfortable moving the diary as she had been taught as a child never to handle other people's letters and diaries (Landau 1963: 126-128).
• In the United States, Karlis Osis and Boneita Perskari spent several years doing scientific research with an excellent OBE subject, Alex Tanous, and were able to achieve significant results. One particular test involved Tanous travelling astrally to a different place miles away to visit a particular office to see what was on the table then report back. What Tanous did not know was that at this office a psychic, Christine Whiting, was waiting to see if she could see anyone coming to visit. Sure enough, not only did this medium. with her clairvoyant sight, see Tanous come into the office but she described in detail the position, the location in space, the shirt with rolled-up sleeves and the corduroy pants he was wearing. So the record showed in this experiment that there was independent identification of Tanous during an OBE (Williams 1989: 35-36).
For more on the work of super psychic Alex Tanous see the Alex Tanous Foundation for Scientific Research.
Sees things not normally visible
• Sir Oliver Oyston, a most distinguished British soldier recorded an OBE when he was very sick in hospital with typhoid during the Boer War. Sir Oliver's astral body fully conscious of the surroundings, floated and went through walls noticing particularly one young 'surgeon undergoing death agonies from typhoid.' The next day, fully recovered, Sir Oliver told the medical staff in detail what happened. The medical staff later confirmed everything Sir Oliver had stated to them.
• Professor Kimberly Clark of the University of Washington reported a case, now internationally known, where a woman patient who was suffering from cardiac arrest in hospital had an OBE. Her duplicate, invisible body went for an astral journey on the higher floors of the hospital ending up in a storeroom she obviously had never been into before. She saw an old tennis shoe on top of the lockers. Returning to her body and on coming into consciousness related the information to the Professor. Stunned by the information the Professor set out to check her story. Everything to the very last detail was confirmed, even the tennis shoe's manufacturer.
• Dr Elisabeth Kubler-Ross stated that in her research that she came across instances where a blind patient was able to see certain events during an OBE which were later confirmed (Kubler-Ross 1997:175).
Some controlled experiments
Because of the co-operation of some gifted OBE experiencers the phenomenon has come within the ambit of science.
• Dutch scientists succeeded in weighing the physical body before, during and after exteriorization (OBE). They found a weight loss of 2 1/4 ounces during exteriorization (Carrington, 1973).
• French researchers including Professor Richet spent many years having the exteriorized body move material objects, produce raps at a distance and affect photographic plates and calcium screens. They photographed exteriorization.
• Other experimenters including Robert Morris at the Psychical Foundation of North Carolina spent two years investigating OBEs. A volunteer subject Keith 'Blue' Harary, who claimed to have been having Out of Body Experiences since childhood, was able to lie down in a sealed laboratory room and project himself to another house twenty yards away. While there he was able to read letters and report accurately on which experimenters were sitting there and where they were sitting.
• In 1965 Dr Charles Tart, a psychologist at the University of California, conducted controlled experiments with Robert Monroe, a highly gifted Out of Body Experiencer. A former vice-president of Mutual Broadcasting Corporation, Monroe was president of two corporations active in cable-vision and electronics. He has produced over 600 television programs. During the years of his reported OBEs, Monroe has continued to lead an active business and a rewarding family life.
Monroe has written more than three books giving meticulous details about his OBE's. He describes in what he calls ‘Locale I’ and ‘Locale II’ the common experiences of occult literature such as floating outside of one's body within the familiar physical environment. He also talks about travelling to the ‘astral’ worlds of heaven and hell complete with spirits and thoughtforms. In ‘Locale III’ Monroe describes his visits to a plane parallel to our own where human beings live much as we do.
He has also founded a non-profit Institute 'The Monroe Institute’ which has taught tens of thousands of people both in residence and through distance learning, to experience them. So useful was his program that it was adopted by the American Military as part of the standard training of remote viewers (see next chapter).

'I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud.'
C G Jung
[/b]

One point that pseudo-skeptics tend to overlook is that most, able-minded, advocates of metaphysical possibility do not ask for Belief from pseudo-skeptics, they simply ask the skeptics to recognize possibility and evidence as it comes to them. A pseudo-skeptic, as I’ve observed many times, will hold their stead-fast position that “it’s fake and anyone who believes it is ignorant, or just plain uneducated” and then, when faced with undeniable evidence, will turn-coat and say “Well sure..anything is POSSIBLE, it is just not logical. There is no PROOF.” And it is this conclusion that leads them to go back and insult the next person who brings up metaphysical possibility as ignorant or uneducated. This is a philosophical contradiction and offers more insight into the psychological structure of a "skeptic" than his own attempts at debunkery.

One point that pseudo-skeptics tend to overlook is that most, able-minded, advocates of metaphysical possibility do not ask for Belief from pseudo-skeptics, they simply ask the skeptics to recognize possibility and evidence as it comes to them. A pseudo-skeptic, as I’ve observed many times, will hold their stead-fast position that “it’s fake and anyone who believes it is ignorant, or just plain uneducated” and then, when faced with undeniable evidence, will turn-coat and say “Well sure..anything is POSSIBLE, it is just not logical. There is no PROOF.” And it is this conclusion that leads them to go back and insult the next person who brings up metaphysical possibility as ignorant or uneducated. This is a philosophical contradiction and offers more insight into the psychological structure of a \"skeptic\" than his own attempts at debunkery.[/b]

Oneironaut's got a point. a true skeptic will consider _all_ evidence, whether it supports their current beliefs or not. personally, i'm never sure if i should call myself a skeptic or not. i have a very open mind, and will listen to anybody's opinion, and consider their evidence,all of which are hallmarks of good skeptics. however, i think most people who consider themselves skeptic are really what Oneironaut calls "pseudo-skeptics." if i tell somebody i'm a skeptic, they think of these pseudo-skeptics, and immediately think that i don't believe anything that's not in Skeptic Magazine or Scientific American or something. and, quite frankly, i believe a number of things that most pseudo-skeptics would not.

(plus, i probably have looser standards than most skeptics about what qualifies as valid evidence, since i don't have complete faith in the scientific method to answer every question humanity can come up with, unlike most skeptics . . . )

that said, i believe that you can not return from the astral realm with anything physical, simply because (assuming the astral realm exists) the astral realm is not a physical realm. Law of Conservation of Energy and whatnot.

I understand what you are saying. My position is usually "this stuff is bull" for the most part... but it is, for the most part. As time progresses I realize that there is a possibility for all of this (not that these experiences are real). Yeah... I get what you're saying about the limits of reality. I think that the only explanation for such experiences are that there are scientific discoveries yet to be made about how some of these things work. But I would think you would agree when I say the MAJORITY of paranormal phenomena supposedly experienced by people is pure bullcrap. People make themselves believe that they are doing something becuase they so very much want it to be true.

I know what you mean about facing evidence and saying "anything's possible." Well, I don't think that what most people say on this forum is evidence. But still, I acknowledge the possibility of science that explains some of these things, but it dearly annoys me when people say it was a paranormal event before investigating scientific explanations. I haven't really been faced with undeniable evidence... that quote you just showed me was very intriguing though.

Oh, and when presented with claims like "HOW DO YOU THINK THAT THEY BUILT THE PYRAMIDS, WITH THEIR MINDS DUMBY" then I will indeed say "anyone who believes it is ignorant, or just plain uneducated," becuase that is just moronic.

Originally posted by ataraxis
I think that the only explanation for such experiences are that there are scientific discoveries yet to be made about how some of these things work.

Yes!! our science is much more limited than most people think. most people seem to think that we're on the verge of a major breakthrough in science that will definitively explain everything once and for all. what they don't realize is that science has ALWAYS been "closer to the truth than ever before." scientists in all times have thought that they had worked out most of the major issues in science. in fact, back in the early 1900s, the problem that ended up launching the quantum revolution was just thought of as one of the last little "clouds on the horizon." they thought science had explained everything, except for a few niggling details. well, those details ended up changing our entire perception of the underlying structure of the universe! so while i would agree that many so-called paranormal experiences are bull, i would definitely say that not all of them are. some of them are real, and can be explained. we just haven't found the explanation yet. (incidentally, i don't think our modern methods of science are properly equipped to study paranormal phenomena anyway, which is part of the reason why scientists and skeptics don't believe in these things. they put complete faith in science, which is inadequate so far.)

As Einstein once said “We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us.”

I know I'm contradicting myself, but it's more me changing my philosophy on things. I try to justify that with the quote “The well bred contradict other people. The wise contradict themselves" (Oscar Wilde).

Lastly Einstein said "the Man of Science is a poor philosopher." I suppose, yes, I'll argue with those who claim to have paranormal experiences... mostly because they jump to conclusions. But I acknowledge the possibility.

Originally posted by ataraxis

YOU feel good about telling yourself that astral projection is true. Sure, you won't believe me, but how can you deny what I am saying? Humans have an intense desire to be more than they are capable of, to exceed the realm of reality - so by believing in telekinesis, astral projection, and other paranormal phenomena, they succeed in this! I understand why too - if I was much more ignorant I would want to believe in that stuff too. It's not because of evidence for it, or any sort of thing that would make me \"convinced,\" but the fact that it is much more comforting to believe in paranormal abilities.

Tell me something: if you astral projected by accident years ago, bought a computer years later, logged onto the web and found astral projection websites saying IDENTICAL stuff to your own experiences years ago, what in the hell would you think? You would know for a fact it's real.

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_projec...lity_projection

That's what I did, when watching my astral hand melt infront of my desk.

I could care less about paranormal abilities. This happened to me by ACCIDENT years ago. It doesn't comfort me either way. Holy crap it must be hard to be scared of everything spiritual (like you).

Originally posted by ataraxis
Lastly Einstein said \"the Man of Science is a poor philosopher.\" I suppose, yes, I'll argue with those who claim to have paranormal experiences... mostly because they jump to conclusions. But I acknowledge the possibility.

i agree that those who claim to have these experiences do usually jump to conclusions. but i do think that some things happen that science just can't yet explain. as for the einstein quote, i don't agree with it. well, i agree that that is the way things are, but not how they should be. science and philosophy used to be inextricably connected. philosophers were scientists and scientists were philosophers. not so much anymore, thanks to the materialistic science beginning with newton and pals and continuing into this century. i think this may have been good for science for a while, as it might have allowed scientists a higher degree of objectivity, but i think the time has come that science and philosophy get back together. luckily, i think that the quantum revolution will force us more towards this point of view, especially with the idea that objectivity in science simply cannot be had.

Originally posted by RyanParis


Tell me something: if you astral projected by accident years ago, bought a computer years later, logged onto the web and found astral projection websites saying IDENTICAL stuff to your own experiences years ago, what in the hell would you think? You would know for a fact it's real.

How can you really know for a \"fact\" that that was real. Ponder this for a moment: They say that you have more of a chance of getting hit by lighting than winning the lottery. The odds are upwards of 1:10millions. But let's say you win. Wow... that's amazing, right? In your logic, you would have won by some sort of \"magic,\" but it's actually just a really big coincidence.

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_projec...lity_projection

That's what I did, when watching my astral hand melt infront of my desk.

I could care less about paranormal abilities. This happened to me by ACCIDENT years ago. It doesn't comfort me either way. Holy crap it must be hard to be scared of everything spiritual (like you).[/b]

Stop making generalizations and assumptions. You sound foolish. When I say comfort you, you seem to be mistaking what I'm saying. You believe what you are doing is an astral projection... think of scientific alternatives!

that reminds me of nightmare on elm street.... ive never heard of anyone bringing stuff back.

Originally posted by ataraxis

it's actually just a really big coincidence. *

Coincidence or not, it was still an astral projection.